PRECEPTORY: A FOOTNOTE TO THE PUBLISHED DESCRIPTIONS1 . MACKAYR . H . bP y , F.S.A.SCOT. As readers will know, McGibbo Rosd nan s include Preceptore dth Torphichef yo n botn i Ecclesiasticae hth l Architectur Domestie th Scotlanf o e n i Castel d d an c an d - tributa lated.thoroughnese s i th t o I et 2 theif so r work that, withi limite nth s they set themselves, their account stile sar l authoritative e onlTh y. subsequent descrip- tio importancf no Inventore thath s ei n i t Ancienf yo t MonumentWesd an td Mi r sfo Lothian, which gives a much more detailed account of the stages in the development survivine ofth g building somf o theif d eo san r feature interestf so authoe Th . thi f o r s account was doubto n , , greatly assiste wore th restoratiof ky o d b n carried through by the Ministry of Public Building and Works in the late 19205 to which we also owe almos l tha studene knositee e al t w th tTh follow .o f w o twh s eithe r botro thesf ho e authorities should not go far wrong in his attempt to reconstruct the pre-Reformation Church. The purpose of the present article is to supplement these accounts by draw- ing attention to certain papers among the Torphichen Muniments, and to two drawing Preceptore th f so y included amon e Gouggth h Collectio e f Mapno th n i s Bodleian Library particulan i d frese 3;an th ho t revidenc e which they offer regarding some details of the pre-Reformation buildings. Amon e paperth g s deposite y Lorb d d Torphichen wite Keepee th hth f o r Records is a small bundle, No. XI in the Catalogue of Templar or Torphichen Writs, containing thirty-three items. The first eight refer to Temple Lands in Linlithgow, Churce relat3 th 3 t Noso o et t Torphichebu f ho 9 . belond twelve nan th o gt e years from the beginning of May 1762 to the end of May 1774. The occasion of all these documents was a Court of Session Case in which Walter, 8th , fought John Gillon of Wallhouse for the right to occupy the chief seat in the recently reconstructed parish church. The most important documents for our present purpose are: No. 12 Plans of the old and new Kirk lodged by Lord Torphichen. No. 16 A Narrative in answer to false information emitted by John Gillon. Gillon'2 2 . No s Answersd an , Question3 2 . No Lorn so d Torphichen' seatd ol s , with answers. The plan of the old Kirk (No. 12) shows a rectangular building—the internal r o . ft 0 3 measurement r thereby, o S. . o in frod t 6 . an m. , N ft 2 6 s , areW. , o frot . mE thereby; a line of piers divides the building into two sections, one 20 ft. across, the 1 1968 mark octocentenare sth parise th f yho Kir Torphichenf ko earliese th , t referenc churca o et h there bein agreemene gth t thaChapee th t t Torphichea l n shall ranparisa s ka h churc recognisd han t Michael'S e s Linlithgo r Mothehe s wa r Church (St . LibA . . 319, Bannatyne Club, 1841) date th whicf , eo generalls hi y accepted as 1168. 2 McGibbo d Rossan n : Ecclesiastical Architecture of , in, 139 ff. Domestic Castellatedd an Architecturef o Scotland, v, 130 ff. 3 Bodleian Library: Gough Map . 27rf 9 .s3

l67 l68 PROCEEDING SOCIETYE TH F O S , 1966-67 other i o ft. If the plan is exact in detail, the piers are octagonal, measuring 4 ft. . intervalsin in6 t e othe. 1thicknessa 5ft t Th . rse featured e dooa an th , e n i rar s . wall . wallS centrN e pulpicentra e ,e th , th th f Lor eo f n i eto d Torphichen's Loft across the W. end of the 20 ft. section and a door and a window in the back of the Loftd threan , e pew grounn so d level e pulpit fronn th i , withid f o tan , e . 10ft nth section. From No. 16 we learn that 'by virtue of these (i.e. Crown Grants) Lord Torphi- chen became sole proprietor of all the edifices he enjoyed as Preceptor. Out of which His Lordship set apart for Public Worship the west part of the old Church. The east side wal Lorf o l d Torphichen's Great Hall serve gabla , throug it r do fo et h which dooa ther s ronle ewa whicth ys entrhwa Loro yt d Torphichen's Loft whics hHi Lordshi Churche pth f erecte o d wes e famild n ha ,th t allenerlten i n d ow i s ys a hi r yfo no entry but through His Lordship's own dwelling house, and was no part of the divisible Kirk.' Later, having described Gillon's determination to build what was virtuall Kirkw documene ne th ,y a t continues, 'all handworo t t pulo kt sse l downa statelf o magnificend w yan ro t pillar arched san greaf so t strength beautifus a d an , l they da y e werasth e finished. Likewis wale eLorth f o l d Torphichen's house pulled down, and a great number of dead were raised and cast in heaps.' From No. 13 we d alreadha y learned that 'In ancient time a magnificen thers wa e t buildinn gi Torphichen, being the residence of the Preceptor, who was chief of the Order of the Knights of St John in Scotland, and which became the Mansion House of the Family of Torphiche manr nfo y years' leare w . n3 Fro 2 tha . mtNo Lord Torphichen claimed that, at the time of the rebuilding, the Heritors, without authority, had taken down the W. gable of the Kirk, which was also the side wall of the Mansion House, and built up the new gable and had encroached 14 in. on the House for making a support bele foth rl housKirke th f e.o Takin evidence gth thesf eo e documents, together witn hplane ca thath e f w ,o t confidently state that the Preceptor had a private house, or apartments, that these e Kirkth f ,immediately o approximatella . W e presene th th site f o yt th o e tn yo vestry of the parish church, and that they probably extended northwards along the furthecloistern e . sidth ca f W e o r W .stat e that whatever elshouse eth e consiste, dof it contained on the first floor a Great Hall, that when this house was erected one of two things happened—either the existing W. gable of the nave was incorporated into house gable w sidtakee s th walne th w r eewa e o ; nwal ne lth buildowa f o ld o t n an serv double eth e purpos providinf eo . gW . sid E bote ehouse e th walhth th d f eo lan navegable thad th f ean ,o t this wall transept. gable ,N th lik e f epierceo s e th wa , y db a window and a door, the door opening presumably on a stairway at the W. end of the nave. These document know s preseni e s th a o sr nt arefa t writero s , onle th , y surviving evidence for the existence of this house, and the only reference to the particular use buildingse pary th mad f an o t f eo , other tha churche nth secone Th . d great contri- bution of Documents No. 12 and No. 16, in which No. 22 (John Gillon's Answers) supports them, is to establish beyond all doubt that for approximately two hundred year parise sth hpre-Reformatio e nave churcth th f es o hwa n church, altered onln yi TORPHICHEN PRECEPTORY 169

r & £s s I-

o c s o

o

o

'5 J u I7O PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, 1966-67 respectso tw beiny b t of) —gfcu (a from those place d buildingsan s which remained the property of Lord Torphichen and (A) by being furnished to meet the needs of Reformed Worship: and further to establish that this section of the pre-Reformation church consisted of a nave approximately 20 ft. wide and, on the south side an aisle approximatel . widyft i o e - nav aisld ean e being divide piea y rdb arcad fouf eo r bays. GilloAnswers hi whay n nhavi e wa w ts n e(No confirmlearne) ow s 22 . hi dn i s from Torphichen about the nave of the pre-Reformation church. He writes, 'This building, which is properly called the Choir, is in reality the only standing part of Greae th t Cathedral which when entireJohn't shap e S bee d th a f f ha ,sne o o Cross. pullew pointno ease o wesd de th tw an tfoundationse dow ar to st e th o nTh t d An . pare th tshor o standin tw sout e t e nortlegd th th ho an s gt i h wit nave h th centrer eo . This like the popish churches at the Reformation still continued to be the place of worship. It appears that the Church lately pulled down had been the west leg of the Cross, whice probabls hth i o t pillarf o t i f w eo s ro fro whicd e m en th fro n e hra m on other.' Ecclesiastical architecture obviously was not his strong subject, and he would like to claim the whole pre-Reformation church for the parish; but he very definitely concede supersedew s no tha Crosse e th thatth d f o dan , t g parisle . hW churce th s hwa it was divided into two parts by a single line of piers -just as is shown in the Plan. Surviving masonry establishes the details of the crossing and transepts in their final stage developmentf so ; eighteenth-Century document nav e same th th r e eo fo s d choire what th f bu ? o t - bees ha n t I suggested tha finae tth l developmen thif to s sectio churce th s f no hwa left uncomplete Reformatione th t da tha d wale 1an tth l whic . archwahE fille sth f yo the crossing is to be understood as a temporary screen beyond which the reconstruc- choie proceedings tioth f wa rno proceedo t wore r th o , thakd d beean ,ha t n com- plete t wouldi d have been removed supporn I . thif o t s vie argues i wt i d tha wale tth l must be pre-Reformation, because after the Reformation no one would have sufficient interest to be at the expense and labour of building it. It must be admitted that on these points we are largely in the fields of conjecture and speculation, but it is interesting that Gillon states the church was entire at the Reformation principas hi f o thad e lan , on t charge s agains Lorde th t Torphichef so n is that they cared so little for it that they allowed much of it to fall into disrepair. Had it been possible to do so, Lord Torphichen would surely have challenged this statement as one of the false informations emitted by John Gillon and, in defence of his ancestors, would have insisted that they were in no way responsible for the delapidations of this part of the Church, which had not been completed at the time when it passed into their possession. In the absence of such protest we may reason- ably conclude tha agreee h t d tha Churce Reforth te timentire s th th f h wa eo t - ea mation, and that 'the east point' had subsequently been 'pulled down to the founda- tions'. If we accept what appears to be the agreed evidence of these two eighteenth- ROAMS (), 234. 1 TORPHIGHEN PRECEPTORY I"J1 century protagonists, we are still left with the solid filling wall, calling for explana- tione paperTh . s offe t leasa possible r on t e pointe thin i r s connection n theiO . r evidence we can state that in the eighteenth-century building was cheap. Lord Torphichen, wishing to put the worst possible face on Gillon's activities as a builder unnecessard an w one f y churches, tell tha s actuae su th t whole l costh f o et building was 'near ^oo' and the value allowed to his lordship for the mutual wall between

Kir Choid £5s kan .wa r Thi coursf so e1 proves nothing, except that seemei f i t o dt Lord Torphicheadvantags hi o t archwaye e th b fil o n et o i nl t mighe h , t very reason- ably spend the few pounds involved on adapting his own property to his own use. Now we know from No. 23, that, before the jurisdiction was abolished, Lord Torphichen 'kep Quire th t e (i.e crossintranseptse e th .th d gan ) mostld y an shu , up t used it for a Court House, and the space above it was the Prison House of the Regality' r thesFo . e purpose transepte roome sth th d s sovean r them woul fulle db y adequate—the choir woulembarrassmentn a e db . Court Hous Prisod ean n would be more convenient, and more secure, if cut off from it. At this date no one can say that this is why the filling wall was built, but at least it offers a very good reason why it might have been built at a date subsequent to the Reformation. The existence of the wall need not, therefore, throw doubt on the statement that the Church was entirReformatione th t ea r makno , t unreasonablei assumo et e tha finae th t l restora- tion of the church, including the choir had been completed before that date. vere claimee th b yt n leasA ca d t i ttha t this small bundl paperf eo s throww sne domestie lighth n o t c arrangement Preceptorye th f so littla , e confirmatory lighn o t constructioe th smala navee th d f lnan ,o shaf lighf explory o twhic y b ma t e e ehth w problem of the cut-off choir. We are indebted to the 8th Lord Torphichen for having secured that the facts were put on record, and to the i3th Lord Torphichen for having made them availabl studentso et . We are also indebted to Richard Gough for preserving and possibly for actually making, two drawings — though it has to be admitted that they raise rather than answer questions interese Th . thesf o t e drawing threefolds si . They provid econa - temporary building e recorstate th th timf e ef o d th o et sa whe reconstructioe nth f no parise th h churc jusd hha t been completed t absolutel no f thei o d yd an ; y confirm Gillon's statemen pre-Reformatioe . partth E thaf e o t th t n churc beed hha n pulled down to the foundations, they certainly establish the fact that only very modest fragment e wallth f so s remaine situ.n i d They record certain features whico n h longer existed when Thos. Ross visited the Preceptory a little more than a century later - notably the structure like a bell-cap which surmounts the S. gable of the tower d appear firse an , th t n Gougi s h drawing abov wheelstaie turree th eth f o t r (PI. XII, i). In the drawings of Thos. Ross this has become a simple chimney-head, Inventore th f i fireplacd e correcte yth roob an e d th mn an ei below belonge th o st sixteenth century, the ornamental structure in the earlier Gough drawings must have capped the chimney. Weather, or some other force apparently removed it between visitso tw e . th The other alteration, being constructional is, perhaps more difficult to explain. 1 Torphichen Muniments, xi, 16. M 172 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, 1966-67 The Inventory suggests that the parapet of the tower and its superstructure are sixteenth-century, which would mean that what Gough saw, what Thos. Rosw ssa and what we see today are substantially the same. The fact is that Gough shows no trace of the water spouts depicted by Ross, and the topmost courses of the tower look quite different and much more finished in Ross than they do in the earlier drawing (PI. XIII) compariso A almoso . tw e t th compel f no conclusioe sth n that someone, probably in the nineteenth century, concerned to preserve the tower, and possibly wit hcertaia nKirke gooe regarth th f ,dr o improvedfo superstructuree dth o N . positive evidenc thir efo s conclusio emerges nha t farfamilo ds bu , y traditio thas ni t e buildingth s wera sadl n i ey dilapidated state whe e I2tnth h Lord Torphichen succeeded to the title, and Estate Papers, kindly examined by the present Lord Torphichen, establish that, from tim timeo t e e expendeh , d variouse sumth n o s maintenance of the buildings. Family tradition and the comparison of the two drawings would seem to combine to suggest that the parapet of the tower and its superstructure, might be as late as the second half of the nineteenth century, say c. I879.1 e publisheTh d account authoritative ar s broae th r de fo likel e picturear yd an , to remain so; but the collation of the minor strands of evidence offers an interesting

and possibly rewarding exercise. 2 t comparBu drawinge eth Gougf so Rosd han s with thos Archef eo r Collectioe (1836th n e i ) th f no Nationa1 l Monuments Record. 2 In addition to the material referred to above there is a plan among General Hutton's Papers in the National Library therd varioue an , ear s reference buildino st g activit chartern yi othed san r records.