The following is a statement by Mr. W. Galloway in defence of his views
regarding the date of the walls of St. Blane’s Church, Bute:[268]--
“Objections are taken in the notice of St. Blane’s Chapel, Bute
(Vol. I. p. 297), to the views advanced by me in the _Archæologia
Scotica_ (Vol. V. p. 217) as to the priority in date and
construction of the rubble part of the chancel, over the Romanesque
structure conjoined with it. These are specially summarised under
three heads, in the first of which exception is taken to the fact
of there being a base, topped with a small splayed freestone
course, with rubble above and below, which is supposed to
contravene the ideas ordinarily entertained as to Celtic practice.
This practice, however, was strictly dependent upon and fixed by
the nature of the building materials that happened to be available
in any particular locality. In out of the way districts and far-off
islands, where freestone was unknown or not procurable, the builder
had to be content with the stone that came most readily to hand,
necessity, not choice, compelling his selection. This is proven by
the avidity with which the Celt took to freestone whenever it could
be got.
“No better illustration can be selected than Oransay Priory (Vol.
III. pp. 372-381). There the south cloister arcade, the door to the
church adjoining it, with the chapel projecting at the north-east
angle (and to these may be added the _Teampul na ghlinne_, on the
Colonsay side of the strand), are examples of rubble building, in
the local schist, where arches are turned and openings formed
without a trace of freestone or any material that could be hewn.
The portion of a mullion of transitional date found in the ruins
proves that freestone had been imported to the island by the close
of the twelfth century, and was in constant use thereafter.
“It would be a serious mistake, however, to place in the same
category the Island of Bute, where freestone (red) occurs locally,
and the best qualities of rock on the adjoining mainland. Freestone
was in common use with the Romans both for monumental work and
building, and it is precisely this simple splayed form of base
which is most frequently to be found. As to its use in Celtic work
there may be cited Cruggleton Chapel (Vol. I. pp. 212-215), about
three miles from Whitherne Priory, which by every criterion is
extremely primitive, much earlier than the priory, and also Celtic,
founded most probably by the Carrols or M‘Kerlies, who wrested the
castle from the Norse jarls. There the base, which has been laid on
the grass level, has a base course precisely similar to that of St.
Blane’s, with rubble above and below. In fact, the entire building
is rubble, except the dressed work and the chancel arch. It is not
freestone, but silurian grit, from the Stewartry shores. It is no
doubt later in date than St. Blane’s, but Bute is much more
favourably situated for freestone than Wigtonshire, where it is
locally non-existent, and the combination of rubble and hewn work
at Cruggleton is a striking testimony to the difficulty even of
obtaining grit.
“The second head refers to the mode in which the strings and base
courses would be stopped against the rubble. According to my
drawings there has been a string on the north side of the nave,
which dropped nearly two feet, has also run along the ashlar work
of the chancel, but only two feet or so of it remains. On the south
side this feature is entirely destroyed. The base, both on north
and south sides of the nave, returns round the chancel gable and
_there terminates_. Whether they were dropped also I cannot tell,
as these drawings were made previous to the later reduction of the
soil to the original level.[269] An important point in this
junction of rubble and ashlar walls must be noted, viz., that while
the ashlar walls are 2 feet 7 inches thick, the rubble wall on the
south side is only 2 feet 5 inches, and that on the north 2 feet 3
inches. The walls meet flush on the outside, and on the inside the
ashlar corner is splayed off in accommodation to the thinner
rubble, and those who managed thus would find no difficulty in such
trivialities as a string or a base.
“Under the third head it is queried whether the ‘_Norman_ builders’
were likely to show such tender mercy to a rubble fragment? I
presume ‘Norman’ here means _Anglo_-Norman, the conquering race,
who looked with contempt on all that pertained to those they held
in thrall. Civil changes notwithstanding, in Bute it was otherwise.
There the same traditions were handed down from Celt to Scot, and
the name of St. Blaan was reverenced, not merely on local grounds,
but as being still more intimately associated with a northern see.
The very curious _melange_ at the east end of the chapel is
attributed to one of those ‘accidents’ which, from a variety of
sources, often befel buildings in ancient times. The late Mr John
Baird, at a meeting of the Architectural Institute of Scotland held
in Glasgow a good many years ago, suggested that the original
termination had been an apse, but the chancel being found too
small, this feature was demolished and the building extended to its
present limits. Notwithstanding all that has been said, I consider
both the apse and the accident theories to be at once untenable and
unnecessary, and will, as briefly as possible, give three
_criteria_ on which I regard the proof of antecedency in date and
construction of the rubble work ultimately to depend, and to be
incontrovertible. First, in a rubble wall of any posterior date,
built to conjoin with a previous ashlar one, it is only reasonable
to suppose it would have been gauged to the same thickness, so that
the respective wall faces might be flush, both externally and
internally, so as to avoid the very awkward junction which there
really has been. Second, this rubble wall must necessarily have
been carried to the same height and level, in the wall-head, as the
ashlar built portion, instead of being dropped nearly three feet
below it, as the present rubble work really is. Third, the existing
Romanesque structure shows that freestone, both red and white, was
readily to be had by importation or otherwise in Bute, during the
twelfth century, and ever afterwards, and it is beyond all reason
and experience, that in the chancel especially rubble of some local
rock should have been adopted when the superior quality previously
in use could be so easily obtained.
“These three _criteria_ combined, the thinness (relatively) of the
rubble walling, the lower level of the wall-head, and the extreme
improbability of any subsequent builders being reduced to the
necessity of falling back on rubble, lead irresistibly to the
conviction that on this site there existed a much smaller and more
ancient chapel, of which the _sacrarium_, carefully respected by
all subsequent builders, now alone remains.”
At the special request of Mr. P. Macgregor Chalmers, author of the work
_A Scots Mediæval Architect_, we insert in this Volume extracts, revised
and approved by him, from his reply to our criticism contained in Vol.
II. pp. 378-382, in the hope that they may be found to throw additional
light on the late period of Scottish architecture. It must, however, be
understood that we are not to be held as concurring in all Mr. Chalmers’
views. Our notice of his work was written after our second volume was to
a large extent in type, and we should not have quoted Mr. Pinches’
reference to church building in Galloway in 1508 (p. 378), as Mr.
Chalmers had already shown in his work that this was a mistake; and on
the same page we should have acknowledged his labours on the Melrose
inscriptions. Mr. Chalmers says:--
“You tabulate four formal objections to my work (p. 380). The first
appears to be that I have adopted a certain opinion, which differs
from yours; and you think my work is therefore a ‘fiction,’ a
‘romance,’ a ‘dream.’ The second objection, based on your
_inference_ that a man who had a Scots name was a Frenchman by
extraction, because he was born in Paris at a time when Scotsmen
were rife in France, need not be taken seriously. The answer to
your third and fourth objections is that I have _proved_, from
original documents quoted, that ‘Morow’ is ‘Murray,’ and that the
variation in spelling, indicated in the Melrose inscriptions, is
the variation for Murray. When you have grasped the importance and
significance of my deduction from the evident choice of Melrose for
the memorial inscriptions, I feel certain you will find more than
‘fiction’ in my work.
“I stated that the rood screen at Glasgow was erected by Archbishop
Blacader, and that it was probably begun about the year 1492. The
charter evidence is that the archbishop founded the two altars in
their present position in the base of the screen, and that he
founded the altar _for which the screen was erected_, the altar of
Holy Cross. As the screen encroaches considerably on the original
length of the choir, being of great depth from west to east, it is
natural to suppose that its erection would entail the remodelling
of the choir fittings. It was in the archbishop’s time, then, that
the new choir stalls were constructed. From the measurements given
in the contract for this work, between ‘the dene and cheptour of
Glasgw on the tapairt, and Mychell Waghorn, wrycht, on the toder
pairt,’ it is evident that the carved canopy work was carried as a
cornice across the east or choir side of the screen. Rejecting my
work, you state that the screen at Glasgow was probably built by
Bishop Cameron, who died in 1446. You have no charter evidence to
support you. You have only the mouldings and the sculpture of the
two periods to found your opinion upon. In the illustration I send
you (Fig. 1) I show the earlier mouldings at A and the later
mouldings of the screen at B. Students can now estimate the value
of your opinion. The only moulding in the aisle of Car Fergus, of
Blacader’s time, is the vaulting rib which I show at C. This, you
say, is a ‘coarse’ moulding. But the coarseness is not apparent
when you compare it with the rib in the
[Illustration: FIG. 1.