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. Supposing this to be correct, we suspect that some of the work which Mr Chalmers attributes to John Morow, and of the date of about 1490 to 1510, is in the earlier category. At Melrose, as we have seen, the decorated work is before 1460, and the later work is quite inferior. Hence the necessity for the introduction of the earlier John Morvo, to whom we have no objections, if his existence could be proved. At all events, it must be conceded that the earlier or decorated work was not executed by the “Scots Mediæval Architect,” John Morow. The same remark will, we think, be found to apply to the rood screen at Lincluden,[138] and to that at Glasgow,[139] the work at both of which is very superior to the sixteenth century work at Melrose, and therefore, in all probability, considerably earlier than John Morow’s time. We observe that Mr. Chalmers considers the choir and presbytery of Melrose, in which a strong similarity to perpendicular work is perceptible, to be of the time of James IV., and sarcastically remarks on what he considers the unworthy exaltation of the king and his queen to the place of honour on the apex of the east gable of a building dedicated to God. But this is an entire assumption. There is no proof that these figures represent James IV. and Queen Margaret Tudor. The figures in the east gable appear to us to represent the coronation of the Blessed Virgin, a frequent subject in similar positions. [Illustration: FIG. 797.--Boss from York Minster.[140]]