sacristy (D), of date about 1446; the rib in the chapter house (E),
of date about 1425; or the same rib in the lower church, of date
about 1240. You frequently give expression to your opinion that the
work executed in Scotland about the year 1500 was ‘inferior.’
Sweeping generalisations of this kind are of no value in our work.
I send you a process block (Fig. 2). It illustrates the carved boss
in the vaulting of the aisle of Car Fergus, of Blacader’s time,
being the very first seen on entering, and so close to the eye that
it may almost be touched by the hand. No work of any
period--certainly not of Bishop Cameron’s time--can excel it in
beauty, and it is only one of many equally beautiful. You state
that the work in the screen ‘is considerably superior to that of
the adjoining altars, which are _certainly_ by that bishop’
(_Archbishop_ Blacader). It is a fact that you are here comparing
work, which is as sharp as when it left the carver’s hand, with
work at the floor level which is now so worn and defaced as almost
to be obliterated. The altars are of different design, and that now
on the north side is of _earlier date_, and was rebuilt and
repaired only by the archbishop. If this single altar stood
originally in the centre, as the one of the same name did at
Durham, and if, as is not impossible, it was originally built by
Bishop Cameron, then you condemn as ‘inferior’ what, if you had
only known, you ought to praise as ‘superior.’
“Mr. Honeyman, whose early opinion you quote, writing to me, for my
use here, says, in reference to the Glasgow rood screen--‘I must
say that circumstances which you have brought to my notice have
considerably changed my opinion regarding this. I quite recognise
the close affinity of the south transept door at Melrose and the
rood screen at Lincluden, and I am quite prepared to believe that
the man who designed these, also designed the rood screen here. If
it can be proved that the work at Melrose and Lincluden was not
executed till about 1480, or later, then I shall feel bound to
agree with you as to the age of our screen.’ The proof as to the
age of the Melrose door has been given in my book.
“Your reliance on your unwise generalisation regarding the
‘inferior’ quality of _all_ work at the end of the fifteenth
century has blinded you to the facts at Melrose, as elsewhere. The
magnificent panel carved with the royal arms, of which I gave an
enlarged photograph (p. 55), is dated 1505. There is nothing finer
of its kind in the country, and the carved bosses in the presbytery
vault are remarkable for their rare beauty, and yet one of them
bears the arms of Margaret, wife of James IV. You state that ‘the
building or restoration of the eastern part of the edifice seems,
from its style, to have been carried out towards the middle of the
fifteenth century’ (p. 372). The further statement is made that
‘the design of the choir appears to have been borrowed from that of
the transept’ (p. 370). These statements are contradictory. The
south transept was not erected until after the middle of the
fifteenth century, by Abbot Andrew Hunter. His arms are to be found
carved on it, and also in the nave chapel, where the work is
unmistakeably from the hand of the same designer. It is indubitable
that the ‘perpendicular’ work was inserted in the older transept.
It has never occurred to you to endeavour to explain the presence
in Scotland
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Carved Boss in Vaulting of Aisle of Car
Fergus.]
of so marked a type of English art _in the middle of the fifteenth
century_, and you have thought it wise to ignore my interpretation
that this style was adopted as an expression of the international
good feeling arising from the marriage of James IV. with Margaret
of England. Perpendicular work is also present at Linlithgow and
Stirling, and there also it is associated with Queen Margaret.
“I described the statues at the apex of the east gable at Melrose
as those of James IV. and Margaret (p. 53). You say ‘this is an
entire assumption’ (p. 381), and then you immediately _assume_ that
they illustrate the coronation of the Blessed Virgin. If your
interpretation is correct, the act of coronation must be indicated,
and the two figures must be correlated, Christ being turned towards
the Blessed Virgin, either to crown her by His own hand, or to
indicate His interest in the ceremony, whilst Mary is turned
towards Christ in an attitude of tenderness and adoration. These
are obvious requirements. The figures are so disposed in the
examples you cited and illustrated, and it is true of all the
examples I have studied on the Continent and in the cathedrals of
England. At Melrose the figures are not in any way related to each
other. They look straight forward, and, as I proved by the aid of a
telescope before writing my description, no act of crowning is
indicated. The male figure corresponds exactly with that on the
seal of James IV. to which I referred, and the group does not
differ from that shown in a MS. of the middle of the fifteenth
century, which represents a king and queen and their court. I
understand and appreciate the fact that you see no significance in
the angels in the niches below the central group of the king and
queen, and that it is of no importance to you that the figures
which were ranged on either side were not those of saints and
martyrs, but of Churchmen, evidently contemporaries of King James.
As the statue of an archbishop graces the apex of the east gable of
York Minster, there is nothing ridiculous, as you would wish to
make it appear, in a king and queen occupying a similar place at
Melrose. The circumstances and temper of the moment made it appear
appropriate. There is no sarcasm in the concluding paragraph of my
work, although you profess to be able to detect it. It was not
unpleasant to me to find that the point made by the author of _The
Stones of Venice_, from exactly similar exhibitions of vainglory,
could be made from the stones of Scotland.