It is admitted by Mr. Chalmers that the work at Melrose Abbey must have, undoubtedly, extended over more than half a century, and would, in all likelihood, exceed the compass of one man’s lifetime. But as there are two inscriptions at Melrose to “John Morow,” or Morvo, Mr. Chalmers has no difficulty in deciding that they are to two members of the same family, both architects, who, he believes, carried on the works at the abbey from before the middle of the fifteenth century till some time in the sixteenth century. The inscription on the lintel of the doorway is, therefore, supposed to be in memory of John Morvo, the assumed grandfather of the John Morow whose tablet is inserted in the west wall adjoining--the earlier parts of the work having been carried out by the former, and the later parts by the latter. But Mr. Chalmers’ fancy is not limited to the invention of these great architects as illustrious members of the family of the Morows. He would also fain attribute to them other honours and distinctions. He therefore assumes that John Morow the younger was identical with John Murray, of Faulohill, a favourite at the Court of James IV., from whom he received many gifts, which favours he requited by rebellion, and by finally appearing on the scene as the chief actor in the ballad of the outlaw Murray; of which ballad he is further believed to have been the author! And, to crown this strange eventful history, we are told that the success of this architect so excited the jealousy of the nobles that he was waylaid and assassinated by them. 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]