Here we have disclosed, if not a history, at least a fiction of the most thrilling interest in the life and death of the “Mediæval Architect,” John Morow; and so full of invention is this flight of fancy, that we trust its introduction here will be excused as a relief to the dry details of prosaic architectural descriptions.
We have no desire to disturb this touching romance; but we feel called upon to indicate some points which may be regarded as worthy of consideration before it is accepted as historically or architecturally consistent with fact.
However beautiful this dream may be, and much as the author is entitled to praise for his careful study of the buildings he describes (which, we gladly acknowledge, is considerable), we fear that his theory will be found, on examination, to rest on a very weak and unreliable foundation.
The following are some objections which at once present themselves:—
1. Without entering into the question as between the “master of the work” and the “master mason,” or attempting to prove by whom mediæval buildings were designed, we believe it has been distinctly shown that there was in Scotland, about A.D. 1500, no one recognised as “the architect” apart from the builder. The “master of the works” was a fully recognised and salaried officer, and would, we believe, be more likely to receive a tablet such as this than the master mason.[136]
2. But supposing that John Morow, to whom the tablet was erected, was a master mason. It is assumed that John Morow was a Scot. The inscription emphasises the statement that he was “born in Paris certainly,” from which it may be fairly inferred that his French birth and, probably, education had to do with his appointment. This might indicate that he was a French master mason; and it is known that many French master masons were employed under James IV. and V.
3. It is assumed that the name Morow is identical with Murray (an idea which was suggested, in 1854, by the late Dr. John Smith[137]), but this is entirely hypothetical. Besides, there is absolutely no evidence produced to show any connection between John Morow and John Murray of Faulohill.
4. Nor can it be shown that the latter had any connection with building or architecture.
Let us now glance at the descriptions of the various portions of Melrose Abbey which are assumed by Mr. Chalmers to be the work of John Morow.
There seems to be nothing in Mr. Chalmers’ views antagonistic to the general divisions of Scottish mediæval architecture adopted in this book; indeed, his observations seem to confirm these divisions, which assign to the decorated work in Scotland the period before 1460, and to the late or third pointed work the subsequent period.