"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,
