Talk:Mercat Cross, Edinburgh

December 2012

Thanks for the improvements Mercat Cross, Edinburgh. I have removed one fact and asked for a conformation for another because I am not sure where you obtained the information. The first is

"A monument now stands there in the form of a replica" -- how do you know it is a replica?
"This was paid for by William Gladstone..." -- how do you know he paid for it.

If we need to discuss this further please do so on talk:Mercat Cross, Edinburgh -- PBS (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a photo of the monument, as to Gladstone please add whatever citation you think best meets the citation needed requirement. -- PBS (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The replies from my talk page:

Re your message about the above. You're right to question whether the Drum Estate Monument is a replica. That was an assumption on my part based on the probability that the monument resembles the reconstructed cross it replaced. In the absence of confirmatory evidence it would be better if the word was left out. On the second question, I can't recall exactly where I read that information, but here's a source which heavily implies it without actually stating that the money came out of his own pocket. Canmore. RCAHMS is ultra-cautious in not making claims that can't be backed up by documentary evidence, so I think their statements can be regarded as reliable. One could change the main text to say only that Gladstone 'arranged' the restoration, but I think that sounds too vague. RCAHMS states that the initiative was William Chambers', but that Gladstone arranged it and handed over the key. I can't see why they'd say that if he hadn't financed it somehow (whether personally or by inviting subscriptions). Kim Traynor (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source which states that it was done at his own expense. Gladstone I note from googling that most sites accord Chambers no recognition and falsely credit Gladstone with instigating the restoration. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll cite Britannica since that states the idea more directly. Here's a pic I took of the monument. The shaft was rebuilt at the Drum, but I'm slightly suspicious of the finial which is clearly a representation of the style of cross from the burgh arms of the Canongate. I assume that's because Edinburgh was granted burgh status in the Holyrood Abbey charter c.1143, but this type of finial would certainly not have been used after the Reformation, suggesting that the monument is not a replica of the post-Reformation cross (which would have likely had the royal unicorn for a royal burgh), more an 18thC antiquarian's/mediaevalist's fantasy. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point to consider. At present it looks as if the 1365 source records the precise distance of the cross from St. Giles which surely can't be the case? If that were known so precisely, it seems to contradict the uncertainty expressed earlier in the text about it either being on or very near the original site. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The detail is from:

RCAHMS staff (2012), Mercat Cross (Canmore ID 52546, Site Number NT27SE 8 25771 73597), Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monument of Scotland, retrieved December 2012 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

"The Mercat Cross of Edinburgh is first mentioned in a charter of 1365 which indicates that it stood on the S side of the High Street, about 45ft E of the present E end of St Giles' Church (at NT 2577 7360). "

The RCAMS site says "In 1885, a new substructure was commissioned, and the cross was rebuilt on its present site." The reason I use the term on or near is because I could not find a source that said whether or not it was on the original site -- but it must be close.

This source a copy of answers the question about Gladstone " The completed work, incorporating the 15th century shaft and capital, was gifted to the town by British Prime Minister, William Ewart Gladstone who also composed the Latin inscription above the main door of the octagonal drum."

With regards to this edit (and the next one) the ODNB biography on Guthrie states "[James Guthrie] was executed at Edinburgh's Mercat Cross on 1 June. Legend has it that, at the last moment, he lifted the napkin from his face and uttered the prophetic cry which was long after the watchword of the persecuted conventiclers, ‘The Covenants, the Covenants shall yet be Scotland's reviving’ (Hewison, 92)." which confirms what the DNB says "On 28 May parliament ordered him to be hanged at the cross of Edinburgh on 1 June, in company with William Govan, an obscure deserter." (see "Guthrie, James" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900. ). --PBS (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Canmore record is very badly phrased in implying, albeit unintentionally, that the charter specifies with a measurement exactly where the cross stood. I've tried to rephrase the article text more sensibly. Also, I would suggest using the technical term 'cross-house', which is what it is, rather than the more abstract term 'substructure' Canmore has preferred (shame on them for making this concession). While cross-house may be unfamiliar, the reader can see from the photograph what it is precisely, and there's no harm in equipping people with the correct vocabulary with which to discuss these things. Re Gladstone, the Listed Buildings text would be an even better reference than the Britannica because the relevant passage can be found more quickly when the linked page is brought up. Guthrie can be reinstated in the text. I've checked and agree he was sentenced to death at the cross. I would not however use the Victorian depiction of his execution which has placed the event in the Grassmarket (note the Castle in the background, presumably influenced by the fact that that was the main execution site for Covenanters condemned to death in the later period). Despite the error, I think that this very evocative image can remain on the page for The Killing Time, as there it represents something general, namely executions, but I'd recommend not using it where it appears to be contradicted in the text (at least to those who know the locations at first hand). Kim Traynor (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -- PBS (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB has nothing to say on Montrose's execution place but the DNB says "On 21 May 1650 the sentence was carried out. Montrose, dressed 'in his red scarlet cassock,' was hanged in the Grassmarket." ("Graham, James (1612-1650)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900. ). -- PBS (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! This is a repeat of the James Guthrie problem. Montrose was definitely hanged at the cross, but the ODNB writer has again been influenced by the fact that the Grassmarket came to be more associated with executions (probably thanks to Walter Scott describing them in his novels). Montrose was definitely taken to the cross, as per this source: Montrose Also, take a look at this link: Cross position If the Rothiemay map from 1649 is accurate, it shows that the original site of the cross was in the middle of the High Street and not alongside the church where the reconstruction stands today. Also, it's odd that the position shown does not seem to be the post-1617 position marked in setts at the head of Old Fishmarket Close. Curious! Kim Traynor (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit clash] It is the DNB c. 1900 that inaccurately states Montrose's place of execution as the Grassmarket, the ODNB (c. 2000) is silent on the issue (in the Guthrie biography both the DNB and the ONDB states the it was at the Mercat Cross). What a fine map! But if it is from 1649 will it not show the position of the cross that is now marked with cobbles in the pavement? -- PBS (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sign! The Latin inscription includes "GVL . E . GLADSTONE" and the date MDCCCLXXXV . DIE . NOVEMBRIS . XXIV (1885 Day November 24)! -- PBS (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as stated above, if the map is visually accurate, it places a question mark over that second location. Perhaps the choice of position for the setts mosaic was not altogether accurate, but only an alignment with the original position in the middle of the street. Who knows? I've never come across anything to contradict that map. Perhaps the article text should be changed to state that the Victorian reconstruction was placed close to the original site as shown on that map? On a separate point, for the sake of consistency, I've changed Campbell's title to the Scottish form 'marquis'. While that differs from the English term used on the pages dealing with him and Montrose, I feel Wikipedia should not be assisting in the process of unnecessarily anglicising perfectly proper Scots spellings. That's the same reason I don't really like the term Lord Warriston, as he is normally referred to in the contemporary literature as Johnston of Wariston. Maybe he is known in English accounts as 'Lord Warriston' - I don't know; but given that Warriston is the modern spelling of his family seat of Wariston, I don't think I should quibble about the use of that particular spelling. Kim Traynor (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the modern building line is closer to the northern edge of the kirk and that the cross on the map is shown a narrow street and four house down from the kirk, (clearly more than 45 feet from the end of the church), I think that the current pavement marking must be close to where it was in 1649 (BTW the map page says 47). I don't think the Victorian cross was placed close to the original site as shown on the map, I think that the RCAHMS source make the point clearly that the Victorian position was chosen because it is close or on the original position. As to Lord Warriston, we should use the spelling most commonly used in reliable English language sources. Given that this is about a Scottish location and the man was Scottish we should defer to the spelling used most commonly in the best Modern Scottish/British sources. I am happy to go with whatever spelling and format you like providing it is backed up with reliable sources (the ODNB uses "Sir Archibald Johnston, Lord Wariston"). The same goes for details like "cross-house", providing we have a reliable source that call it that and it does not involve any syning. If it can only be done through a synthesis then a cited footnote mentioning that such under structures are often called cross-house will be an acceptable work around for me. -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Able to resume after a good night's sleep. I think the Rothiemay map is showing the cross at its post-1617/pre-1756 location (though there's no guarantee that it's a true depiction). I've played around with the image and shifted the cross to the location of the present reconstruction (slightly to the left and down). It looks right, ergo the Rothiemay location is indeed the second position. (I'd like to post that here to show you the result, but it would be irresponsible to release that particular visual falsehood into the wild.) Here's another image of the cross in the second position Hooper, where it is seen much closer to the corner of the tenement block and NOT in the middle of the street. The block of houses was destroyed in the great fire of 1824, but the rebuilt block did not creep forward. Like the block shown on the Rothiemay map, the new block is still aligned with the Tron Kirk on the right. If Rothiemay is accurate, the Council did not place the mosaic on the exact spot but on the nearest pavement, hoping no-one would know any better! If Hooper is more accurate, then they did indeed choose the right spot. As you know, Gladstone's reconstructed cross stands directly alongside the east gable of the church. None of this may be particularly helpful to us of course, but if push came to shove, I'd take Hooper to be more accurate, simply because it makes the narrative easier! On the point re Johnston, I'm someone who would put Archibald Johnston of Wariston into a search, and I note that for people like me a redirect takes us to the Lord Warriston page. It's one of those many examples where I feel Wikipedia has things the wrong way round, but that's because I'm more familiar with the (Scottish) minority term, rather than the (English?) majority term. I believe 'Lord Warriston' was one of those honorary titles for Scottish judges, so that in speech contemporaries would take about "War[r]iston", but he usually appears in print as Johnston of Wariston". No point in losing sleep over that, except that Wikipedia, by turning things round, is taking part (unconsciously) in a process which will gradually change the currency of historical terms/names (as with Marquis/Marquess). I take the point about "cross-house". I'm currently discussing with a colleague the possibility of collaborating on a new book on Scottish mercat crosses, so if that ever comes to be published (in a year or two's time), I'll change "substructure" to "cross-house" and use the new book as the reference! Kim Traynor (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago when the author was new to Wikipedia, I was involved in a similar situation. When your books is published if it is available on Kindle, I'll buy a copy

-- PBS (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I have been able to find some of the citations on line and add page numbers and other details to to them It is not clear to me what the full citation is for this entry:

The Royal Commission On The Ancient Monuments Of Scotland, The City Of Edinburgh, HMSO 1951

Is italics around the title would help, and is there any additional information such reference numbers etc that would help identify it, and as page number for the location of the information within it?

The citation

Bryce, W Moir (1918), The Book Of The Old Edinburgh Club, vol. X, Edinburgh, pp. 88–89{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

would appear to be missing the article/chapter name is it "The Burgh Muir of Edinburgh from the records"? (pp. 97-204)

The citation

Gifford; McWilliam; Walker (1984), The Buildings Of Scotland, Edinburgh: Penguin

is missing page numbers

The citation

Daiches, D (1978), Edinburgh, London {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Appears to be missing a title and page numbers.

The citations

Geddie, J (1929), Romantic Edinburgh, London{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

needs a page number (and publisher).

--PBS (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in my spotting this message (I think I must have forgotten to add the page to my watchlist). I'm about to start a draft article on the Convention of Royal Burghs. I'll get round to acting upon this list in due course, when an appropriate break in concentration occurs. In the case of the RCAHMS Inventory, I'm not sure what you mean by it not being a full citation or by suggesting adding italics. The title is 'The City of Edinburgh'. I can certainly track down the relevant page number. The Moir Bryce is a volume entirely dedicated to the history of the burgh muir. I'll see if the wording you suggest is given anywhere as a subtitle; but I don't think so, as the topic isn't confined to the narrow page number reference you give. It runs to over 200 pages. The title of the Daiches book is 'Edinburgh' and it was published in London. It should be no problem finding the page numbers for the others. I could have given these at the time, but I didn't think giving page numbers was de rigeur. Kim Traynor 16:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now made the suggested changes. Your Moir Bryce title suggestion was correct for the content of that volume. My hunch is that Moir-Bryce is a double-barrelled surname (though without the hyphen in his case). Amazon and Abebooks list him under Bryce, but that may just be their ignorance (or mine?). Kim Traynor 17:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

OK now I understand--thanks to your word inventory and the article Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland:

An Inventory of the Ancient and Historical Monuments of the City of Edinburgh (with the Thirteenth Report of the Commission, HMSO, 1951).

So yes I think it needs a full citation including page numbers along with the other books listed above -- which I now see that you have provided thanks.

Page numbers are both asked for in policy and guidance "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." WP:V and see also also Wikipedia:CITE#Books.

To exaggerate to make the point it is unreasonable to say to a reader (as is done when just the {{EB1911}} template is placed on a page without additional parameters) some of the text in this article was copied from somewhere in the 29 volumes of the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, but I am not going to tell you where! We currently have just under 10,000 articles that say precisely that. -- PBS (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the Latin inscription

On another point, I think we need an English translation in square brackets of the Latin inscription to assist the classically challenged. I've been unable to find an official version and don't trust googletranslate not to produce a clanger. It doesn't cope too well with a classical quotation contained within the inscription. It really needs the attention of a Latinist. Kim Traynor 17:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree do you know of any? -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but I've suggested it to a young German lad I know who has just started studying Ancient History at university and is working intensively on learning Latin. That may bear fruit. I'm suprised I haven't been able to track down a translation in the limited literature. It's the sort of thing you'd expect RCAHMS to record. Incidentally, if you look up the WP on the National Monument Records of Scotland, you'll see I've added the original mission statement behind the setting up of RCAHMS. Translated, it implies "we don't have a scooby about this place's history before the Union!". Kim Traynor 17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I posted a request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin#Mercat Cross, Edinburgh -- PBS (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the inscription

DEO . GRATIAS / VETVSTVM . MONVMENTVM . CRVCEM . BVRCI / EDINENSIS . PVBLICIS . MVNERIBVS . AB . ANTIQVO . DICAM / CARMINE . TAM . EXIMIO . QVAM. VIRILI . A . SVMMO . HOMINE . GVATRO / SCOTT . ET . VINDICATAM . ET . DEFLETAM . PRAESVLIBVS / MVNICIPII . PERMISSV . REDINTEGRANDAM . CVRAVIT . GVL . E . GLADSTONE / STIRPE . ORIVNDVS . PER . VTRAMOVE . LINEAM . PENITVS . SCOTICA / A . S . MDCCCLXXXV . DIE . NOVEMBRIS . XXIV

-- PBS (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"MDCCCLXXXV . DIE . NOVEMBRIS . XXIV" -- "1885 the November 24" -- so why the translation "23rd [sic] November 1885" and not "24th"? -- PBS (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as I commented at the time I added the passage, the inscription is, quite unbelievably, wrongly translated in the cited source. I don't suppose it's ethical to correct the error, so the inclusion of [sic] is trying to point out that the translation does indeed give the wrong date. It might be clearer if it were changed to [note date error—ed.] Kim Traynor | Talk 19:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]