III.

SCREENS AND LOFTS IN SCOTTISH CHURCHES.1 BY IAN C. HANNAH, M.P., F.S.A.ScoT.

Virtually all mediaeval churches were divided by screens. They did muc increaso ht effece e th mysterf o t y thaleadina s ti g characteristic of Gothic and which made it aesthetically desirable that the whole interior buildiny oan f g e revealeshoulb t a glance no t da d . They alsd oha importan varied an t d ecclesiological functions. Screens were by far the most conspicuous of mediaeval ecclesiastical fitting e easters thea th s yn i n stile churchar l . Very many have dis- appeared. In Roman Catholic countries they have been very generally removed t manbu , y splendid example seee b stile Lutheran ni o ar st l n part Germanf so certain i d ynan district Englandf so , notabl eastere yth n and south-western counties.2 In later Gothic work they frequently give the whole atmosphere to the interior. It was a Renaissance idea givo t greater efa r prominenc altare th o .et The screens and galleries of Scotland were clearly very distinctive, althougd an h inferio magnificencn i r thoso et f Englandeo ; they helped very much to stamp a national character on many of our churches, including some of the smallest. n earlI y Christian churches ambons were provide n eitheo d r side of the chancel for the reading of the gospel and epistle. Some Italian examples survive. Other prototypes have been suggested, but the later pulpitum (the usual western boundary of a quire) appears to have been derived fro ma scree n which connecte e ambonsdth . These last

1 The drawings of this article are by Edith B. Hannah, B.A. % Excellent English studie e Screensar s d Galleriesan n Englishi Churches y Francib s Bond, Oxford University Press, 1908 Quired ,an Screens Englishn i Churches Williar Si y b mt JohS n Hope, Archazologw, 2nd series, vol. xviii. 1917. Innumerable monographs are scattered through the pages of English archaeological publications t nothinbu , g seem subjece exiso th st n Scottisf o t o t h screens excep connection i t n with separate buildings; and, even t muchsono , . 182 PROCEEDING E SOCIETYTH F O S , JANUAR , 1936Y13 .

soon disappeare e scriptureth d dan s were read fro e gallermth r lofyo t that surmounte pulpitume dth monastin I . c churche arrangemene sth t eventually developed intscreenso otw , which -were sometimes combined int ocomposita e structure t morbu , e frequently were quite separate. Both screens crossed the building, parallel to each other. Against the eastern one, the pulpitum, the quire stalls were returned, and there was a central doorway, frequently with an altar on either side, which at Glasgo stily seene wb lshorma A . t distanc e rooeth wesds screenwa t , against which was placed the nave altar with a doorway on either side, used by the monks with the pulpitum gateway during the Sunday pro- cession. The name was derived from the fact that the screen was sur- mounte greae th ty db cros roodr so t seemI . s rulthaa s ea t thers ewa no cross immediately on the altar in early medieval days, certainly none in the Sarum use. These screens wester,e useth n di n church, were thus entirely different bot originan hi froe e eikonostasius mlth n desigi e easterd th nan f o s n church, a solid partition in front of the altar, which can only be seen from nave th e whe doore nth s have been thrown open. Like quire stalls the pulpitum and rood screen were monastic in origin needed an , d because virtuall l conventuayal l churches were double, e quirth e wit s stallhit s being exclusivel religiouse th r congrey fo an , - gation being admitted to the nave alone. This sometimes formed the parish church with secular clergyt Wymondhama s a , , Binhamd an , Boxgrove. Regular canons themselves did parochial work, and so require a dseparat e churc r thafo h t purpose n CisterciaI . n churches e navth e forme e conversie quir th s probabl th di f o et I . en a tha n i t ordinary Benedictine abbey to which the public had no definite right of acces nave fitte s separatsth a es wa da e church. Thiclearls swa e yth case at Bury St Edmunds, where Jocelin de Brakelond tells us that Abbot Samson "was won preaco e peoplt t th o Englishn ht i e n i t bu , the dialect of Norfolk, where he was born and bred; and so he caused a pulpit to be set up in the church for the ease of the hearers, and for ornamene th church.e th f o t " Such services would assuredl hele b dt yno e monkse quir th e th grea f parth o en o i n f ;to t churc parochials hwa . pariso tw e h churcheTh s just outsid precincte eth s continu to-daye us n ei . The regulars always tried to keep the parishioners out of their churches. St Margaret's, Westminster, is another example. Yery often when this could not be, as at Crowland and Romsey, the parish had only an aisle—not whole th e nave. Ther always ewa tendencsa monastir yfo c arrangements to be copied. The screens are frequently to be found in secular cathedrals d collegiatan e churches where quir d navan e e -were entirely separate.

184 PROCEEDING E SOCIETYTH F O S , JANUAR , 1936Y13 .

How entirely is clearly seen at the collegiate church of St Peter, Wolver- hampton, whose lofty pulpit, agains soute pillaa t th f hro arcade, entirely command navee t hardlth s bu , y looks intquire o th t pureln allea I . y parochial churches, intende r congregationafo d o screentw l usee sth , were unsuitable, and a compromise was arranged (p. 193). Of the ritual arrangements of churches before the Norman period almost nothing is known, but by that time we find the two screens fully established. At Binham Abbey in Norfolk the twelfth-century rood screen still survives heava s i t yi ; partitio stonf no e wit hplaia n doorway on eithe e rnav th sid f eo ealtar f o . e Thius s stile i s placn th i l r efo the parish, and as the crossing and quire are in ruin the east wall of the existing church is built upon the Norman screen. The Norman pulpitum at Ely was intact until the eighteenth century, and its character is clear from sketches made by James Essex about 1770. At lona we have clear evidence of the character of the Norman pulpitum. Against the east wall of the north transept are three twelfth- century arche sido whicf etw so onee hth s ope windowso nt centrae th ; l formed some kind of altar recess. They carried a passage from the monks' dormitory to what can only have been a pulpitum loft across the eas te crossing arcth f ho . Presumabl ya nigh t stai dowd le r n directly int quiree oth . vera earln Thia d ys y si an remarkabl e variatioe th f no usual arrangemen e staith rf o tdescendin g fro e dormitormth y inte oth transept. Unfortunately in the late medieval reconstruction of the church the pulpitum was scrapped. The gallery now ends abruptly in south-ease th t cornetransepte th f o r doorwao n ; visibls quirye i th en eo side. Presumabl Normae yth n churc rood hha d screen with nave altar acros wese sth tcrossinge arcth f ho , followin verga y usual plan. No English church appears to retain the two screens, though at the Augustinian abbey of Lilleshall (Salop) the bases of both are visible, thoug thin hi s cas rooe doore th eth d n si scree omittede nar thao e s , th t west end of the nave is entirely shut off from the rest of the church. The screeno positiotw e quits si th f neo clea t Fountainsa r , Bolton, Rievaulx, elsewhered an thin I s. respect Scotlan mors di e fortunate, both screens survivin t Inchcolga somo t d em an exten t Culrossa t . stone Th e rood screelattee th f nro hous specialls ei y interesting from its preservation, not only of the narrow lancet-headed doorways on either altare sid t th als f piscinaes ,bu o it , plain thirteenth-century work. When the nave "was abandoned to ruin what appears to have been its original •west doos slappewa r d throug e walhth l behind wher e navth e e altar once stood. It is of late Norman character with double shafts and moulded roun hardln ca d earliee t yi archb t rbu , than 1217 yeae th f , o r SCREEN LOFTD AN SSCOTTISN I S H CHURCHES. 185

the foundation of the abbey. This rood screen, though later, is not unlike tha Binhamf formo t w no s wese t i par;th tf toweo wala t f o l r erected Abboy b t Mason (1498-1513) ovee spacth r e screensbetweeo tw e th .n Its inner or eastern doorway, which is round-headed with rather ornate late mouldings, is presumably on the site of the pulpitum.

[Photo by Catherine A. Nicolson. Fig. 2. Inchcolm—Pulpitum from east. The large round arch is later. At Inchcolm the two screens are perfectly preserved, the only example e Britisth n i h Isles. The e beautifuyar l ston ee thirteent worth f o k h century, during which perio dtowea raises rwa d ove square rth e Norman quire, in the middle of the enlarged church. Its eastern arch is filled by e pulpituth m (fig, havina centra2) . d gha l doorwa e quireth d o an yt , above three open arches with keeled shafts, thre eacn ei ho jambtw e th , pillars quatrefoi plann i lcapital e th ; s have foliag ver reliefn ei e w ylo Th . west tower arce roo th s fillehi d y b screend , havin ga narro w pointed 186 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, JANUARY 13, 1936.

doorwa eithen yo nave r th sid f ee o alta largo tw re sitd opeean n arches above, simila pulpitume thoso t rth f eo . These upper arches with their varied clustered shafts, allowing an imperfect vista between nave and quire, for integran ma l portio fabrice th the d f no an ,y must have presented an extremely attractive appearance before they were walled up to convert the Norman nave into an abbot's hall. It appears to be almost without parallel in monastic annals that this desecration was carried out as early as the fourteenth century, and by the Augustinian canons themselves. These two screens were clearly connected by a floor of timber, which thus formed a gallery open both to nave and quire of unusually generous dimensions, . abouDoubtles15 fee 9 y s use1 tb r t wa dfo t i s the reading of gospel and epistle as well as for whatever music was allowed. The doorway, afterwards so usual in friars' churches, opened from the cloister to the space between the screens, beneath the loft. There is a mural rood stair just west of it. It is remarkable that after a use of something like a century the screens were scrapped. There e remainar s farther a rathereas f o t ordinary later pulpitum against whic fifteenth-centure stalle th hth f so y quire were returned. Separate pulpitu lato e traceb etw d roon collegiatn mi dan ca d e churches e worth , botn ki h cases having bee f timberno , erected during e sixteentth h century d apparentlan , y rather poor iri qualityt A . Seton, now built up, are clearly defined openings for a beam embedded in the north and south "walls, crossing the east tower arch. Just above it, recessed into the wall above the arch and resting upon the beam, two short brackets projected d quitan , e obviously supporte a dpulpitu m loft. It seems to have been an afterthought, as the turnpike stair in south-ease th t cornet towee arrangeth no f s i ro givo dt e access. Like- wise withi towere aree th nth f ao , crossin s westergit n rooa arch s d wa , bea r whicmfo holee hth nave s th exist s e A "wa. s never builvers i t i yt unlikely that the screens were actually erected, but the projected arrange- ment seemperfectle b o st y clear. Another very latd rathean e r unusual rood arrangemene b o t s i t studie collegiate th t da e churc Biggarf ho , begun onl eas1545e n yi Th t . respond e nort th d sout f han o s h archee crossinth f o s g wer t intcu eo (just one course of stone below the caps) for a rood beam which rested agains e respond th e teaster th f o sn arch. Abou foo1 t t highed an r entirely independen vera t y wide pulpitum loft crossef o wese d dth en t e quireth , approache a broa y b dd square-headed door fro e turnmth - pike stair north-eas e towers interestini th t f I o o .t tw o fine gt th d features separate dwidtease e th onlth tf y htoweo yb r arch thao e s , th t actual rood must have appeared in front of the parapet of the pulpitum SCREENS AND LOFTS IN SCOTTISH CHURCHES. 187

and perhaps 18 inches away. Clearly there were not two screens: probably the only one was beneath the rood beam, resting against the responds.1 These cases whicn i , h both rood bea pulpitud man clearle b n myca traced, are interesting, not only from their varied dates, but because they show what very small buildings were divided into double churches— thoug e existenchth f navo e e altars (intende r actualo d t Setoa ) d nan Biggar is not perhaps absolutely certain. There is every reason to believe that the larger churches of Scotland followed much the same screen arrangements as were usual in England. At AndrewS t s ther distince ear t foundation pulpitue th f o s m wits hit central door, crossin e wesgth t towe re samarchth en i , positiot a s na Chicheste elsewhered an r stalle Th s. must hav e transept th shu f of t s fro e quiremth a quit, e usual arrangement. Foundations beneate hth sites of both east arches of the nave arcade suggest that the pulpitum wa fairlsa y complicated fabric, very possibl ycomposita e screen enclosing two little chapels with the nave altar against its western face. The very normal pulpitum at Melrose is interesting as being of the same build as the fifteenth-century nave piers -which it joins, in such a way as to shut off the three east bays from the rest. Thus, as at Norwich, Westminster, and elsewhere, the ritual quire was wholly within architecturae th l navee gatewaTh . s vaulteyi d with ribd bossesan s , and opens westward by a triple-shafted arch with a foliage band in the outer moulding. A rather similarly enriched cornice is the only other ornamen fabrice th f o t , whose ashlar wallin surprisingls gi y plain, despite a large square-headed recess on the south. A stair to the gallery above opens northward fro e centrgatewae m th th containes i f eo d e yan th n di thicknes masonrye th f o s t seemI . s impossibl fin o et Englisn a d h pul- pitum of the same importance treated with so severe a simplicity, a fact not without interest seeing that Melrose preserves about the only Cister- cian example tha Britiscoms e th ha t en i hdows Islesu o nt . A very usua conveniend an l t arrangement place pulpitue dth m across the east arch of the crossing and the rood screen across the west, thus leavin whole gth e transept open betwee screense nth . onle Thith ys si scheme that keep stalle sth s wholly withi architecturae nth l t quirei d an , waarrangemene sth t Yorka t , als t Durhamoa describes a , Rites.n di t I migh consideree b t normae th d l plan t tha t bu ,leas a t t oftes no a t s na the stalls extended further west than the architectural quire, frequently 1 Evidence for the above was clearly brought out in the restoration of 1934-5, but the holes have been so neatly built up as to be difficult to locate. Similarly the tower piers of St Giles, Edinburgh, have bee hackeo ns d abou r partitionfo t s s impossiblthai t i twhichy sa o f anyet i , , of their numerous gashes were connected with mediaeval screens. 188 PROCEEDING E SOCIETYTH F O S , JANUAR , 1936Y13 . when, as at Ely, there "was ample space east of the crossing. In Scotland we find this (Durham) arrangement at Glasgow, Rosslyn, Lincluden, and Pluscarden, besides lona. e GlasgoTh w pulpitu f intereso m s i (fig ) 3 t . becauso stontw es it e altars still exist (slightly late date)n i r , their fronts presenting figures under canopies with scrolls in low relief. So crowded is the work that

Fig. 3. Glasgow—Pulpitum, west side. the five steps leading up to the pulpitum gate, and to some extent the side flights leading e cryptdowth o t n, actually impinge againse th t altars e pulpituTh . s mpiercei a ver y yb d depresse d ornatelan d y moulded archway with shallow trefoiled panelling on either side. The parapet above is pierced by large quatrefoils, figure-corbels supporting crocketed canopies against each alternate one, but nothing rises above horizontae th l topfifteenth-centurA . y dat proveds mouldine i th y b g of the bases (though the rest retains much of the character of fourteenth- century work) e screeth ; s doubtfullni y attribute Bishoo dt p Cameron (1425-46), who built the spire. It is remarkable how it blends with the SCREENS AND LOFTS IN SCOTTISH CHURCHES. 189

earlier work (Glasgow cathedral was always secular, but purely from Tnternle th l fitting t musi s t often have been impossibl distinguiso et h between monastic and secular cathedrals.) At Rosslyn (fig. 4) the pulpitum is an integral part of the fabric. Its gatewa ys Covere? enrichen a y db d architrave compose manf do y stones

V—— f^V^W-^i Pig. 4. Rosslyn—Pulpitum after Billings.

and protecte relievina y db g arch above, very similae openingth o t r s on either side that connect the quire aisles with the site of the transept. same Aopeninge Uth th en i wallinge nav e sdesignear s th es wa e a , b o dt of the same width as the quire with its aisles. A rather mysterious niche indent e westh s e walt th sid lf o ejus t e pulpitunortth f ho m gateA . littlabovy vera e wa s ei y lofty arch reachin barree th o gt l e vaulth f o t vero quires yd narro s an ,height it r t wseemI fo . s clear tha woodea t n gallery was planned ove three rth e openings, projecting int transepe oth t Ld open to the quire by the tall arch. Two corbels on the level of the 190 PROCEEDING E SOCIETYTH F O S , JANUARY 13, 1936.

springin f thigo s arch (and als oe clearstoreoth f y e quireeaveth f so ) were presumabl r statuesfo y o wooden ; n fabric could possibly have sprawlearrangemene th higho s d p an ,d u t certainly implie roosa d screen with altar agains t betweei t transepe navedesige e nth th Th d s .ni an t eccentric in that no quire arch of the ordinary kind, starting from the pavement s eithei , r provide r evedo n suggested e enricheTh . d corbels betwee e lowenth r openings would presumably have carrie e timbedth r gallery, resting on the continuous stringcourse above, which would thus have left enough solid wallin provido gt a parapeee tal th l r arcfo t h looking int quiree illustratioe oth Th . bases ni Billingn do s 1 compared with the actual building. The pulpitum at Lincluden is, like that of Bosslyn, an integral forn i portio ms heava churche i t th i f nt yo ston,bu e screen crossinga quire arc f quitho e usual form—well moulde restind dan g upon clustered responds. The screen -wall is plain but pierced by a gateway some 6 feet wide s arcit , h very nearly flat though with curved springs. Along the top of the said screen -wall a cornice projects on both sides, that towards the nave carved with scenes in the birth of Christ and angels above, that toward e quirsth e displaying foliagereache s lofe wa tTh .d b yturnpika equire angle staisoutth d th f ean n eo i r h transept, which also gave access to chambers above the quire, between the two stone roofslofe tTh seem. havo t s e been extende timberiny db g toware dth east. The nave, of which little remains, was short, nor is there a sugges- tion of any western screen. The arrangement t Pluscardea s n Priory e (figpuzzlingar ) .5 a s a , pulpitum with central gateway crosses both east and west arches of the tower. Both are very massive, and obviously erected -with a view of supportin e thirteentth g hcentur- y tower arches, which suffered very badl 139n yi 0 fro e burnin mth e churc e Wolth th f f Badenoch go o y fh b . Both appear to be the work of the Benedictine prior, John de Boys, who was sent to reform the Valliscaulian convent from Dunfermline 1460n i wors hi ;vers ki y massive t clumsbu , roughd westere yan Th . n arch is built up, leaving a simple segmental-headed opening about 8 feet wide with very plainly moulded edges towards the nave, -which was never completed. The east arch of the crossing is built up with a huge mas f masonro s y which take e fora lance th sf m o t arch abou fee6 t t thick e straighth , t wallin n eithego r side, diversified o mereltw y b y

stringcourses, blanketin e easterth n i gn respond e nortth d f an ho s 1 The arrangement is rather concealed on the exterior by the addition of baptistery with organ loft above, but Macgibbon and Boss (Eccles. Arch., vol. iii. p. 168) give a view of the present west befors restoratiowa e t eth i en s churchde a th f betteno A . r on . Billingse W wil . foune b B l ,n di Baronial and Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Scotland, vol. iv., here reproduced with slight modifications. SCREEN LOFTD AN SSCOTTISN I S H CHURCHES. 191

south arches thiA .n wall block e easterth s e nthic th fac f ko e arch, this being pierced by a smaller arch having a splayed square-headed opening on either side. Above the little arch the wall thickens out on a cornice upon the west side alone. On the north this great intrusive mas f wallino s s gi penetrate turnpika y db e stair opening from the jamb of the large arch and leading up to a stone gallery which crosse springine levee th th f o t ld a f go the smaller arch, so that it would form a pulpitum loft for the quire. This stone gallery has completely fallen; it gave the only access to a large ambry within e mas.th f masonro se th f o y south side. On the flat soffit of the arch can still be seen on a sunny day traces of St John with his eagle and apocalyptie th c vision wit e hosthth s of heaven, whic s muchwa h more dis- tinct when e antiquaryvisiteth y b d , Charles Cordiner eighteente , latth n ei h century wore Th s entirelki . y unpro- tected from the weather. This fabric meano n y isb s without impressiveness, Fig. 5. Pluscarden—eastern Pulpitum. but it was evidently erected by amateur West side. builders, lik muco es h Scottis e largh th s datewors it e A f quirko . s ei very shor t i seemt s likely thae westh t t pulpitu erectes mwa d witha view to having the stalls under the tower, but that when the eastern arch gave increasing signs of weakness the second pulpitum was, perhaps rather hurriedly, piled up to support it. It appears entirely probable that to it we owe the preservation of the tower, now roofless but other- wise complete. The fact that at Sweetheart the lower portion of the responds of the west tower arch are broken away seems to indicate that the stalls crossed the tower and came down into the nave (as at Winchester), t ther bu e screen traco corbelline th e n f seemth e Th eo b f . o o f t s gof respond wese th f te crossin o sarc th f ho t Dundrennan—sga o that they for projectioo mn e bottom—appearth t a n shoo t s w thae arrangeth t - ment was similar at the old abbey too. At Glenluce the fact that the shaft of the south respond of the east arch of the crossing springs from 192 PROCEEDING E SOCIETYTH F O S , JANUAR , 1936Y13 .

a corbel high up indicates that, as at St Andrews, the stalls extended under the tower and into the quire. In the thirteenth century Crosskirk (a Red or Trinitarian friary) at Peebles inserte e fronn i ,th f o t d east wall—the linte whosf o l e doorwas yi inscribed FEIRE GOD 1656—are stones that seem to have supported an altar platform on the south, and on the north apparent foundations of screena remaine fromr Th fa • .e , clearsar t thebu , y appea indicato rt e that the seventeenth-century wall is built on the foundations of a pulpitum which had an altar recessed into it on either side of its gate-way. At Restennet Priory the ancient tower, flush -with the south wall of the later Augustinian church but leaving an odd space about 6 feet wide on the north, must have formed a most effective screen between quir d navee partitioean Th . n connectin e wesgth e towet th fac f o re with the north -wall may have been for the purpose of providing a back for the nave altar, -which in that case would have stood considerably nortcentree e th th f o happeart o s ,a havo st e beet David'scase S nt th e a , Wales. t JedburgA h Abbey, crossin e easterth g ne eas th edg tf o etowe r arch, are remains of a roughly built sixteenth-century wall from which projected westward some sort of gallery, large corbels with holes in the masonry just above them having supported its beams. The only remainin place o s e middle wor gth d th jam dn f an ki o e tha y s bi an t gate int quire oth e must havcentree soute th th e f o ho beet .r nfa Thi s would be so unprecedented and so inconvenient for a pulpitum that it seems more likely that the wall is post-dissolution, erected to fit the buildin r Presbyteriagfo n services. The slight remain e littlth f eo s Carmelite churc t Luffnesha s seem to indicate that the gate of the pulpitum there was not quite in the centre. Presumabl n earliea e sitf th o er n pulpitumo y t Crossraguea , a l new -wall was built between the nave and the quire, apparently during the sixteenth century, before the dissolution of the house. This is thick enough to contain a turnpike stair, and it extends up to the gable top, supporting a bell-cote. The -wall is pierced by a central door which could be protected by a wooden bar, so that the separation between quir nav d exceptionalls ean ewa y complete. That the proportionally very long cruciform church of Beauly Priory was divided by a screen is perfectly clear from the existence in the south wall of the ambry and piscina of the nave altar. Both screens were presumably of wood. At St Duthus, Tain, sedilia in the usual position and a piscina in the middle of the south wall indicate that SCREENS AND LOFTS IN SCOTTISH CHURCHES. 193

even this short building of four bays formed a double church, but there is hardly room for two screens. The proportions would best suit a pulpitum with a small nave altar on either side of its gateway. A magnificent sixteenth-century timber exampl n academia f o e c pulpitum, which might well challenge comparison with anythinf o g the kind at either Cambridge or Oxford, is to be seen at King's College, Aberdeen. Three canopied stalls on either side are returned against it splendidld an y carved doors with open tracery invite admission froe mth antechapel lofe tTh abov. e still support e organth s , thoug e worhth k is very largely restored. Ther probabls wa e altan ya eithen o r r side of the gateway, but college chapels, not having naves, had no occasion for any second screen. At the small Carmelite church in South Queensferry, a building fifteenth-centurye oth f ease th ,t tower arccrosses vera hwa w y ydlo b stone screen, gable topped with a roll along the ridge. It -was of the sam ee churc builth onld s da han y slight sections remain, againse th t jambs. Doubtles e stallth s s were returne t di seem t againsbu s , it t likely tha seconto n ther s dewa screen diminutive altar th no ,n ri e nave, t tha e buildingbu th t , lik eparisa h church usewholes a s wa d,a ; even so, only very small congregations coul accommodatede db . In a church intended to be used as a whole, however large—nave and chancel together—the two screens were combined into one, which had to be a light structure, not seriously blocking the view; it was nearly alway generallwoods f i o s t I . y calle rooe dth d screen—because the great crucifix stood either upon it or was supported above—but in form it was more like a pulpitum, affording a wide gate to the chancel, which in a purely parochial building was early fitted with stalls though communito n ther s wa e o occupyt y n nearlthemi e scree s Th y.wa n every case surmounted by a loft, but St Mary's Hospital at Chichester presents a thirteenth-century example without one, and there is another fifteenth-centure inth y scree t Costessena Norfolkn yi . Eve Englann i d chancel screens are not universal; at West Tarring, Sussex, the panelling against whic e stall th he returne ar s s finishedi e leve th f thei o t l a dr armseriea y f irob so s n spikes , e fifteentworth f ko h century—proving reao n ther ls screenewa . e singlTh e scree f ligho n t construction was f course,o e normath , l arrangemen parisa r fo t h church, wher chancee eth l too place a kth f eo quire e distinctioth , n being that, whil e quir designes eth e ewa th r dfo saying of offices by a community, the chancel was set off for the clergy ministering to a congregation in the nave. In England as a rule the rood loft is about 4 or 5 feet wide, though VOL. LXX. 13 194 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, JANUARY 13, 1936.

ther e examplesar e s Bera , e Regis, wher t spreai e d ove whola r e bay, affording accommodatio r minstrelsfo n n ScotlanI . e ordinarth d y loft would seem to have been much wider than in England, though we have to judge by rather few examples. At St John's, Perth, one of finese th Scottisf o t h parish churches e south-westh , e centrat th pie f o r l tower contain sturnpika ee belfry staith thid o t ran s, also gave access to the rood loft; both lower and upper doors remain. Two large and rather widely spaced corbels on either side indicate a very ample loft, which must hav e wes th fille tp u arcd f ho the crossing in a most impressive way. The work is of the fifteenth century, and a traceried screen be- neath the loft may be quite safely visualised. t PertA e roohth d s evilofwa -t dently part of the original design, but at Dunkeld Cathedral in the same countclearls wa afterthought n t yi a . A great rood beam rested upon the capitals of the responds of the quire e loweth arch d r arcan , h stones have been hacked away—not very neatly —to receive it. This beam clearly supporte e arcth hs a e rood t dth bu , e quirth s i ed wallew an ino sp u d __ mostly modern (early nineteenth cen- Fig.T~Dunkeia.-parochiai arrangement in tuiy) *he arrangements of screen and a cathedral. There are no indications of loft can Only be Conjectured. As e characteth e screenth f ro . •> ,,-1,1 n i i n Scottisnearle th l yal h cathedrald sha o servt s parisa e surprisino hs t churche t i woulno n i s s ga i e b dt i s England or France to find parochial fittings in one of them; and in fact where they existed mediaevae mosth f o t l arrangements have long since been removed in order that cathedrals that were originally divided may be use s singla d e churches to-day n FrancI . e particularl s onli t yyi occasionally t Albia s a ,, tha originae th t l partitions survive. The very remarkable late church at Mid-Calder, begun about 1540 by Master Peter Sandilands, the rector, and never finished, has at the e chanceth f o wesheava ld en t y arch just ove fee8 r t wide, wit hturna - pik ee masonr th staie nort n th i r f ho y e deeside whicy Th b d. r Si h James Sandilands of Calder binds himself and his heir to complete the SCREENS AND LOFTS IN SCOTTISH CHURCHES. 195

building specifies: "And in the northe angell betuix the foresaid wall vnder the grete brace and northe wall of the kirk syd to rais ane commodious turngreis to serue the rud loft of the said kirk and stepill foresai e had.b dy "al 1ma s t Theresali e cleas a yar e r indications of supports for loft at least as wide as the central arch (on which a small towe s projected) largo wa r tw e t carvebu , d corbels have been ridicu- lously move f thei looo t d s ya k sustaine e moderdth n plaster vaulf o t a rathef thes e o chancels th e ha er On rud . e wordse th figur d an e PETR' FECIT; the other presents a head and shoulders supporting a shield with the Sandilands-Douglas arms. From this it seems that e rooth d loft, which would have forme mosa d t striking timber gallery between chancel and nave, was projected and begun by the priestly founder nephes Hi . w becam frienea ardenn Knof a o dd xtan supporter of the Reformation, and this may account for the fact that instead of havin gdoorwaa y ont nothiny lofstaie e b o th th topes t i i r o gnt more tha nsmala l square-headed window slit. Thoug finishee hh chancee dth l intendes mucwa s ha discardee dh e roodth n i d e loftus ,o whicn d hha servicesw ne e th . e simplth n eI rectangular narrow churche f Scotlano s d without chancel arches it was convenient to support a broad rood loft by beams extending acros e buildingth s , resting upon corbelwallse th n i s; light was often provided by windows both above and below the galleries, as at Wenhaston in Suffolk. Such corbels, for beams extending from wall to wall, are rare in England; there is an example at Hooe in Sussex. There are good Scottish examples at Greyfriars in Elgin, Fowlis Easter, and Innerpeffray firso tw t belongine th ,e fifteent th o gt h centurye th , earle thirth ysixteenthe o d t par th f o t . t GreyfriarsA , Elgin corbelo , tw ther eithen e o se ar e th r sidd an e loft must have been abou fee0 1 t t widnorte th t leastea n h O side . eth gallery was lit by a two-light window, the space below having an ogee-headed single-light opening e soutth n ha dooo , r entered froe mth e cloisterbuildinth s lons A ruign .wa g i detailo nn s survive t frobu ,m e existenc th littlo tw e f eo piscina s cleai t i sr that gatewaa ther s ewa y through wit n alta ha eithen o r r usuae sideTh .l British arrangement friarsn i ' churche narrotald a s an l swa w tower between nav quired ean , almost lik ea tunne n somi l e arcs muc th cases hwa s hA narrowe. r than the nave there was space for an altar on each side. At Adare (Co. Limerick) this e Franciscatoweth n i r n convent contain e onlth s y

foundee 1Th rs nephew gavhi o t er James Si , e ,completio fundth r e churchfo sth e f no Th . deed is printed in Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. iii. p. 160, seq. (1862). It is extremely interesting from the detailed description it gives of how the church was to be completed. 196 PROCEEDING E SOCIETYTH F O S , JANUAR , 1936Y13 .

e cloisterth doo therd o t r e fouan , ear r corbel a wid r efo s loft, much as at Elgin, though on a more elaborate scale. At the exceedingly interesting little church of Fowlis Easter, a simple rectangle of approximately 90 by 30 feet, the rood loft was only destroye 188n di 9 durin gmosa t unfortunate restoratio buildinge th f no . Its preservation till then was due to the fact that the chancel formed the burial-place of the Gray family, and so was conveniently separated fro e churchm th e fou Th r . corbels that supporte e e beamdth th f o s loft, two in the north wall and two in the south, may still be seen; in addition there is a lower corbel on the north which clearly supported staire th . Thi n Scotlani s s generalldwa f woodyo n Englani ; s wa t di nearly alway turnpika s f stoneeo ,e smalles eveth n ni t churchese Th . loft was about 7 feet wide. In the south -wall are windows to light it and the space immediately below—the upper square-headed, the lower trefoiled. On the north a corresponding lower window is the only one on that side of the church. Apparently on the front of the rood beam, facing the nave, at any rate belo e largwth e painting a blac s kwa , letter inscription, whics hi given by James Stuart,1 not very convincingly, "ndo • hoc • templu • merner o• costruxer ebeat• • quera i S o• • squot qua• c • do• • seme ° M • l t • iii • Anno • quo • fuit • is • rome • ceu • dus • pegre." This he pro- pose rendero st , "They built this churcblessee th o ht d Merinochusf I . you ask, in regard to time, in the year 1143. In which year he was called to Rome as Pope." Dalgetty, modifying this reading of the Latin, r bettegivefa e rsth rendering. Andrew Lor s Ladd hi Gra yd y"builan t this churc Saino ht t -whenk Marnockas 1453u n i , yeae yo f th ,whici n :ri h abroas hewa ambassados da t Rome.a r letterine Th " g seem belono st g beginnine th sixteento e t th f go h century existine Th . g churc buils hwa t r AndreSi y b w fifteenthe Grath portion o yi N . n seems earlier. screee presumabls Th nwa y flush wit ease h th loft e t facth ,f eo whic h thus projected toward usuae nave th s th n eli way splendiA . d example of such a screen in an aisleless nave with its two side altars complete may stilbeautifue seee th lb n i l churc t HeleS f ho t Ranwortn a h among e Norfolth k Broads t thabu , t fine East Anglican exampl a grac s eha e and finish to which Fowlis can hardly aspire; while the English details e verar y different indeed. The beautiful gates of the Fowlis screen have below solid linen panelling; open tracery of very late flowing character forms the middle vera n yI 1 interesting little work, Historical Sketches Churche oth fParish d an of Fowlis Easter, printed in Dundee, 1865. A later work on the building by Arthur B. Dalgetty, History of the Church of Foulis Easier, 1933, suggests (p. 44) that the screen was about 5 feet east of the loft, t give bu convincino sn g reaso thir nfo s most improbable theory. SCREENS AND LOFTS IN SCOTTISH CHURCHES. 197

panels, and above pinnacles are treated as balusters, rather widely space afforo dt viea d thf wo e high altar fro navee mth . w Theno e yar moved to the west end. Macgibbon and Ross (Eccles. Arch., vol. iii. p. 197) give a good illustration. On either side of the gates were paint- ings on oaken boards that must have formed the backings for the two nave altars under the loft. These are very fragmentary, and one appears a palimpsest e b o t . Among e subjectth s represente e descenth s i d t from the cross. Above the loft the screen was formed of a really very fine painting crucifixioe oth f fee3 inche3 (1 nfeet5 inches) 3 y t b s , surmountey db figure f saints o e largs Th e. painting, which forme a rathed r unusual rood—for this, as a rule, consisted of an actual crucifix, with sometimes side figure s well—representa s e scen th sn Calvar o e n greayi t detail. The colouring is wonderfully vivid—despite Protestant whitewash, now removed—the very numerous figures are rather crowded together, in- cluding several horses; but the work is really spirited, and the whole appear throo st b wit hmountea lifs a e d centurion exclaims '' Vero filius dei erat iste"—"Truly this was the Son of God." The characte e worth s Flemishi f ko r d thoug s an hardli , t i h a y masterpiec generae eth l effec exceedingls i t y striking paintes i t I . d upon eighteen oaken boards, which had to be taken down one by one. Above

this paintin a serie s f portraitso sgwa , extendin r exactlgfo e samyth e 1 widt risind incheh7 an footgd 1 san above. Jame thesw Stuartmsa o wh , in position, enumerates fifteen—armed figure with eagle, St Peter, St John, St Andrew, St Paul, St Matthew, St Thomas, St Catherine, St Philip, t JamesS t BridgetS , , Simon Zelotes monkspaintero e th ,tw d . an , Those that still remain, placed like all the other paintings against the walls of e churchth identifiee ar , t CatherinS s da Alexandriaf eo t MatthiasS , t S , Thomas t SimonS , t JohS , n Evangelist, Christ t PeterS , t AntonyS , , t JameS lesse t Paulsth S , t NinianS , . This splendid screen must have shut off the chancel from the nave completels a does y a eikonostasi n sa eastern a n si n church s wantoIt . n destruction is greatly to be regretted as it does not seem that anything very lik t esurvivei s elsewhere suco N h. large paintings belongina o gt rood screen appea Britise exiso th t r n i th mor n i Isles t e bu ,magnificen t surroundings slightly simila greae seee th r b n tnonei y Marienkirchsma e at Liibeck. The effect must have been greatly enhanced by the fact that the church walls were also covered with paintings representing the life of

t shoulI 1 notee db d that James Thomso unpublishen a n i d Tours through Parts of Forfar, Perth, and Fifeshires, 1833, says tha sainte th t s were then beneat crucifixione hth . 8 PROCEEDING19 E SOCIETYTH F O S , JANUAR , 1936Y13 .

Christ whic hinhabitand existeol e memor th n a n d i f yo t with whom Mr deplorabls Stuari talka t I d . ha t e that this most interesting church should have survive e storme Reformatiodth th f so n onl meeo yt t with such rough treatment during the nineteenth century. At the most interesting but not very beautiful late church at Inner- peffray (near Crieff) a simpl, e rectangl feet7 2 e , y somb begu 0 8 en ni 1508, a pulpitum gallery about 15 feet wide crossed the centre of the

Fig . Innerpeffray—Lof7 . t looking south-west (restored).

building (fig. 7). On the south the three corbels on which the beams rested still survive e depresseth , d windoarca f ho we spac th tha t eli t below the loft abutting against two of them. Only one remains on the north; the other two were removed to make way for a monument. Across the church, close to the west end, is a plain chamfered round arch whose jambs retain the holes for a screen. That this was not an ope seeme indicatee b non existence o st th y dhagioscopb a f eo e through the wall just south of the arch; the fact that this appears to be intended to afford a view of the high altar (which is still in place against the east wall) may indicate that here the rood screen was liberally pierced. SCREENS AND LOFTS IN SCOTTISH CHURCHES. 199

As the church had four altars 1 there must have been one on each side of its doorway; these probably stood under the loft (see plan, fig. 1). safs i assum o et t I e that variet chard giveys an m l wa moso nal t r o t of the plain long churches 2 of Scotland by these wide corbelled lofts with open screens below. They were probably placed relatively far west and they suited the lines of the building.3 Where (as at Dunkeld, fig. 6) a chancel arch is still intact, traces of e rooth dt uncommon no scree e d lof ar e an Normant Th . n arct a h Dalmen s capitalit s ha ys hacked abou d roughlan t y channellea r fo d wide loft whic obviousls hwa y supporte woodea y db ns screenwa t I . clearl ofteo ys case s latnth i Englandn e i s e (a wor d kan ) very little care was taken to make a neat job of the junction of wood and stone. At t Fillan'sS , Aberdour, another churc Normaf ho n date e abace th th , f o i chancel arch are cut through and holes are made in the outer order of the arch for the insertion of a rood beam. At the fifteenth-century collegiate churc f Dunglasho e eas e th soffi tsth f o towet r arch, immedi- ately abov abace eth eacn o i h side mortices i , rooe th dr dbeamfo , which was probably contemporary e fifteenth-centurth t A . y ruined church of Muthill the chancel arch has no responds; in the soffit each side is a e norte rooth th hol dr n h o beaefo sid e stond meth an e abov pares ei d away for some part of the loft or screen. Parclose screens, separating chapel d aislesan s , whic n Englani h d a magnificen e ar t featur f mano e y great churches, hav n Scotlani e d left hardly a trace. At the fourteenth-century south aisle of Fortrose Cathedral—whose most conspicuous feature is what looks exactly like rooa d turret t serv ,suc y thougno ed an h di purpose—ther t hi ruinee ear d tombs beneat e weather-worth h n arches which sugges e glorieth t f o s Tewkesbury quire; but this stands almost alone. This aisle has the appearanc f havineo g bee na separat e church t CarlisleA . , Chichester, Norwicd an h cathedrale partth f so s were parochial. At Torphichen Priory during the fifteenth century timber screens were placed across the west, north, and south arches of the crossing. formee mosa s Th t wa rclums y piec workf middle eo Th . e e shaftth f o s fine old Norman arch are removed on either side, and in the jambs behind e squarar e hole receivo t s e screeth e n about 4^ feet fro e groundmth .

1 D. Philips, Chronicles of Strathearn, Crieff, 1896, quoted by Macgibbon and Ross, Eccles. Arch, Scot., vol. iii. p. 513. The fourth altar was probably in the sacristy. e monasti Sucth s ha c one f Beaulo s d G-reyfriarsyan , Elgin r suco , h parochial buildings a s Fowli2 s Weste Cramried ran , Banffshire. 3 A chancel arch inserted in the church of Fowlis Wester during a recent restoration looks strangel placef o t y.ou 200 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, JANUARY 13, 1936.

As it seems too narrow to have been pierced by a door the screen probably formee navesout e altae th Th th bace f h .r o rth ddee a arc kfo s phha channel cut through the bases and there are oblong holes about 6J feet up (fig. 8); the north arch has its bases hacked about and there are separate mortice 8 fee s td soman respectivel 5 e y froe groundmth . Presumably another screen crossed the east tower arch with the quire stalls stretching beyond. As a rule we get little help as to the arrangements of screens from

Pig. 8. Torphichen—South transept arch showing channelling for screen.

mediaeval documents. Bower, however, gives an interesting account e plunderinoth f e pilgrimagth f o g e shrin t Whitekira e k durine th g burnt Candlema f 1356. so n EnglisA x h freebooter jumpine tn oth o g high altar at Quhytkirk snatched a ring from the statue of the virgin d violentlan y brok fingera f eof . Then, placin e hea th f s foo do n ghi o t the image, he got up into a loft (solarium) above and stole certain valuables deposited there for safety, which he threw down to accomplices in the quir choro).e(in Unfortunatel presenythe t buildin abougis centura t y t uncommono e th s laternha ease Scottisd th ;en t h peculiarit easo n tf yo window (or only a tiny one high up), but no gallery of any kind. Apparentl churce yth h that existefourteente th n di h centur somd yha e 1 Scotichronicon, Fordun and Bower, ed. Walter Goodall, 1759, lib. xiv. cap. xiv. vol. ii. p. 355. SCREEN LOFTD AN SN SCOTTIS I S H CHURCHES1 20 .

sor triforiuf o t m crossin ease gth t end possiblr ,o y that pardoubls wa t e "wit rooha f acros stilNormae y ssee e th half-wal b ma t na s a n , churcyup h of Compton, near Guildford. The solarium can hardly have been any sort of pulpitum or rood loft, as when the scoundrels were leaving e chanceth l (cancellariam) there suddenly fell from abov imagn a e f eo the crucified, as if to avenge his mother, and the ringleader received a mortal injury. little Therb en doubeca rooe th ds t thathawa t ti t fell down; very suspende s likelwa t yi d fro chancee mth l arch. e Somfinesth f Englisf o eto h screen e post-Reformatioar s n work, particularly at Oxford and Cambridge. In Scotland we have very few. t FalklanA d Palac antechapee eth partitiones li d fina ofy ef b seventeenth- century screen, displaying panels belo d turnewan d balusters, delight- fully varied, above. The character is entirely classic. In St Olaf's Church at Kirkwall is a screen formed of carved cornices and panels in relief made up from the episcopal gallery erected in the cathedral by Bishop George Graham in the reign of Charles I.; but these seem to stand nearly alone. Scottish church screen fewe sar . Eve onlf ni y slight trace countee sb d the total hardly exceeds forty or fifty. In England the corresponding number must run far into the thousands. At least half her mediaeval churches retain some memor l thesf screensal yo t e Bu naturall. y fall into a few obvious groups, while the scanty surviving Scottish screens are so miscellaneous in character that they obstinately refuse to be classified n botI .h countries, however s cleai t i r, thae screeth td nan not the altar was by far the most conspicuous feature of a mediseval church or chapel, whether parochial, monastic, cathedral, collegiate, academic r domestico , . t withouThino s i s a certait n appropriateness r whilfo , altan ea f o r som ee commo th sor s i t n propert f almosyo t ever ye worl faitth n di h (except Islam) the rood loft and screen are wholly and exclusively Christian. They were developed purely in the Christian service; they hav analogo e n fabric othee y th an n yf ri o sreligio earthn no .

General help from Professor Hamilton Thompso d Jamean n. S s Richardson is gratefully acknowledged. I am also much indebted for information about Fowlis r fellowEasteou o t r, Mackenzie Shaw, W.S., who remembers the rood loft as a boy, and to Rev. John Burr, of Bowden, whactualls owa y present whe wor e s destroyenth kwa 1889n di m a I . indebted to another Fellow, Leslie Hunter, for useful information.