Early Inhabitants--Roman Writers--Aristotle--Tacitus--Dion
Cassius--Caledonians and Mæatæ--Eumenius--Picts--Dicaledones
and Vecturiones--Claudian--Inferences--Ecclesiastical
Chroniclers--Their value--Gildas--Adamnan--Northern and Southern
Picts--Columba’s “Interpreter”--Bede’s Account of Picts--Pictish
Language--Peanfahel--Northern and Southern Picts--Welsh
Triads--Irish Annals--Evidence from Language--Cymric and Gaelic
Theories--_Inver_ and _Aber_--Innes’s Theory--Conclusion.
The preceding chapter has been occupied almost entirely with an
account of the transactions of the Romans in the north of Scotland,
and it is now our duty to go back and narrate what is known of
the internal history of the Highlands during the time of the
Romans. In doing so we are brought face to face with certain much
agitated questions which have for centuries engaged the attention
of antiquaries, and in the discussion of which many bulky tomes
have been written and incredible acrimony displayed. To enter with
anything like minuteness into this discussion would occupy more space
than can be devoted to the entire history, and, moreover, would be
out of place in a popular work like the present, and distasteful to
most of its readers. The following are some of the much-discussed
questions referred to:--Who were the original inhabitants of
Caledonia? To what race did they belong--were they Gothic or Celtic?
and if Celtic, were they Cymric or Gaelic? When did they enter
Scotland, and whence did they come--from the opposite continent, or
from the south of Britain? Was the whole of Scotland, in the time of
Agricola, occupied by one people, or by a mixed race, or by various
races? Were the Picts and Caledonians the same people? What is the
meaning and origin of Pict, and was Caledonia a native appellation?
What were the localities of the Northern and Southern Picts? Who were
the Scots? What was the nature of the union of the Scots and Picts
under Kenneth Macalpin?
The notices of the early inhabitants of the Highlands in the
contemporary Roman historians are so few, the information given
so meagre and indefinite, and the ecclesiastical historians of a
later time are so full of miracle, myth, and hearsay, and so little
to be depended on, that it appears to us almost impossible, with
the materials at present within the historian’s reach, to arrive
at anything like a satisfactory answer to the above questions. The
impression left after reading much that has been written on various
sides, is one of dissatisfaction and bewilderment,--dissatisfaction
with the far-fetched and irrelevant arguments frequently adduced,
and the unreliable authorities quoted, and bewilderment amid the
dust-cloud of words with which any one who enters this debatable land
is sure to be enveloped. “It is scarcely necessary to observe, that
there are few points of ethnology on which historians and antiquaries
have been more at variance with each other, than respecting the
real race of those inhabitants of a portion of Caledonia popularly
known by the designation of Picts. The difficulty arising from this
discrepancy of opinion is increased by the scanty and unsatisfactory
nature of the materials now available to those who wish to form an
independent judgment. No connected specimen of the Pictish language
has been preserved; nor has any ancient author who knew them from
personal observation, stated in direct terms that they approximated
to one adjoining tribe more than another. They are indeed associated
with the Scots or Irish as joint plunderers of the colonial Britons;
and the expression of Gildas that they differed in some degree from
the Scots in their customs, might seem to imply that they _did_ bear
an analogy to that nation in certain respects. Of course, where
there is such a lack of direct evidence, there is more scope for
conjecture; and the Picts are pronounced by different investigators
of their history to have been Germans, Scandinavians, Welsh, Gael,
or something distinct from all the four. The advocates of the German
hypothesis rest chiefly on Tacitus’s description of their physical
conformation. Dr. Jamieson, assuming that the present Lowland Scotch
dialect was derived from them, sets them down as Scandinavians;
Bishop Lloyd and Camden conceive them to have been of Celtic race,
probably related to the Britons; Chalmers, the author of ‘Caledonia,’
regards them as nothing more than a tribe of Cambrians or Welsh;
while Skene, one of the latest authors on the subject, thinks he has
proved that they were the ancestors of the present race of Scottish
Highlanders.”[24]
The earliest known name applied to Britain is found in a treatise
on the World ascribed to Aristotle, in which the larger island is
called _Albinn_, and Ireland referred to as _Ierne_; and it is
worthy of notice that at the present day the former is the name
applied to Scotland by the Highlanders, who call themselves the
_Gael Albinnich_. The first author, however, who gives us any
information about the early inhabitants of the north part of Scotland
is Tacitus, who, in his _Life of Agricola_, devotes a few lines, in
a parenthetical way, to characterising each of the great divisions
of the people who, in the time of that general, inhabited Britain.
Tacitus tells us that in his time the inhabitants of Britain differed
in the habit and make of their bodies, and from the ruddy locks and
large limbs of the Caledonians he inferred that they were of German
origin.[25] This glimpse is clear enough, but tantalizing in its
meagreness and generality. What does Tacitus mean by _German_--does
he use it in the same sense as we do at the present day? Does he mean
by Caledonia the whole of the country north of the Forth and Clyde,
or does it apply only to that district--Fife, Forfar, the east of
Perth, &c.--with the inhabitants of which his father-in-law came in
contact? We find Ptolemy the geographer, who flourished about the
middle of the 2d century A.D., mentioning the Caledonians as one of
the many tribes which in his time inhabited the north of Scotland.
The term Caledonians is supposed by some authorities to have been
derived from a native word signifying “men of the woods,” or the
inhabitants of the woody country; this, however, is mere conjecture.
The next writer who gives any definite information as to the
inhabitants of Caledonia is Dion Cassius, who flourished in the
early part of the 3d century, and who wrote a history of Rome
which has come down to us in a very imperfect state. Of the latter
part, containing an account of Britain, we possess only an epitome
made by Xiphilinus, an ecclesiastic of the 11th century, and which
of course is very meagre in its details. The following are the
particulars given by this writer concerning the early inhabitants of
north Britain. “Of the Britons the two most ample nations are the
Caledonians and the Mæatæ; for the names of the rest refer for the
most part to these. The Mæatæ inhabit very near the wall[26] which
divides the island into two parts; the Caledonians are after these.
Each of them inhabit mountains, very rugged and wanting water, and
also desert fields, full of marshes: they have neither castles nor
cities, nor dwell in any: they live on milk and by hunting, and
maintain themselves by the fruits of the trees: for fishes, of which
there is a very great and numberless quantity, they never taste: they
dwell naked in tents and without shoes: they use wives in common, and
whatever is born to them they bring up. In the popular state they
are governed, as for the most part: they rob on the highway most
willingly: they war in chariots: horses they have, small and fleet;
their infantry, also, are as well most swift at running, as most
brave in pitched battle. Their arms are a shield and a short spear,
in the upper part whereof is an apple of brass, that, while it is
shaken, it may terrify the enemies with the sound: they have likewise
daggers. They are able to bear hunger, cold, and all afflictions; for
they merge themselves in marshes, and there remain many days, having
only their head out of water: and in woods are nourished by the bark
and roots of trees. But a certain kind of food they prepare for all
occasions, of which if they take as much as ‘the size’ of a single
bean, they are in nowise ever wont to hunger or thirst.”[27]
From this we learn that in the 3d century there were two divisions
of the inhabitants of the Highlands, known to the Romans as the
Caledonians and Mæats or Mæatæ, the latter very probably inhabiting
the southern part of that territory, next to the wall of Antonine,
and the former the district to the north of this. As to whether these
were Latinized forms of native names, or names imposed by the Romans
themselves, we have no means of judging. The best writers on this
subject think that the Caledonians and Mæats were two divisions of
the same people, both living to the north of the Forth and Clyde,
although Innes,[28] and one or two minor writers, are of opinion that
the Mæats were provincial Britons who inhabited the country between
the wall of Hadrian and that of Antonine, known as the province of
Valentia. However, with Skene,[29] Mr. Joseph Robertson, and other
able authorities, we are inclined to think that the evidence is in
favour of their being the inhabitants of the southern portion of
Caledonia proper.
Herodian,[30] who wrote about A.D. 240, tells us that the Caledonians
were in the habit of marking or painting their bodies with figures of
animals, and that they wore no clothes in order that these figures
might be preserved and exhibited.
The next reference made by a Roman writer to the inhabitants of
Caledonia we find in a panegyric pronounced in his presence on the
Emperor Constantius Chlorus, by Eumenius, a professor of rhetoric at
Augustodunum (_Autun_) in Gaul, in the year 296 or 297, who speaks
of the Britons, in the time of Cæsar, having been attacked by the
half-naked _Picts_ and Irish. To what people the orator meant to
apply the term _Picts_, around which there has clustered so much
acrimonious disputation, we learn from another oration pronounced
by him on the same emperor, before his son Constantine, in the year
309, in which, recording the actions of Constantius, he speaks of the
woods and marshes of _the Caledonians and other Picts_.
After this no further mention is made of the Caledonians by any Roman
writer, but towards the end of the 4th century Ammianus Marcellinus,
in his account of the Roman transactions in Britain, speaks of the
Picts in conjunction with the Saxons, Scots, and Attacots harassing
the provincial Britons about the year 364. Further on he informs us
that at this time the Picts were divided into two tribes or nations,
the Dicaledones and Vecturiones, remarking, at the same time, that
“the Attacots were a warlike race of men, and the Scots a people much
given to wandering, and in the habit of ravaging or laying waste the
districts into which they came.”[31]
Claudian the poet, writing, about 397, in praise of Honorius,
mentions, among other actions of Theodosius, the grandfather of that
emperor, his having subdued the Picts, who were fitly so named,[32]
and makes various other references to this people and the Scots,
which show that these two in combination were troubling the Roman
provincials not a little.[33]
Such are most of the scanty details given by the only contemporary
historians who take any notice of the inhabitants of North Britain;
and the unprejudiced reader will see that the foundation thus
afforded upon which to construct any elaborate theory is so narrow
that every such theory must resemble a pyramid standing on its apex,
liable at the slightest touch to topple over and be shattered to
pieces. It appears to us that all the conclusions which it is safe to
draw from the few facts stated by the contemporary Roman historians
are, that at the commencement of the Christian era Caledonia proper,
or the Highlands, was inhabited by a people or peoples apparently
considerable in number, and who in all probability had been settled
there for a considerable time, part of whom at least were known to
the Romans by the name of Caledonians. That these Caledonians, those
of them at any rate with whom Agricola came in contact in the first
century, were red or fair haired and large limbed, from which Tacitus
inferred that they were of German extraction. In the beginning of the
third century there were at least two divisions of the inhabitants
of Caledonia,--the Caledonians and Mæats,--the former inhabiting
the country to the north of the Grampians, and the latter, in all
probability, that to the south and south-east of these mountains.
They appear to have been in many respects in a condition little
removed from that of savages, although they must have made wonderful
attainments in the manufacture of implements of war.
In the latter part of the third century we found the Highlanders
spoken of under a new name, _Picti_, which the Roman historians
at least, undoubtedly understood to be the Latin word meaning
‘painted,’[34] and which all the best modern writers believe to
have been imposed by the Romans themselves, from the fact that the
indomitable Caledonians had retained the custom of self-painting
after all the Romanized Britons had given it up. There is the
strongest probability that the Caledonians spoken of as Picts by
Eumenius were the same as the Caledonians of Tacitus, or that the
Caledonians and Picts were the same people under different names.
The immediate cause for this change of name we have no means of
ascertaining. It is in every way improbable that the Picts were a
new people, who had come in upon the Caledonians, and supplanted
them some time after Agricola’s invasion. The Romans were constantly
coming into contact with the Caledonians from the time of Agricola
till they abandoned Britain entirely, and had such a supplantation
taken place, it certainly could not have been done quietly, and
without the cognizance of the Romans. But we find no mention in any
contemporary historian of any such commotion, and we know that the
inhabitants of the Highlands never ceased to harass the British
provincials, showing that they were not much taken up with any
internal disturbance. Indeed, writers who adopt the most diverse
opinions on other points in connection with the Pictish question are
all agreed as to this, that the Caledonians and Picts were the same
people.[35]
We learn further from our authorities, that towards the end of the
fourth century the inhabitants of Caledonia were known to the Romans
under the names of Dicaledones and Vecturiones, it being conjectured
that these correspond to the Caledonians and Mæats of Dio, and the
Northern and Southern Picts of a later period. The connection of the
latter part of the word Di-caledones with _Caledonii_ is evident,
although the significance of the first syllable is doubtful,--some
authorities conjecturing that it is the Gaelic word _du_, meaning
“genuine.” It appears at all events to be established that during
the early history of the Highlands, whatever other divisions may
have existed among the inhabitants, those dwelling to the north
and those dwelling to the south of the Grampians were two separate
confederacies, and were known by distinct names.
Another not unimportant fact to be learned from the Roman historians
in relation to the Picts or Caledonians is, that about the middle
of the 4th century they were assisted by the Attacots, Saxons, and
Scots. As to who the Attacots were it is now impossible to conjecture
with anything like certainty, there being no sufficient reason for
believing that they were allied to the Irish Scots. It is well enough
known who the Saxons were, but how they came at this early period to
be acting in concert with the Picts it is difficult to say. It is
possible that numbers of them may have effected a settlement, even
at this early period, in North Britain, although it is more likely
that they were roving adventurers, who had left their homes, from
choice or on compulsion, to try their fortune in Britain. They were
probably the first droppings of the abundant shower that overwhelmed
South Britain a century later. The Romans at this period had an
officer with the title of “Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam;”
and Claudian, in his praises of Stilicho, introduces Britain, saying--
“Illius effectum curis, ne bella timerem
Scotica, ne Pictum tremerem, ne littore toto
Prospicerem dubiis venturum Saxona ventis.”
It is interesting to notice that this[36] is the first mention made
of the Scots in connection with what is now Scotland; but whether
there were settlements of them at this time among the Picts, or
whether they had come over from Ireland for the purpose of assisting
the latter to harass the Romans, it is difficult to say. Probably, as
was the case with the Saxons, these were the harbingers of the great
migration that reached its culmination about a century and a half
later. They appear, from what Ammianus says, to have been at this
time a set of destructive vagabonds. We shall have more to say about
them further on.
From the general tone of these contemporary Roman historians we
learn that, whether Celtic or Gothic, these Picts or Caledonians
were a hardy, indomitable, determined race, with a strong love of
liberty and of the country in which they dwelt, and a resolution
never to be subject to the greedy Roman. Comparatively few and
barbarous as they were, they caused the Romans far more trouble
than all the rest of Britain together; to conquer the latter and
Romanize it appears to have been comparatively smooth work, but the
Italians acknowledged the Highlanders invincible by building walls
and other fortifications, and maintaining extra garrisons to protect
the provincials from their fierce and wasting inroads. Whether
the present Highlanders are the descendants of these or not, they
certainly possess many of their qualities.
It will have been seen that the Roman historians give us almost no
clue to what we now deem of most interest and importance, the place
of the early inhabitants among the families of men, the time and
manner of their arrival, the language they spoke, and their internal
history generally. Of course the records of contemporaries stand in
the first place of importance as evidences, and although we have
other sources, historical, linguistic, and antiquarian, which shed a
little light upon the subject, these, for various reasons, must be
used with great caution. The only statement approaching to anything
like a hint as to the origin of the Caledonians is that of Tacitus,
referring to their ruddy locks and large limbs as an evidence of
their German origin. There is no reason to doubt that those with whom
Agricola came in contact were of this make and complexion, which, at
the present day, are generally held to be indicative of a Teutonic
origin; whereas the true Celt is popularly believed to be of a small
make and dark complexion.[37] It may have been, that in Agricola’s
time the part of the country into which he penetrated was occupied
by considerable numbers of Teutons, who had effected a settlement
either by force, or by favour of the prior inhabitants. The statement
of Tacitus, however, those who uphold the Celtic theory endeavour to
explain away.
We may safely say then, that with regard to all the most important
points that have excited the curiosity of modern enquirers, the
only contemporary historians to whom we can appeal, leave us almost
entirely in the dark.
The writers, next in order of importance to whom an appeal is
made as witnesses in this perplexing case, are the ecclesiastical
chroniclers, the chief of whom are Gildas, Adamnan, Bede, Nennius.
“Much of the error into which former writers have been led, has
arisen from an improper use of these authors; they should be
consulted exclusively as contemporary historians--whatever they
assert as existing or occurring in their own time, or shortly before
it, we may receive as true; but when we consider the perverted
learning of that period, and the little information which they appear
to have possessed of the traditions of the people around them, we
ought to reject their fables or fanciful origins as altogether
undeserving of credit.”[38] Though this dictum may perhaps be
too sweeping, still any one who examines the authors referred to
for himself, must admit that it is in the main just. It is well
known that these writers exercise little or no discrimination in
the composition of their narratives, that tradition, miracle, and
observed fact are placed side by side, as all equally worthy of
belief. Even Bede, the most reliable and cautious of these early
chroniclers, lived as long after some of the events of which he
professes to give an account, as we of the present day do after the
time of the Crusades; almost his sole authority being tradition or
hearsay. Moreover, the knowledge which these writers had of the
distinction between the various races of mankind was so very hazy,
the terms they use are to us so comparatively unintelligible, and the
information they do contain on the points in dispute so brief, vague,
and parenthetical, that their value as authorities is reduced almost
to a minimum.
Whoever was the author of the work _De Excidio Britanniæ_, one of
the latest and most acute writers[39] on ethnology has shown that he
is almost totally unworthy of credit, the sources of his information
being exceedingly suspicious, and his statements proved to be false
by comparison with trustworthy contemporary Roman historians.
There is every reason to believe that the so-called Gildas--for
by Mr. Wright[40] he has been reduced to a _nominis umbra_--lived
and wrote about the middle of the 6th century A.D., so that, had
he used ordinary diligence and discrimination, he might have been
of considerable assistance in enabling us to solve the perplexing
mystery of the Pictish question. But indeed we have no right to
look for much history in the work of Gildas, as it professes to be
merely a complaint “on the general destruction of every thing that is
good, and the general growth of evil throughout the land;” it is his
purpose, he says, “to relate the deeds of an indolent and slothful
race, rather than the exploits of those who have been valiant in the
field.”[41] So far as the origin and early history of the Picts is
concerned, Gildas is of almost no value whatever, the only time he
mentions the Picts being incidentally to notice an invasion they had
made into the Roman provinces.[42] If we can trust him, the Picts
and their allies, the Scots, must have been very fierce enemies to
deal with. They went about, he tells us, almost entirely destitute
of clothes, having their faces covered with bushy hair, and were in
the habit of dragging the poor enervated Britons from the top of
their protecting wall with hooked weapons, slaughtering them without
mercy. Some writers infer from this narrative that, during the Roman
occupation, no permanent settlement of Scots had been effected in
present Scotland, but that the Scots who assisted the Picts came
over from their native Scotland (Ireland) for that purpose; he tells
us that the Scots came from the north-west, and the Picts from the
north.[43] “North-west” here, however, would apply quite as well to
Argyle as to Ireland.
The writer next in chronological order from whom we derive any
information of consequence concerning the Picts is Adamnan, a member
of the early Irish Church, who was born in the county of Donegal
about the year 625, elected abbot of Iona in 679, and who died in
the year 704. Adamnan wrote a life of his great predecessor St.
Columba, in which is contained much information concerning that
great missionary’s labours among the Northern Picts; and although
he narrates many stories which are palpably incredible, still the
book contains much which may with confidence be accepted as fact. In
connection with the questions under consideration, we learn that,
in the time of Columba and Adamnan, there were--as formerly, in the
time of the Roman writers--two divisions of the Picts, known in
the 7th century and afterwards as the Northern and Southern Picts.
Adamnan informs us that Columba’s mission was to the Northern Picts
alone,--the southern division having been converted by St. Ninian in
the 5th century. There has been much disputation as to the precise
district inhabited by each of these two divisions of the Picts,--some
maintaining that the southern division occupied the country to the
south of the Forth and Clyde, while the Northern Picts occupied the
whole district to the north of these estuaries. The best authorities,
however, are of opinion that both divisions dwelt to the north of
Antonine’s wall, and were divided from each other by the Grampians.
What more immediately concerns our present purpose is a passage in
Adamnan’s work in which he speaks of Columba preaching to the Picts
through an interpreter. Now Columba was an Irish Scot, whose native
tongue was Gaelic, and it is from this argued that the Picts to
whom he preached must have spoken a different language, or at least
dialect, and belonged to a different race or tribe from the saint
himself. Mr. Skene,[44] who ably advocates the Gaelic origin of the
Picts, perceiving this difficulty, endeavours to explain away the
force of the passage by making it mean that Columba “interpreted or
explained the word of God, that is, the Bible, which, being written
in Latin, would doubtless require to be interpreted to them.” The
passage as quoted by Skene is, “Verbo Dei per interpretorem recepto.”
Garnett, however, one of the most competent and candid writers on
this question in its philological aspect, and who maintains, with the
greatest clearness and ability, the Cymric origin of the Picts, looks
at the passage in a different light. The entire passage, he says,[45]
as it stands in Colganus, is as follows:--“Alio in tempore quo
sanctus Columba in Pictorum provincia per aliquot demorabatur dies,
quidam cum tota plebeius familia, verbum _vitæ_ per interpretorem,
_Sancto prædicante viro_, audiens credidit, credensque baptizatus
est.”[46] “Here it will be observed,” continues Garnett, “Adamnan
does not say, ‘verbum Dei,’ which might have been construed to mean
the Scripture, but ‘verbum _vitæ, Sancto prædicante viro_,’ which can
hardly mean anything but ‘the word of life, as it was preached by
the Saint.’” Certainly, we think, the unprejudiced reader must admit
that, so far as this point is concerned, Mr. Garnett has the best of
it. Although at that time the Gaelic and Cymric dialects may have had
much more in common than they have at the present day, nevertheless
it appears to be beyond a doubt that the difference between the two
was so great that a Gael would be unintelligible to a speaker of
Cymric.[47]
The next and most important authority of this class on this _quæstio
vexata_ is the Venerable Bede, who, considering the age in which he
lived, exercised so much caution and discrimination, that he deserves
to be listened to with respect. Bede was born about 673. He was
educated in the Monastery of Wearmouth, whence he removed to Jarrow,
where he was ordained deacon in his nineteenth year, and priest in
his thirtieth, and where he spent the rest of his days, dying in
735. He wrote many works, but the most important is the _Historia
Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum_, the materials for which he obtained
chiefly from native chronicles and biographies, records and public
documents, and oral and written communications from contemporaries.
We shall transcribe most of the passage in which Bede speaks of the
ancient inhabitants of Britain; so that our readers may be able to
judge for themselves of the nature and value of the testimony borne
by this venerable author. It must, however, be kept in mind that Bede
does not pretend to give any but the ecclesiastical history of the
English nation, everything else being subsidiary to this.
“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. At
first this island had no other inhabitants but the Britons, from
whom it derived its name, and who coming over into Britain, as is
reported, from Armorica, possessed themselves of the southern parts
thereof. When they, beginning at the south, had made themselves
master of the greatest part of the island, it happened, that the
nation of the Picts coming into the ocean from Scythia, as is
reported, in a few tall ships, were driven by the winds beyond the
shores of Britain and arrived off Ireland, on the northern coasts,
where, finding the nation of the Scots, they requested to be allowed
to settle among them, but could not succeed in obtaining their
request. The Scots answered, that the island could not contain them
both; but ‘we can give you good advice,’ said they, ‘what to do; we
know there is another island, not far from ours, to the eastward,
which we often see at a distance, when the days are clear. If you
will repair thither, you may be able to obtain settlements; or if
they should oppose you, you may make use of us as auxiliaries.’
The Picts accordingly sailing over into Britain, began to inhabit
the northern parts thereof, for the Britons were possessed of the
southern. Now the Picts having no wives, and asking them of the
Scots, they would not consent to grant them upon any other terms,
than that when any difficulty should arise, they should rather choose
themselves a king from the female royal race than from the male;
which custom, as is well known, has been observed among the Picts
to this day. In process of time, Britain, besides the Britons and
the Picts, received a third nation, the Scots, who, departing out of
Ireland under their leader Reuda, either by fair means, or by force
of arms, secured to themselves those settlements among the Picts
which they still possess. From the name of their commander, they are
to this day called Dalreudins; for in their language _Dal_ signifies
a part.... It is properly the country of the Scots, who, migrating
from thence, as has been said, added a third nation in Britain to the
Britons and the Picts. There is a very large gulf of the sea, which
formerly divided the nation of the Picts from the Britons; which gulf
runs from the west very far into the land, where, to this day, stands
the strong city of the Britons, called Alcluith. The Scots arriving
on the north side of this bay, settled themselves there.”[48]
Here then Bede informs us that in his time the common report was
that the Picts came into Scotland from Scythia, which, like the
Germania of Tacitus, may be taken to mean the northern countries of
Europe generally. This is substantially the same statement as that of
the author of the _Historia Britonum_, commonly called Nennius, who
lived in the 9th century, and who informs us that the Picts coming to
Scotland about 300 B.C., occupied the Orkney Islands, whence issuing,
they laid waste many regions, and seized those on the left-hand
side, _i.e._ the north of Britain, where they still remained in the
writer’s time, keeping possession of a third part of Britain.[49]
Supposing that Bede’s report was quite in accordance with truth,
still it gives us but small help in coming to a conclusion as to the
place of these Picts among the families of men. It is certain that by
far the greater part of Europe had at one time a Celtic population
who preceded, but ultimately gave way to another wave of emigrants
from the east. Now, if we knew the date at which this so-called
migration of the Picts took place it might be of considerable
assistance to us; but as we cannot now find out whether these
emigrants proceeded from a Celtic or a Teutonic stock, the statement
of Bede, even if reliable, helps us not at all towards a solution
of the question as to the race of the Picts. Innes[50] remarks very
justly on this point--“Now, supposing that there were any good ground
for the opinion of these two writers, which they themselves give only
as a conjecture or hearsay, and that we had any certainty of the
Caledonians, or Picts, having had their origin from the more northern
parts of the European continent, it were an useless, as well as an
endless discussion, to examine in particular from which of all the
northern nations of the continent the first colony came to Caledonia;
because that these nations of the north were almost in perpetual
motion, and changing habitations, as Strabo remarks; and he assigns
for it two reasons: the one, because of the barrenness of the soil,
they tilled not the ground, and built habitations only for a day; the
other, because being often overpowered by their neighbours, they were
forced to remove. Another reason why it is impossible to know from
which of those nations the northern parts of Britain, (supposing
they came from thence) were at first peopled, is because we have
but very lame accounts of these northern nations from the Greek or
Roman writers, (from whom alone we can look for any thing certain
in those early times) especially of those of Scandia, to the north
of the Baltic sea, as the same Strabo observes. Besides, it appears
that Caledonia was peopled long before the inhabitants of these
northern parts of the continent were mentioned, or even known by the
most ancient writers we have; and perhaps before the first nations
mentioned by them were settled in those parts.”
There is, however, another statement made by Bede in the passage
quoted, upon which, as it refers to his own time, much more reliance
can be placed; it is, that in his time Britain contained five
nations, each having its own peculiar dialect, viz., the English,
Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins. We know that the English spoke
in the main Saxon; the Britons, _i.e._, the inhabitants of Wales,
Cumbria, &c., Welsh; the Scots, Gaelic; the Latins, we suppose, being
the Romanized Britons and ecclesiastics. What language then did the
Picts speak? As we know that Bede never travelled, he must have got
his information from an informant or by hearsay, which circumstance
rather detracts from its value. But supposing we take the passage
literally as it stands, we learn that in Bede’s time there were five
distinct peoples or nations, whose names he gives, sharing among them
the island. He does not say there were five distinct tongues, which
would have been quite a different statement; he speaks of them not
so much in respect of their language as in respect of their being
the separate items which composed the inhabitants of Britain. In his
time they were all quite distinct, in a measure independent of and
at enmity with each other. He does not classify them in respect of
the race to which they belonged, but with reference to the particular
districts which they inhabited, and perhaps with regard to the time
and means of their conversion to Christianity, each having been
converted at a different time and by a different saint. The substance
then of what he says appears to be, that there were in his time
five distinct tribes or congregations of people in Britain, each
converted to Christianity, and each having the gospel preached in
its own tongue. Supposing that the Picts and Scots, or Picts and
Britons, or Picts and English did speak exactly the same tongue,
it is not at all likely that Bede, in the present case, would have
classed them together as both being one nation. Moreover, suppose we
allow that Bede did mean that each of these nations spoke a language
quite distinct from all the others, then his statement cuts equally
at the Gothic and Celtic theory. The conclusion we are forced to is,
that from this passage nothing can be gained to help us out of our
difficulty.
There is a statement at the end of the passage quoted to which we
would draw the reader’s attention, as being Bede’s way, and no doubt
the universal way in his time, of accounting for a peculiar law which
appears to have regulated the succession to the Pictish throne, and
which ultimately, according to some, was the means of placing on that
throne a Scottish monarch; thus accounting to some extent for the
sudden disappearance and apparent destruction of the Pictish people
and language.
We shall here refer to one other passage in the same historian, which
has perhaps given rise to greater and more acrimonious contention
than any other point in connection with this wordy discussion. The
only word that has come down to us, which, with the exception of
the names of the Pictish kings, we can be sure is a remnant of the
Pictish language, is the name said by Bede to have been given to the
eastern termination of the wall of Antonine. Bede,[51] in speaking
of the turf wall built by the Britons of Valentia in the beginning
of the 5th century, says, “it begins at about two miles distance
from the monastery of Abercorn on the west, at a place called in the
Pictish language _Peanfahel_, but in the English tongue Penneltum.”
This statement of Bede’s is straightforward and clear enough, and
has never been disputed by any writer on any one of the three sides
of the question. Nevertheless it has been used by the advocates
respectively of the Gothic, Gaelic, and Cymric origin of the Picts,
as an undoubted proof of the correctness of each of these theories.
Pinkerton, whose dishonesty and acrimoniousness are well known, and
must detract considerably from the force of his arguments, claims
it as being entirely Gothic or Teutonic. “The Pictish word,” he
says,[52] “is broad Gothic; _Paena_ ‘to extend,’ Ihre; and _Vahel_,
a broad sound of _veal_, the Gothic for ‘wall,’ or of the Latin
_vallum_, contracted _val_; hence it means ‘the extent or end of
the wall.’” This statement of Pinkerton’s may be dismissed as too
far-fetched and awkward to merit much consideration, and we may
safely regard the word as capable of satisfactory explanation only
in Celtic. Innes, who upholds the British, _i.e._ the Cymric, origin
of the Picts, says,[53] “we nowhere find a clearer proof of the
Pictish language being the same as the British [Welsh], than in Bede,
where he tells us that _Penuahel_ in Pictish signifies the head of
the wall, which is just the signification that the same two words
_Pen_ and _Uahel_ have in the British.” In this opinion Chalmers
and other advocates of the Cymric theory coincide. Mr. Garnett, who
essentially agrees with Innes and Chalmers as to the Cymric origin
of the Picts, lays little stress upon this word as furnishing an
argument in support of his theory. “Almost the only Pictish word
given us by an ancient writer is the well-known _Pen val_ (or as it
appears in the oldest MSS. of Bede (_Peann fahel_)), the name given
by the Picts to the _Wall’s End_, or eastern termination of the
Vallum of Antoninus. It is scarcely necessary to say the first part
of the word is decidedly Cymric; _pen_, head, being contrary to all
Gaelic analogy. The latter half might be plausibly claimed as the
Gaelic _fal_; _gwall_ being the more common termination in Welsh for
a wall or rampart. _Fal_, however, does occur in Welsh in the sense
of _inclosure_, a signification not very remote.”[54]
The two most recent and able supporters[55] of the Gaelic theory
are of much the same mind as Garnett, and appear to regard this
tantalizing word as affording no support to either side. Burton[56]
cannot admit that anything has been made out of this leading to a
historical conclusion.
We may safely conclude, then, that this so called Pictish word, or,
indeed, any information which we find in Bede, affords us no key to
the perplexing question of the origin and race of the Picts.
We learn, however, one fact from Bede[57] which is so far
satisfactory, viz., that in his time there were two divisions of
the Picts, known as the Northern and Southern Picts, which were
separated from each other by steep and rugged mountains. On reading
the passage in Bede, one very naturally supposes that the steep and
rugged mountains must be the Grampians, to which the expression
applies more aptly than to any other mountain-chain in Scotland. Even
this, however, has been made matter of dispute, it being contended by
some that the locality of the Southern Picts was in the south-west
and south of Scotland, where some writers set up a powerful Pictish
kingdom. Mr. Grub,[58] however, has clearly shown that the locality
of the Southern Picts was to the north of the Forth and Clyde, and to
the south of the Grampians. “The mistake formerly so common in regard
to the country of the Southern Picts converted by St. Ninian, was in
part owing to the situation of Candida Casa. It was supposed that
his see must have been in the country of those whom he converted.”
He clearly proves that it was not so in reality, and that there was
nothing so unusual in the situation as to justify the conclusion
which was drawn from it. “It was, no doubt, the case that the
teachers by whom the chief Celtic and Teutonic nations were converted
generally fixed their seat among those whom they instructed in the
faith. But there was no necessity for this, especially when the
residence of the teacher was in the neighbourhood of his converts.
St. Columba was primate of all the churches of the Northern Picts,
but he did not permanently reside among that nation. St. Ninian had
ready access to his Pictish converts, and could govern them as
easily from his White Church on the Solway, as Columba could instruct
and rule the Northern Picts from his monastery in Iona.”[59]
Other authorities appealed to by the upholders of each of the Celtic
theories are the Welsh traditions, the Irish Annals, the Chronicles
of the Picts and Scots, and various legendary documents of more or
less value and authenticity. As these are of no greater authority
than the writers with whom we have been dealing, and as the partisans
of each theory claim the various passages as either confirming, or,
at any rate, not contradicting their views, we shall not further
trouble the reader with specimens of the manner in which they are
dealt with. There is one passage, however, in the Welsh Triads,
which the advocates of the Gaelic hypothesis claim as strongly
confirmatory of their theory. After referring to the coming in of
the Cymry, the Britons, etc., the Triads[60] go on to say, “Three
tribes came, under protection, into the Island of Britain, and by the
consent and permission of the nation of the Cymry, without weapon,
without assault. The first was the tribe of the Caledonians in the
north. The second was the Gwyddelian Race, which are now in Alban
(Scotland). The third were the men of Galedin, who came into the
Isle of Wight. Three usurping tribes came into the Island of Britain
and never departed out of it. The first were the _Coranied_, who
came from the land of Pwyl. The second were the Gwyddelian Ffichti,
who came into Alban over the sea of _Llychlyn_ (Denmark). The
third were the Saxons.” “The Triads,” says Skene[61] in connection
with this, “appear distinctly to have been written previous to the
Scottish conquest in the ninth century, and they mention among the
three usurping tribes of Britain the ‘_Gwyddyl Ffichti_,’ and add
immediately afterwards, ‘and these Gwyddyl Ffichti are in Alban,
along the shore of the sea of _Llychlyn_.’ In another place, among
the treacherous tribes of Britain, the same Triads mention the
‘Gwyddyl coch o’r Werddon a ddaethant in Alban,’ that is ‘the Red
Gwyddyl from Ireland, who came into Alban,’ plainly alluding to the
Dalriads, who were an Irish colony, and who have been acknowledged
by all to have been a Gaelic race. It will be observed from these
passages that the Welsh Triads, certainly the oldest and most
unexceptionable authority on the subject, apply the same term of
Gwyddyl to the Picts and to the Dalriads, and consequently they must
have been of the same race, and the Picts a Gaelic people. Farther,
the Welsh word ‘Gwyddyl,’ by which they distinguish that race, has
been declared by all the best authorities to be exactly synonymous
with the word Gael, the name by which the Highlanders have at all
times been distinguished, and the Welsh words ‘Gwyddyl Ffichti’
cannot be interpreted to mean any thing else than ‘The Gaelic Picts,’
_or_ ‘Pictish Gael.’”
The following is the substance of the information given by the Irish
writers as to the origin, race, and early history of the Picts.
The greater part of it is, of course, mere tradition, accumulating
as it grew older, and heightened by the imagination of the writers
themselves.[62] The Picts were called by the Irish writers
_Cruithnidh_, which O’Brien considers to be the same as Britneigh,
or Britons; but according to others the name was derived from
_Cruthen_, who founded the kingdom of the Picts in North Britain,
in the first century; others derive the name from _Cruit_, a harp,
hence Cruitneach, the Irish for Pict, also signifies a harper, as
they are said to have been celebrated harpers. The ancient Britons
are mentioned by Cæsar, and other Roman writers, to have painted
their bodies of a blue colour, with the juice of a plant called
woad, hence the painted Britons were called by the Romans _Picti_.
The Picts or Cruthneans, according to the Psalter of Cashel, and
other ancient annals, came from Thrace, in the reign of the Milesian
monarch Heremon, nearly a thousand years before the Christian era,
and landed at Inver Slainge, now the Bay of Wexford, under two chief
commanders named Gud and Cathluan, but not being permitted to settle
in Ireland, they sailed to Albain, or that part of North Britain, now
Scotland, their chiefs having been kindly supplied with wives of
Irish birth. The Cruthneans became possessed of North Britain, and
founded there the kingdom of the Picts. A colony of the Cruthneans,
or Picts, from North Britain, settled in Ulster in early times, and
are often mentioned from the first to the ninth century; they resided
chiefly in Dalaradia and Tir Eogain, or parts of Down, Antrim, and
Derry, and became mixed by intermarriages with the old Irish of the
Irian race, and were ruled over by their own princes and chiefs; and
some of those Picts, also settled in Connaught, in the county of
Roscommon. According to the Irish writers, the Picts, in their first
progress to Ireland from Thrace, settled a colony in Gaul, and the
tribes called Pictones and Pictavi, in that country, were descended
from them, and they gave name to Pictavia, or the city of Poictiers,
and the province of Poitou; and from these Picts were descended
the Vendeans of France. _The Caledonians_, or first inhabitants of
Scotland, are considered to have been the same as the Picts, and
mixed with Cimbrians or Britons, and some of the Milesian Scots from
Ireland.
The advocates of the various theories, apparently aware of how little
can be made of the meagre and suspicious information afforded by
these early histories and chronicles, have latterly made language
the principal battle-ground on which to fight out this endless and
profitless strife. Most of them take for granted that if the language
spoken by any people can be found out, a sure indication is afforded
of the race to which that people belonged; and that the topography
of a country must necessarily have been imposed by the earliest
inhabitants of whom we have record; and that, if so, the limits of
their territory must have been co-extensive with the limits of such
topography. This, however, is going too far. All the length to which
we are permitted in fairness to go, when we find in any district
or country an abundance of names of natural objects, as rivers and
mountains, which can with certainty be traced to any particular
language, is, that at one time or other, a race of people speaking
this language must have passed over and dwelt for some time in that
particular district or country. We find Celtic names of rivers and
mountains scattered all over Europe, in the midst of peoples who are
admitted on all hands to have little or none of the Celtic element
in them.[63] So that an unprejudiced judge must admit that the fact
of Cymric and Gaelic words being found in certain districts of the
north of Scotland argues only that at one time people speaking these
dialects must have dwelt in these districts. It affords no proof by
itself that the people whom we first meet with in these districts are
the people who spoke these dialects, and who imposed these names; nor
indeed, if we could be sure that the people whom we first meet with
as inhabitants also spoke the dialect to which such names belong,
does it prove that they were the imposers of these names, that the
dialect was their native and original tongue, and that they had not
acquired it either as conquerors or conquered. Nor can it be adduced
as a proof of sameness of race, that the present inhabitants of any
particular district speak the same language as those who inhabited
that district 1800 years ago or less. “He who trusts to language, and
especially to written language, alone, as an index to race, must be
prepared to maintain that the Gallic nation emigrated from the seven
hills of Rome, and that the Franks came with them; that the Romans
extirpated the Celts and Iberians of Spain, and that the Goths and
Moors spoke nearly the same language as the Romans; that the Negroes
of the United States and Jamaica were exported from England when in
their infancy. So would Philology, if left to herself, interpret
phenomena, of which we know, from other sources of information, that
the causes are totally different.”[64] “The clearest proof that a
mountain or river has a Celtic name, only shows that at some time
or other Celts had been there; it does not tell us when they were
there. Names, as the experience of the world amply shows, live after
the people who bestowed them have long disappeared, and that through
successive races of occupants.”[65]
The materials which have been wrought up into a linguistic argument
by the upholders of each of the three Pictish theories, Gothic,
Gaelic, and Cymric, are chiefly a list of Pictish kings which, we
believe, may be depended on as authentic, and the topography of the
country to the east and south-east of the Grampians, together with
the single so-called Pictish word _Peanfahel_, which we have already
considered. The theorists differ as much in their interpretation
of the significance of what remains of the Pictish language, as we
have seen they do in their interpretation of any references to the
subject in dispute in ancient chronicles. The names of the kings, and
the names of places have been traced by the disputants to Gothic,
Gaelic and Cymric roots. As an amusing specimen of the ingenuity
displayed in this hunt after roots, we give below a small table from
Burton, comparing the different etymologies of names of kings given
by Pinkerton, Chalmers, and Jamieson.[66]
It is, however, generally admitted at the present day, that so far
as language is concerned, the Gothic theory has not the remotest
chance; that names of places and of kings are most satisfactorily
and straightforwardly explained by Cymric roots. As the Gothic or
Teutonic theory cannot stand the test of modern criticism, we shall
content ourselves with giving specimens of the manner in which the
linguistic, or, more strictly, topographical argument is used by the
advocates of the Cymric and Gaelic hypotheses respectively.
The Cymric argument is clearly, ably, and succinctly stated by Mr.
Garnett in his essay on “The Relation of the Pict and Gael;” he,
however, it must be remembered, looked at the whole question mainly
in its philological aspect. In stating the argument we shall use
chiefly his own words.[67] “That the Picts were actually Celts,
and not of Teutonic race, is proved to a demonstration by the names
of their kings; of whom a list, undoubtedly genuine from the fifth
century downwards, was published by Innes, from a manuscript in the
Colbertine library. Some of those appellations are, as far as we
know at present, confined to the Pictish sovereigns; but others are
well-known Welsh and Gaelic names. They differ, however, slightly in
their forms, from their Cymric equivalents; and more decidedly so
from the Gaelic ones; and, as far as they go, lead to the supposition
that those who bore them spoke a language bearing a remote analogy to
the Irish with its cognates, but a pretty close one to the Welsh.
“In the list furnished by Innes the names _Maelcon_, _Elpin_, _Taran_
(i.e. thunder), _Uven_ (Owen), _Bargoit_, are those of personages
well known in British history or tradition. _Wrgust_, which appears
as Fergus in the Irish annals, is the Welsh _Gwrgust_. _Talorg_,
_Talorgan_, evidently contain the British word _Tal_, forehead, a
common element in proper names; ex. gr. _Talhaiarn_, Iron Forehead;
_Taliesin_, splendid forehead, &c. _Taleurgain_ would signify in
Welsh golden or splendid front. Three kings are represented as
sons of _Wid_, in the Irish annals of _Foit_ or _Foith_. In Welsh
orthography it would be _Gwydd_, wild; a common name in Brittany
at the present day, under the form of _Gwez_. The names _Drust_,
_Drostan_, _Wrad_, _Necton_ (in Bede _Naitan_), closely resemble
the Welsh _Trwst_, _Trwstan_, _Gwriad_, _Nwython_. It will be
sufficient to compare the entire list with the Irish or Highland
genealogies, to be convinced that there must have been a material
distinction between the two branches. Most of the Pictish names
are totally unknown in Irish or Highland history, and the few that
are equivalent, such as Angus and Fergus, generally differ in form.
The Irish annalists have rather obscured the matter, by transforming
those names according to their national system of orthography; but it
is remarkable that a list in the ‘Book of Ballymote,’ partly given by
Lynch in his ‘Cambrensis Eversus,’ agrees closely with Innes, even
preserving the initial _w_ or _u_ where the Gaelic would require _f_.
The philological inferences to be deduced from this document may be
thus briefly summed up:--1. The names of the Pictish kings are not
Gaelic, the majority of them being totally unknown both in the Irish
and Highland dialects, while the few which have Gaelic equivalents
decidedly differ from them in form. Cineod (Kenneth) and Domhnall or
Donnel, appear to be the only exceptions. 2. Some of them cannot be
identified as Welsh; but the greater number are either identical with
or resemble known Cymric names; or approach more nearly to Welsh in
structure and orthography than to any other known language. 3. There
appears nevertheless to have been a distinction, amounting, at all
events, to a difference in dialect. The Pictish names beginning with
_w_ would in Welsh have _gw_, as _Gwrgust_ for _Wrgust_, and so of
the rest. There may have been other differences sufficient to justify
Bede’s statement that the Pictish language was distinct from the
British, which it might very well be without any impeachment of its
claim to be reckoned as closely cognate.”
We have already referred to the use made of the Pictish word
_Peannfahel_, preserved by Bede, and to the phrase in Adamnan
concerning Columba’s preaching by means of an interpreter. It is
contended by the upholders of the Cymric theory that the ancient
topographical appellations of the Pictish territory can in general
only be explained by the Cymric dialects, one strong point being
the number of local names beginning with the Welsh prefix _aber_,
which, according to Chalmers, was in several instances subsequently
changed by the Gael into _inver_. Skene,[68] who felt the force of
this argument, tried to get rid of it by contending that _aber_
is essentially a Gaelic word, being compounded of _ath_, ford, and
_bior_, water. Garnett thinks this explanation utterly gratuitous,
and observes that the term may be much more satisfactorily accounted
for by a different process. “There are,” he observes,[69] “three
words in Welsh denoting a meeting of waters--_aber_, _cynver_, and
_ynver_,--respectively compounded of the particles _a_, denoting
juxtaposition, _cyn_ (Lat. _con_), and _yn_, with the root _ber_,
flowing, preserved in the Breton verb _beri_, to flow, and all
virtually equivalent to our word _confluence_. _Inver_ is the only
term known in any Gaelic dialect, either as an appellative or in
proper names; and not a single local appellation with the prefix
aber occurs either in Ireland or the Hebrides, or on the west coast
of Scotland. Indeed, the fact that _inver_ was substituted for it
after the Gaelic occupation of the Pictish territories, is decisive
evidence on the point; for, if _aber_ was a term familiar to the
Gael, why should they change it?”
“In Scotland,” says Isaac Taylor,[70] who upholds the Cymric
hypothesis, “the _invers_ and _abers_ are distributed in a curious
and instructive manner. If we draw a line across the map from a point
a little south of Inverary, to one a little north of Aberdeen, we
shall find that (with very few exceptions) the _invers_ lie to the
north west of the line, and the _abers_ to the south-east of it. This
line nearly coincides with the present southern limit of the Gaelic
tongue, and probably also with the ancient division between the Picts
and Scots. Hence we may conclude that the Picts, a people belonging
to the Cymric branch of the Celtic stock, and whose language has now
ceased to be anywhere vernacular, occupied the central and eastern
districts of Scotland, as far as the Grampians; while the Gadhelic
Scots have retained their language, and have given their name to the
whole country. The local names prove, moreover, that in Scotland the
Cymry did not encroach on the Gael, but the Gael on the Cymry. The
intrusive names are _invers_, which invaded the land of the _abers_.
Thus on the shore of the Frith of Forth we find a few _invers_ among
the _abers_. The Welsh word _uchel_, high, may also be adduced to
prove the Cymric affinities of the Picts. This word does not exist
in either the Erse or the Gaelic languages, and yet it appears in
the name of the OCHIL HILLS, in Perthshire. Again, the Erse _bally_,
a town, occurs in 2,000 names in Ireland; and, on the other hand,
is entirely absent in Wales and Brittany. In Scotland this most
characteristic test-word is found frequently in the _inver_ district,
while it never appears among the _abers_. The evidence of these names
makes it impossible to deny that the Celts of the Scottish Lowlands
must have belonged to the Cymric branch of the Celtic stock.”
We infer from what Mr. Taylor says, that he is of opinion that at one
time the language of the whole of the north of Scotland was Cymric,
but that the district in which the Scots obtained a settlement
afterwards underwent a change of topography. But it is admitted
on all hands that the Scottish Dalriada comprehended no more than
the modern Argyllshire, extending no farther north than Loch Leven
and Loch Linnhe; and that the Irish Scots had little influence on
the people or their language to the north-west of the Grampians.
Indeed, Skene[71] maintains that this district, in which he places
the Northern Picts, was never subjected to the Scots, and that it
was only the Southern Picts who latterly came under their sway. Yet
we find that the _abers_ here are few and far between, or, indeed,
any indications of Cymric possession such as we find in the southern
district. Is it possible that the Northern and Southern Picts were
representatives of the two great divisions of the Celts,--the former
claiming a Gaelic origin, and the latter a Cymric? Perhaps after
all the Welsh Triads may in course of time be of some help in the
solution of this dark problem, as, according to them, there was more
than one Celtic settlement in Scotland before the migration of the
Scots. The passages above quoted are, to all appearance, much more
favourable to the Gaelic than to the Cymric hypothesis, and have
been made much of by Skene and other supporters of that side of the
question.
The Cymric origin of the Picts, besides Garnett and Taylor, is
supported by such names as Innes, Chalmers, Ritson, Whittaker, Grub,
and others.
Pinkerton, it is well known, is the great and unscrupulous upholder
of the Gothic origin of the Picts; while the Gaelic theory has for
its supporters such writers, of undoubted ability and acuteness, as
Skene, E. W. Robertson, Forbes-Leslie, &c. Burton[72] is of opinion
that the Highlanders of the present day are the true representatives
of the Dalriadic Scots of the West.
We shall, as we have done in the case of the other side, allow the
upholders of the Gaelic hypothesis to state for themselves the
Gaelic topographical argument. We shall use the words of Colonel
Forbes-Leslie, who, in his invaluable work on the “Early Races of
Scotland,”[73] says, “The Celtic words Inver and Aber have nearly
the same meaning; and the relative position in which they occur in
names of places has been employed as if it were a sufficient argument
for defining the presence or preponderance of the British or Gaelic
Celts in certain districts. In this way Aber, prefixed to names of
places, has been urged as adequate proof that the Picts of Caledonia
were Celts of the British branch. The value of these and some other
words requires examination. Inver is to be found in names of places
in Wales. It may possibly be a British word. It certainly is a Gaelic
one. Aber, although undoubtedly British, is also Gaelic--compounded
of the two words Ath and Bior--and signifying the same as Inver,
viz., the confluence of two streams, or the entrance to a river. If
the word Aber had been unknown to the Gaelic scholars of modern days,
its former existence in that language might have been presumed from
the ancient names of places in the districts of Caledonia, where it
occurs most frequently, being generally Gaelic and not British.
“Beyond the limits of Caledonia on the south of the Forth and
Clyde, but within the boundary of modern Scotland, the word Inver,
generally pronounced Inner, is of common occurrence, and bears
witness to a Gaelic nomenclature. Thus, Inner or Inverkip, in the
county of Renfrew; Innerwell, in the county of Wigton; Innerwick,
in the county of Haddington; Innerleithen, in the county of Peebles;
Inverleith and Inveresk, in the county of Edinburgh, derive their
names from their situation in regard to the rivers Kip, Leithen, Esk,
&c. &c.
“From the Moray Frith to the Forth, in the eastern counties of
Caledonia, the prefix Inver or Aber is used indiscriminately in
contiguous places. At the confluence of lesser streams with the river
Dee, in Aberdeenshire, we find Inverey, Abergeldie, Invercauld,
Invercanny, Aberdeen. Yet in those counties--viz., Aberdeen,
Kincardine, Forfar, Perth, and Fife, in which were situated the
capitals, and which were the richest provinces of the southern
Picts--the number of names of places beginning with Inver is three
times as numerous as those commencing with Aber; there being, in a
list taken from land-registers, which do not go farther back than
the middle of the sixteenth century, seventy-eight with Inver to
twenty-four with Aber. It may, however, be admitted that, although
Aber is Gaelic, its use is far more general by Celts of the British
tribes; and that the predominance of Inver in the districts north of
the Spey, and the intermixture of places the names of which commence
with Inver or Aber, not unfrequently used in records of nearly the
same date for the same place in the country lying between the Moray
and the Solway Friths, is, to a certain extent, evidence of a British
element of population extending into Caledonia. The Britons, in
earlier times, may have been pressing on to the north by gradual
intrusion, and were probably afterwards increased by bodies of exiles
escaping from the severity of Roman bondage and the punishment of
unsuccessful revolt.
“That names of places containing the words Bal, from Bail, a place
or residence, and Ard, a height or rising ground, are so common in
Ireland, and comparatively rare, so it is alleged, in Caledonia,
has also been used as an argument to prove that the language of the
Picts and other Caledonians of the southern and eastern districts
was British, not Gaelic. But the foundation of the argument has been
assumed, and is easily disproved. It is true that of large towns and
places that appear in gazeteers, names commencing with Bal and Ard
are not numerous. But in fact such names are extremely common. In the
lowlands of Aberdeenshire--that is, in the portion of one county, and
in the part of Caledonia farthest removed from the settlements of
the intrusive Gaels, viz., the Scots from Ireland--registers of land
show upwards of fifty places the names of which commence with Bal,
and forty which commence with Ard. In the Pictish territory, from the
Moray Frith to the Forth, I soon collected upwards of four hundred
names of places beginning with Bal, and upwards of one hundred with
Ard; and the number might easily be doubled.”
Mr. E. W. Robertson, one of the latest and ablest upholders of this
theory, thinks[74] there is scarcely sufficient evidence to justify
any very decided conclusion as to the pre-existence of a Cymric
population; and that, whilst it would be unquestionably erroneous
to ascribe a Cymric origin to the Picts, the existence of a Celtic
element akin to the Cymri, amongst the population of Alban before the
arrival of the _Gwyddel Ffichti_, must remain to a certain extent an
open question.
Of all _a priori_ theories that have hitherto been advanced as to how
Scotland was likely to have been at first peopled, that of Father
Innes, the first writer who investigated the subject thoroughly and
critically, appears to us to be the most plausible and natural,
although even it is beset with many difficulties. It appears to him
more natural and probable that the Caledonian Britons, or Picts, were
of the same origin as the Britons of the south; that as these came in
originally from the nearest coast of Gaul, as they multiplied in the
island, they advanced to the north and settled there, carrying with
them the customs and language of the South Britons.[75]
We have thus endeavoured to lay before the reader, as fully as
space permits, and as clearly and unprejudicedly as possible, the
materials at present existing by means of which to form an opinion on
the Pictish question, and the arguments _pro_ and _con_, mainly in
their own words, urged by the partisans of the different theories.
It appears to us that the data within reach are far too scanty to
justify any one in coming to a settled conclusion, and that we must
wait for more light before we can be justified in finally making up
our minds on this perplexing subject.[76]
At the present day we find that nearly the whole of the territory
said to have been originally occupied by the Picts, is inhabited,
and has been for centuries, by a population which in appearance is
far more Teutonic than Celtic, and which undoubtedly speaks a broad
Teutonic dialect.[77] And even in the district where the Gaelic
language has been triumphant for ages, it is acknowledged even by
the most devoted partisans of the Gaelic theory, that among the
population there is a very considerable intermixture of the Teutonic
element. Burton thinks, from a general view of the whole question,
that the proportion of the Teutonic race that came into the use of
the Gaelic, was much greater than the proportion of the Gaelic that
came into the use of the Teutonic or Saxon, and that this may account
for the contrasts of physical appearance to be seen in the Highlands.
We certainly have not exhausted the statement of the question, have
not stated fully and completely all the points in dispute; nor do
we pretend to have given with fulness all the arguments _pro_ and
_con_ on the various sides. We have, however, given as much as
will enable any ordinary reader to form for himself a fair idea
of the present state of the Pictish question, and indicated the
sources whence more information may be derived, should any one
wish to pursue the subject farther. In the words of the latest and
greatest Scottish historian “this brief survey of the great Pictish
controversy leaves nothing but a melancholy record of wasted labour
and defeated ambition. It has been more fruitless than a polemical or
a political dispute, for these leave behind them, either for good or
evil, their marks upon the conduct and character of the populations
among whom they have raged; while here a vast outlay of learning,
ingenuity, enthusiasm, and, it must be added, temper, have left no
visible monument but a pile of forbidding volumes, in which should
any one who has not studied the matter fundamentally expect to find
instructive information, he will assuredly be led into a tangled
maze of unintelligible pedantry, from which he will come forth with
no impression but a nightmare feeling of hopeless struggle with
difficulties.”[78]
FOOTNOTES:
[24] Garnett’s _Philological Essays_, p. 196.
[25] Agricola xi.
[26] The wall of Antonine.
[27] Dio L. 76, c. 12, as quoted in Ritson’s _Annals_, p. 11.
[28] Critical Essay, ch. ii.
[29] _Highlanders._
[30] Book iii.
[31] “Scotti per diversa vagantes, multa populabantur.” Am. Mar.
xxvii. 8.
[32] “---- Nec falso nomine Pictos
Edomuit.”
[33] “Venit et extremis legio prætenta Britannis
Quæ Scoto dat fræna truci, ferroque notatas
Perlegit exangues Scoto moriente figuras.”--
_De bello Getico_, v. 416.
Thus rendered by Ritson:--
The legion came, o’er distant Britains placed,
Which bridles the fierce Scot, and bloodless figures
With iron marked, views in the dying Pict.
[34] The name given by the Irish Annalists to the Picts is
_Cruithne_, said by some to mean “variegated.”
[35] The only important exception is Ritson, whose arguments, like
those of his opponent Pinkerton, consist mostly of virulent language
and vehement assertion.
[36] In Amm. Mar.
[37] It is a curious fact that these latter are, among the peasantry
of Scotland, the distinctive characteristics of the Picts or Pechts,
who, however, it is not unlikely, may be popularly confounded with
the Brownies, especially as, in Perthshire at any rate, they are said
always to have done their work while others were asleep.
[38] Skene’s _Highlanders_, vol. i. p. 2.
[39] L. O. Pike, _The English and their Origin_, ch. i.
[40] _Biographia Britannica Literaria_, vol. i.
[41] Gildas, 1.
[42] Id., 19.
[43] Gildas, 14.
[44] _Highlanders_, vol. i. p. 72.
[45] Garnett’s _Philological Essays_, p. 199.
[46] Adam. _ap. Colganum_, 1. ii. c. 32.
[47] On the subject in question the recently published _Book of Deer_
cannot be said to afford us any information. It gives a short account
of the landing of Columba and a companion at Aberdour in the north of
Aberdeenshire, and the founding of a monastery at Deer. But although
the entries are in Gaelic, they do not tell us what language Columba
spoke, nor whether ‘Bede the Pict,’ the mormaer of Buchan, understood
him without an interpreter. The name of the saint--Drostan--whom
Columba left behind him to prosecute the work, is Pictish, at any
rate not Irish, so that nothing can be inferred from this. Since much
of the first part of this book was written, Mr. Skene has advanced
the theory, founded partly on four new Pictish words he has managed
to discover, that the language of the Picts was neither pure Gaelic
nor Cymric, ‘but a sort of low Gaelic dialect partaking largely of
Welsh forms.’ This theory is not new, but was distinctly put forth
by Dr. Maclauchlan some years ago in his able and learned work, _The
Early Scottish Church_, p. 29: if true, it would certainly satisfy a
great many of the demands which any hypothesis on the subject must do.
[48] Bede’s _Eccles. Hist._, Book 1. c. i.
[49] Nennius 12, Vatican MS.
[50] _Critical Essay on Scotland_, vol. i. p. 68.
[51] Book i., c. 12.
[52] _Inquiry into the Hist. of Scot._, vol. i. p. 357, ed. 1814.
[53] _Crit. Essay_, vol. i. p. 75.
[54] Garnett’s _Phil. Essays_, p. 198.
[55] Robertson’s _Scotland under her Early Kings_, vol. ii. p. 380.
Forbes-Leslie’s _Early Races of Scotland_, vol. i. p 35.
[56] _Hist. of Scot._, vol. i. p. 187.
[57] Book iii. ch. 4.
[58] _Eccl. Hist. of Scot._, vol. i. p. 15, &c.
[59] _Eccl. Hist. of Scot._, vol. i. p. 17.
[60] Davies’ _Celtic Researches_, p. 155.
[61] _Highlanders of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 69.
[62] We are indebted for most of the following account to Connellan’s
_Annals of the Four Masters_, p. 367 (note).
[63] See Taylor’s _Words and Places_, ch. ix.
[64] Pike’s _English and their Origin_, ch. ii., which contains some
shrewd and valuable remarks on the subject of language.
[65] Burton, vol. i. p. 192.
[66]
| Chalmers for | Pinkerton for | Jamieson,
| Celtic, | Gothic, | “Teutonic Etymons.”
------+---------------------+------------------+--------------------
Drust | Probably the British| Drust, a common | Su. Goth. _troest_,
| name Trwst, which | Pikish name, is | _dristig_. Germ.,
| signifies din. | also Persian, and| _dreist_. Alem.
| | signifies _sinc- | _gidrost_, daring.
| | erus_.... The |
| | Persians were the|
| | old Sythæ or |
| | Goths, from whom |
| | the rest sprung. |
| | |
Brudi | Brudw, which is | Brudi is the real| Island., Briddi
or | pronounced Bridw or | Gothic name; | _eminebat_. vercl:
Bridei| Bradw, is in the | Bout is the | breida, to extend;
| British treacherous | wounded (Bott | and Sueo-Goth, _e_,
| | _ictus_ Wachter).| law; 2. one who
| | | extends the law,
| | | who publishes it.
------+---------------------+------------------+--------------------
For other instances see Burton’s _Scotland_, i. p. 196.
[67] Garnett’s _Phil. Essays_, pp. 197, 198.
[68] _Highlanders._
[69] _Phil. Essays_, p. 200.
[70] _Words and Places_, p. 246.
[71] Highlanders.
[72] _Scotland_, vol i. p. 207.
[73] Vol. i. p. 26.
[74] Vol. ii. p. 377.
[75] _Essay on Scotland_, vol. i. p. 70.
[76] We have already (p. 22) referred to the Gaelo-Cymric theory
broached by Dr. Maclauchlan in his _Early Scottish Church_, and
recently adopted by Dr. Skene. Speaking of the distribution of the
topographical nomenclature in the Highlands, Dr. Maclauchlan says it
indicates one of two things; “either that the one race overpowered
the other in the east, and superinduced a new nomenclature over the
old throughout the country,--that we have in fact two successive
strata of Celtic names, the Gaelic underlying the British, which
is by no means impossible; or, what is more likely, that the
Pictish people were a people lying midway between the Gael and the
Cymri--more Gaelic than the Cymri, and more Cymric than the Gael.
This is precisely the character of the old Pictish topography; it is
a mixture of Gaelic and Cymric; and if the language of the people
was like their topography, it too was a language neither Gaelic
nor Cymric, but occupying a middle space between them, indicating
the identity of the races at some distant period, although they
afterwards became rivals for the possession of the land.” This we
think on the whole the most satisfactory theory yet propounded.
[77] We would infer from the recently published _Book of Deer_, that
down at least to the time of David II., the inhabitants were still a
Gaelic speaking population; all the entries in that book as to land
are in that language.
[78] Burton, vol. i. p. 200.