WITHIN historic times there were three areas
inhabited by people who were known by the name of Picts, or by its
Gaelic equivalent Cruithne—if, indeed, that word is the Gaelic
equivalent of Picti. These were (1), the whole of Scotland north
of the Friths of Forth and Clyde; (2), the district of Galloway;
and (3), a small part of the north-east of Ireland, forming the
counties of Down and Antrim, and which was called Dalaradia.
If
these were all divisions of the same race or people, the most
important portion were those who dwelt north of the Friths, and
whose country was known as Pictavia, Pictland, or Cruithentuath—and
was the Pictish kingdom down to the time of Kenneth MacAlpin and
his immediate successors. Now, there are certain matters connected
with the civil and ecclesiastical history of this portion of the
Picts about which historians talk in a very loose and inaccurate
way—and in a way calculated to give rise to the impression that
they were divided into two distinct races or even kingdoms of
Northern and the Southern Picts, separated from each other by the
Grampians—while it is constantly and directly stated that the
Southern Picts, meaning those dwelling south of the Grampians,
were converted to Christianity by St. Ninian in the beginning of
the fifth century, and about 150 years before the Mission of Saint
Columba. Thus Skene talks of Brude as King of the Northern Picts,
and of Columba's Mission to the Northern Picts, while other
writers say or suggest that the one division of the Picts
consisted of a non-Aryan and the other of a Celtic tribe.
I
venture, however, to maintain that we have no ground for supposing
that there was any civil, or political, or ecclesiastical, or
racial distinction or division between the people living north and
south of the Grampians, and that within historic times they always
formed one kingdom. Indeed, Skene must have been perfectly aware
that there was only one monarchy, for although, as I have said, he
calls Brude King of the Northern Picts, he says at another place
that the King would appear to have been furnished by the Northern
and Southern portions alternately. The inaccuracy has arisen from
attaching too much importance to, or misunderstanding certain
passages in, Bede. At one place Bede says:- "In the year of our
Lord, 565, when Justin, the younger, the successor of Justinian,
had the government of the Roman Empire, there came into Britain a
famous priest and abbot, a monk by habit and life, whose name was
Columba, to preach the Word of God to the provinces of the
Northern Picts, who are separated from the Southern parts by steep
and rugged mountains; for the Southern Picts who dwell on this
side of these mountains had long before, as is reported, forsaken
the errors of idolatry and embraced the truth by the preaching of
St. Ninian, a most reverend bishop and holy man of the British
nation, who had been regularly instructed at Rome in the faith and
mysteries of the truth, whose Episcopal See, named after St.
Martin the Bishop, and famous for a stately Church (wherein he and
many other saints rest in the body) is still in existence among
the English nation.
The place belongs to the Province of the Bernicians, and is
generally called the White House, because he there built a church
of stone, which was not usual among the Britons." It appears to me
that in this and other similar passages, when he talks of Southern
or Cismontane Picts, Bede either meant the Picts of Galloway, or
he himself was misled by a mistaken interpretation of his own
authorities. So far as can be learned from Bede's history he knew
of no Picts except those living north of the Friths, and in the
passage I have quoted he talks of the district where St. Ninian's
Church was—that is, the district of Galloway—as belonging to the
Province of the Bernicians. But in his life of Saint Cuthbert he
tells us that that Saint on one occasion went to the land of the
Picts, who are called Niduarii, and Skene ingeniously argues that
these could only mean the Picts of the Nid or Nith. I think,
however, that this is a curious instance of a straining of an
authority on Skene's part. The story of Bede is that St. Cuthbert
went from the monastery to Niduaril by sea- -" Navigando"—that
because the sea was calm they hoped soon to return; that a storm
came on which detained them; that St. Cuthbert prophesied how long
the storm was to last; and that at the time foretold the storm
abated, and they returned with a fair wind. The whole story is of
a journey by sea.
Now, at that time St. Cuthbert was most probably residing in
his parent monastery of Abercorn, at any rate he was residing
somewhere on the East Coast of Northumberland, which then extended
to the Forth, and the idea that he should attempt to go thence to
Galloway by sea is not tenable. I incline to think, therefore,
that Bede did not know of the Picts of Galloway; but it is quite
possible that on some of his journeys St. Cuthbert may have been
at a monastery on the southern shores of the Solway Frith, and may
have crossed to Galloway by sea, and that, therefore, Skene may be
right in supposing that the Picts called Niduarii were the Picts
of Galloway. If this is so, then I think that the natural
inference from the passage I have quoted and similar passages is
that Bede meant these Picts when he spoke of the Southern Picts,
and he might very well describe them as separated from the
Northern Picts—that is, the Picts north of the Friths—by steep and
rugged mountains. On the other hand, if he did not know of the
Galloway Picts, it is easy to account for his falling into an
error about them. Bede lived from 673 to 735, and his history ends
in 731.
Now, he tells us that in or about 655 Oswy, King of Northumbria,
subdued the greater part of the Picts: that in or about 669
Wilfred filled the Bishoprick of York and of all the
Northumbrians, and of "the Picts as far as the dominions of King
Oswy extended;" that about 685 the Picts regained their liberty
and that "Trumwine, who had been made bishop over them, withdrew
with his people that were in the monastery of Abercurnaig
(Abercorn), seated in the country of the English, but close to the
arm of the sea which parts the country of the English and the
Picts," We thus see that in Bede's own time there was a temporary
political and ecclesiastical separation of the Picts dwelling
south of the Grampians—for this must necessarily have been the
portion conquered by Oswy—and those dwelling north of these
mountains, who remained independent. Bede heard or read of the
Southern Picts having been converted by St. Ninian in collecting
materials for his history; and he may, if he knew of no other
Picts—very naturally, but yet erroneously—have supposed that they
were those whom he knew of as for a time separated from the rest
of their countrymen by the political and ecclesiastical subjection
to Northumbria—that is, those dwelling south of the Grampians.
There are many grounds which show that, if this was his meaning,
it was an error on his part.
St Ninian lived about 410, and
established himself at Whithern, in Galloway, where, we are told,
he built a white or stone church in the Roman manner, and
converted the Southern Picts. Now, if there was a race of Picts in
Galloway then, and we know no reason to suppose that the Galloway
Picts settled there at any later time, they would be the people
with whom he came in contact, and Whithern would be the natural
place to establish a mission to them; whereas it would be a very
unsuitable place to establish a mission to a people living beyond
the Forth. It is very unlikely, therefore, that Saint Ninian's
mission was to the people beyond the Forth, and, although the
dedications of churches to him have been appealed to, they really
establish nothing. There are in Scotland 21 churches dedicated to
him north of the Grampians, 23 between the Grampians and the
Friths, and 17 south of. the Friths, while there are many in
England.
Be this, as it may, however—Bede himself talks in many
places of the kingdom and of the king of the Picts, and nowhere of
two kings at the same time—Adamnan, who lived from 624 to 704,
always speaks of the province or kingdom of the Picts as one
kingdom, and gives no hint of any division either racial or
political. There are lists of the kings of the Picts, which, from
the time of Columba at least, are historical, and these only give
one king at a time, except in one or two instances. In fact it
seems, notwithstanding the passages in Bede which I have mentioned
to be as certain as anything at that distance of time can be,
that, from the time of Columba and previously—as certainly was the
case in later times—the Picts north of the Friths were the
subjects of one monarchy, and formed one kingdom.
The question
naturally arises were the Picts of Galloway and of Ireland of the
same race as what may be called the main body living north of the
Friths. If we could answer this question satisfactorily, we could
answer most of the other questions about the Picts which have so
long been discussed without, as yet, any very certain or very
satisfactory result—and it appears to me that this question,
especially with reference to the Irish Picts, has not been
sufficiently examined.
Of the early history of the Picts of
Galloway, we know nothing. Unless they were the Niduarii, Bede
does not mention them. Adamnan says nothing about them, and we
have no mention of them until comparatively recent times. Chalmers
states that they came from Ulster and settled in Galloway in the
eighth century, but Skene has shown that this statement is founded
on a misunderstanding of two passages in the Annals of Ulster. In
historical times, and long after the name of Picts, as applied to
the people north of the Friths, had disappeared, they were known
as Picts, and a body of them is mentioned as forming part of the
Scottish army at the battle of the Standard, when they claimed a
right to lead the van of the army. All that can be said therefore
is that they were called Picts, and that we have no record of
their migration into that district. That they spoke Gaelic is
undoubted. If therefore they were the same race as the Picts north
of the Friths, we might, with some confidence, conclude that
Gaelic was the Pictish language.
In the case of the Irish Picts,
Skene asserts that they were undoubtedly the same as the Scottish
Picts, and that they were in fact one people and under one rule
till the time of Fiacha Mac Beadan, who was king of Ulster from
589 to 626; and he says further that the whole people of Ulster
were Picts until the fall of the kingdom of Emania in or about the
year 331. If this could be established, it would be of the utmost
importance. The Ultonians were, during the existence of the
kingdom of Emania, the most civilized and famous of all the
inhabitants of Ireland, and to them belong all the glories of the
Red Branch Knights, of Cuchulain, and other heroes, and if Finn
was not of their race he was much associated with them. If Skene
is right, the common possession of the legends of all these people
by the inhabitants of the two countries is explained, and the
question of the Pictish language and race would be in a fair way
of settlement. It can hardly be said, however, that Skne has
established his point. The arguments in favour of his contention
are not clearly or concisely stated in any of his writings, but
they appear to be these. According to the Irish Annals, the
Ultonians were driven out of Emania by the three Collas about A.D.
331; they were driven into the country now forming the counties of
Down and Antrim, and O'Curry says that they remained there ever
after, and received the name of Dal-Araidhe. Now, this is the
district which was inhabited by the people called Cruithne in
later times. According to the legendary history of Ireland, there
was much intercourse between Ulster and Scotland in the earliest
times—Cuchulain and other heroes are mentioned as having learned
feats of arms in Skye; the children of Uisneach, when they fled
from the King of Ulster, took refuge in Scotland; in one of the
Pictish chronicles mention is made of thirty kings of the name of
Brude, who reigned over Erin and Alban for 148 years. And the
Irish Annals mention some kings of Ulster who were also kings of
Alban. On the other hand, the Irish Annals claim the Ultonians as
descendants of Ir, one of the sons of Milesius, and therefore
Scots. The Irish Annals mention no kings of Ulster bearing the
same name as the kings contained in the list of Pictish Kings of
Alban. During the famous time of the Ulster kingdom they do not
mention the Ultonians as Cruithne, and any mention I have seen of
Cruithne, or Cruithentuath, in the Earlier Irish Annals points to
the people and the country of Alban. It is remarkable, too, that
in mentioning the Irish Picts, Adamnan always calls them Cruithne,
while the inhabitants of Alban are called Picti or Pictones. It
cannot be said, therefore, that it is established that the Irish
and Scottish Picts were of one race; but, as I have said, the
question has not received the amount of attention which it
deserves. It will not be questioned, I presume, that the Irish
Picts were a Celtic, Gaelic- speaking people.
The controversy as
to who the Picts were, usually rages round their name, their
language, their physical characteristics, and certain peculiar
customs which were attributed to them, and on each of these points
I will venture to make some remarks.
THE attempt to trace the Picts all over Europe and Asia by
their name of Picts always appears to me to be childish. The
people of the Northern part of Britain were first called by the
name of Picts by Eumenius, who was a professor of rhetoric, and a
writer of panygerics in or about the year 297. Previous to that
time the inhabitants of Caledonia had been known to the Romans as
Caledonians, Dicaledonx and Vecturiones, Meatae, and other names;
and Ptolemy, who lived in the second century, and gives a detailed
geographical account of Britain, mentions various tribes as
inhabiting Scotland, but none with names in the least resembling
Picts or Picti, although on the west coast of northern Argyle and
Inverness he places two tribes, named respectively Creones and
Cerones—names bearing some resemblance to Cruithne as it is
pronounced. There is no doubt that very soon after the time of
Eumenius the name became the one always used by the Roman writers
for the people of Northern Britain, and in the earliest books we
have by native Scottish or Irish writers it is the name which they
also use when writing in Latin. The fact remains, however, that
Picti was a Latin name given to the people in the end of the third
century, and not sooner; while it is certain that among themselves
and their neighbours, who did not speak Latin, they were known as
Cruithne. To connect this people, therefore, with Pictavia and the
Pictones in France, known by these names in the time of Julius
Caesar, or with places or peoples in Europe or Asia which bore a
somewhat similar name, and which could not have been colonised by
Scottish Picts after they became known by that name, seems absurd.
The usual assumption is that the Picts were so called by the
Romans because they painted themselves, or tattooed themselves,
and that the name signified the painted people. There is no end of
authority for this; but it is remarkable that, with the exception
of Julius Caesar and Herodian, all the writers who talk of the
Picts painting or tattooing themselves, write after the name was
given, and that for 200 years the Romans were in contact with the
people without giving them any such name. Innes accounts for this
by saying that all the inhabitants of Britain had at one time
painted themselves, that by the end of the third century the
inhabitants of the Roman province had given up the practice, and
that hence the name was given to the Northern people, who still
practised it. This is ingenious; but by the end of the third
century the Romans were well acquainted with the Saxons, who are
also said to have painted themselves, and also with the Scots from
Ireland, who were at least not more civilised than the Picts, and
who would probably not differ from their neighbours in a practice
of this kind, so that even at that time the peculiarity would not
have been confined to the Caledonians. On the other hand, it is
said that the name which the people gave themselves in their own
language means the same or nearly the same as the Latin word, and
if this is so we must assume either that the people had named
themselves from a practice which was not peculiar to them in early
times, if we are to accept the statements of historians on the
point, or that they adopted a Roman nick-name, translated it into
their own language, and invented an eponym bearing the name for
themselves. Neither of these assumptions is probable; and for
myself I cannot help entertaining a suspicion that the Romans
translated the word Cruithne into Picti, and that all the stories
about painting and tattooing mainly arose round that word. This is
clear, that no trace of such a custom remained to historic times,
or has left any trace of its existence in native legend or
literature; that Tacitus, who had his information from Agricola,
does not mention any such custom; and that the writers who tell us
about the tattooing also tell us many things which cannot be other
than travellers' tales, such as that our mountains were waterless,
that our ancestors went about naked, that they passed days in
wading up to their waists in rivers and arms of the sea, or
immersed in bogs; and even Tacitus tells us that the water of our
seas was thick and sluggish, and difficult for the rower, and that
it was never disturbed by storms.
Beyond establishing that the
name of Picts can give us no assistance in tracing the history or
migrations of the people, we must leave the question of the name
in an unsatisfactory condition. If any information is to be
derived from the name it must be from the name Cruithne which the
people called themselves, and as yet philologists are not agreed
on the meaning of this name—some deriving it from a root which
means form, and others from a root which means wheat. It would be
interesting if we could establish that out ancestors were the
first who introduced the cultivation of wheat into Britain.
As
to the language, the first question to be settled—and it is yet
very far from settlement—is whether the Picts spoke a separate
language or not. The case of those who assert that they did rests
mainly on the authority of Bede and of Adamnan. The former says:-"
This island at present, following the number of the Books in which
the Divine law was written, contains five nations, the English,
Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins, each in its own peculiar
dialect cultivating the sublime study of Divine truth. The Latin
tongue is by the study of the Scriptures become common to all the
rest." Now, Bede was a monk, and not free from the conceits and
fancies of monkish writers. In this passage he wishes to make the
nationalities and languages or dialects in which Divine truth was
studied equal to the number of the books of Moses, and to do so he
drags in a nationality which did not exist in Britain in his
time—viz., the Latin. To make up five languages he required the
Pictish, and looking to the object he had in making up the number
five, I think it may very safely be held that the passage does not
necessarily imply more than that the Picts spoke a dialect
different from that of the Britons and the Scots. The authority of
Adamnan is not so easily disposed of. He mentions two instances in
which St. Columba had to use an interpreter in explaining the word
to inhabitants of Albyn. On one occasion the Saint was in Skye,
and an old man, named Artbranan, the chief of the Geona Cohors,
arrived in a boat, and, being carried tO his feet, was instructed
by him through an interpreter and was baptised. The river in which
he was baptised was called after him "Dobur Artbranan." There is
nothing in the passage to indicate where Artbranan came from, but
it can only be assumed, as he was in a dying condition, that he
came from some neighbouring part of Skye or the Mainland, and
these at the time were undoubtedly inhabited by Picts. In the
other instance Columba is said to have been tarrying for some days
in the Province of the Picts, when a certain peasant, who, with
his whole family, listened to and learned through an interpreter
the word of life, was baptised. These passages seem to imply that
talking to Picts Columba required an interpreter, but it is argued
that, even if he did, a different language is not necessarily
implied, and that a different dialect of the same language would
equally account for the necessity. On the other hand there are
numerous instances mentioned of conversations between Columba and
Picts, and of discussions between him and the Pictish Druids
without any mention of an interpreter. So far, therefore, as
historic authority goes, it does not necessarily or even probably
establish a distinct language. And certainly not a non-Celtic
language.
The remains of what is said to be the Pictish language
are sufficiently meagre. Bede mentions one word, "Peanfahel," the
head or end of the wall. O'Curry says there is only one word of
the language remaining, viz., "Cartit "—a pin, which is given in
Cormac's Glossary. One of the monastic registers gives us "Scollofthes,"
given in Latin as "Scolasticus," but meaning some inferior
monastic grade of persons who devoted themselves to the
cultivation of land, and from other sources we have "Ur" and "Diuperr,"
the latter meaning a rich man. These, and the names of the Pictish
kings and a few names of places, are all that remain. As to what
these words prove, philologists are not agreed, and the question
must be left with them, and I would merely remark that the manner
in which some of them dibble Celtic Picts, non-Aryan Picts,
Goidels, and Brythons all over the country, on the authority of a
chance word or name, appears utterly rash and unscientific. If
anything is to be established on philological grounds, every word
said on any ground to be Pictish, and every place name in the
district inhabited by the people, should be distinctly and
separately analysed, and when this is done we shall know whether
philology can tell us anything on the subject or not.
To me it
always appears that it is vain to contend that the Picts spoke a
non-Gaelic language. They composed a separate and organised
kingdom from the time of Columba (565) to the time of Kenneth
Macalpin (850) at least, and, giving all possible effect to the
fact that during that time they had a clergy mainly Scottish, who
used the Scottish language as the language of culture and
literature, it cannot be supposed that, if in Columba's time they
spoke a language of a different family from the Gaelic, it would
not have left broad and unmistakable marks in the topography of
the country, and in the Gaelic. language which they adopted.
The
physical characteristics have given also much ground for
controversy. The question of broad and long skulls may be
dismissed on the ground that, even if this peculiarity indicated a
distinction of race—and this is not now held to be entirely
established— it proves nothing about the Picts. The authority of
Tacitus has been much relied on as proving that the Caledonians
who are assumed—and, I think, justly assumed—to be the same as the
people afterwards called Picts—were Teutonic. In discussing the
question of the origin of the inhabitants of Britain, he says that
the temperament of body is various "whence deductions are formed
of their different origin"; and thus he says the large limbs and
red hair of the Caledonians point to a German origin. This is,
however, a mere inference, and in a general survey he says that
the probability is that Britain was peopled from Gaul—that the
sacred rites and superstitions were similar, and that the language
of the two peoples did not greatly differ. We know now that large
limbs and red or fair hair were as much characteristics of Celts
as of Germans, and we are as well able to draw inferences from the
possession of them as Tacitus. In a poem, said to be very ancient,
and describing events in the reign of Conaire Mor, who was king of
Ireland, and died about the year 30 B.C., three exiles from
Cruithentuath are described as great brown men, with round heads
of hair of equal length at poll and forehead. These, so far as I
have seen, are the only descriptions of the physical
characteristics of Picts, and they really prove nothing.
When we
come to the customs of the Picts we get on a subject of great
interest and difficulty. I dismiss the stories of Roman writers
about cannibalism, community of women, children belonging to the
tribe and not to the parents, and the pauper King, who was not
allowed to have either wife or property, as mere travellers'
tales. Tacitus says nothing of any such customs, and in the speech
which he puts into the mouth of Galgacus he treats the family
relations as thoroughly well established among the Caledonians. In
Adamnan there is abundant evidence that marriage was thoroughly
recognised among the Picts in Columba's time, and there are
frequent mention of wife and family, and of wives as possessing an
influential position in the family. And courtesans are frequently
mentioned as a disgraceful class. So far there is nothing to show
that the Picts were in a different stage of civilisation from the
rest of the inhabitants of Britain. They had, however, one custom,
the evidence of which is distinct, and which is very singular.
Bede gives the legend about the Picts having arrived in Britain
without wives, and applying to the Scots for them, who gave them
on condition, "that when any difficulty should arise they should
choose a king from the female royal race rather than from the
male, which custom, as is well known, has been observed among the
Picts to this day." And here Bede is corroborated by the lists of
Pictish kings in all the chronicles in which a list is given. In
no case does a son succeed a father, and in no case does a father
of any king himself appear in the list of kings; and yet there is
no mention of a female sovereign. In later times we know that
foreigners were the fathers of the Scottish kings. Bile, the King
of Aiclyde, was father of one of the Brudes. Maelchon, a Welsh
leader, was father of another Brude. A brother of one of the kings
of Northumberland was father of another Pictish king; and on one
occasion two brothers were kings of the Picts and of Dalriada
respectively at the same time. There can be little doubt that
Kenneth MacAlpin or his father claimed the Pictish throne, in
right of succession to a mother of the royal race. It will be seen
that this custom is very peculiar. It is not a case of the right
of women to succeed and reign, but of men succeeding and reigning
in virtue of their being Sons of their mother and not of their
father. It is supposed that this custom pointed to a state of
society in which there was promiscuous intercourse between the
sexes, and there was therefore no certain paternity, and our
distinguished townsman, Mr. J. F. Maclennan, has shown in his book
on primitive marriage that probably all races passed through such
a stage. But it is well established that the Aryan races had
passed through this stage and established the institution of
marriage before they left their original home in Central Asia. And
it is contended therefore that this custom indicated a non-Aryan
origin of the Picts. It is to be observed, however, that among
them the custom seems to have been confined to the Royal family
and to succession to the throne, and that it did not, so far as
the list of kings show, or so far as Bede indicates, show any
uncertainty as to the paternity of the kings the names of the
fathers are always given and not the names of the mothers. Except
on the supposition that it was a survival from a time when
intercourse was promiscuous and paternity uncertain, it is
difficult to account for such a custom, and there is no doubt that
it constitutes a difficulty, and the main difficulty in the way of
belief in the Picts as an Aryan people. No explanation has yet
been given of it.
On the whole, then, and although the question
is not free from doubt, it will be seen that the great weight of
evidence goes to show the Picts were a Celtic Gaelic-speaking
people, and it is probable that they were the earliest immigration
of that people into Britain, and came, as their own legends tell,
from Scythia, that is North-Germany, which undoubtedly was peopled
by Celts before it was peopled by Germans.