bede and the pictish church

BEDE AND THE PICTISH CHURCH

by

D. P. KlRBY

Bedc was probably born thirteen hundred years ago this year, in 673,on land that was to become part of the great Northumbrian Benedictinemonastic foundation of Benedict Biscop at Monkwearmouth and Jarrow.1He entered the monastery at the age of seven and developed as thegreatest scholar of western Europe in the early middle ages. It is possibleto forget that he was primarily a biblical scholar, for the historian tendsto be drawn rather to his Life of Cuthbert (based on an earlier anonymousLindisfarne Life),1 his History of the Abbots of Monkwearmouth andJarrow (based on an earlier anonymous Life of Ceolfrith)? and finallyhis Ecclesiastical History of the English People, completed in 731.4 Thiswas a major historical undertaking. When Bede began to write theEcclesiastical History, he had few chronological guidelines, a mere hand-ful of papal letters and ecclesiastical documents, a scattering of literarymaterials from one or two of the monastic centres of England, and onlya limited personal experience of secular life. Above all, whether in theLife of Cuthbert or in the Ecclesiastical History, he was dependent forhistorical information upon oral tradition. This oral tradition was ex-tremely localised and very fragile. We have only begun to evaluate forourselves the oral tradition upon which Bede drew for so much of hismaterial, but there is every indication that he was to a far greater extentthan has previously been allowed at the mercy of what he was told. Therewas very little that he could corroborate. Bede could rarely find confirm-ing testimony. No matter how much he strove to tell the truth as he sawit, no matter how passionately he cared about the history of the conver-sion of the English, it was the truthfulness and reliability of his sourcesof information, the trustworthiness of individuals, which was crucial. It is

1. Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People (henceforth cited by the abbreviation HEafter the Latin title, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum), ed. Bertram Colgrave andR. A. B. Mynors (Oxford Medieval Texts, 1969), xix. Bede states (HE V, 24) that he is in hisfifty-ninth year in 731. This could mean that he was born in 672. It has really only been atraditional inference that he was born in 673, but 673 is just as possible as 672 and some mayfeel that it has more to commend it

2. Two Lives of St Cuthbert, ed. Bertram Colgrave (Cambridge, 1940).3. Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, ed. C. Plummer, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896).4. The valuable notes in volume II of Plummer's edition of Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica

mean that his work has not been entirely superseded by Colgrave and Mynors, Bede's Ecclesias-tical History of the English People: but. unlike Plummer, R. A. B. Mynors made use of thevery important Leningrad MS (cf. p. xliv).

6

BEDE AND THE PICT1SH CHURCH

vital for a proper appreciation of the content of the Ecclesiastical Historythat these important considerations are given due weight.5

Bede not only wrote about the English Church in his EcclesiasticalHistory. He wrote in passing about the Church in Dal Riata and theChurch in Pictland. It is with his digressions on the Pictish Church thatthis paper is concerned.

Bede was born at a time when the Northumbrians under King Oswiuhad imposed their overlordship upon many of the Picts, whom hedescribes as divided from the English by the Firth of Forth.6 In 672 or673 there was a great Pictish revolt against Ecgfrith, king of Northumbria,son of Oswiu, which Ecgfrith crushed.7 In 685, however, during an inva-sion of the land of the Picts, Ecgfrith was defeated and slain by Bridei,son of Bili, king of the Picts, at Nechtanesrnere (Dunnichen) in Forfar,the ' lake of the heron' as the Britons called it.8 As a consequence of thisdefeat, the Northumbrians lost their ascendancy also over the Scots ofDal Riata and the Strathclyde Britons.9 There were further border skir-mishes with the Picts in 689 and 711. In 698 the Northumbrians suffereda second defeat, but in 711 they were victorious in a conflict in the plainof Manaw, between the Avon and the Carron.10 It is not clear if theseconflicts represent a Pictish attempt to drive the Northumbrians furthersouth or a Northumbrian attempt to advance again into Pictland: buttheir consequence was probably to stabilise the frontier on the Firth ofForth.11 When Bede wrote in 731, he recorded that the Scots were

peaceably disposed and that the Picts now had a treaty of peace with theNorthumbrians.12 It is important to remember that Bede was writing hisEcclesiastical History at a time of harmonious relations with the Picts. It

5. For a more detailed treatment of the problems associated with the nature of oral tradition inearly England and Bede's narrative, see D. P. Kirby. ' Bede's Native Sources for the HistoriaEcclesiastical Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 48 (1966) 341-71. There is a further discus-sion of this subject, with specific reference to Bede's on the whole unrealistic appreciation ofNorthumbrian political history, by D. P. Kirby, ' Northumbria in the time of Wilfrid,' StWilfrid at Hexham, ed. D. P. Kirby (Newcastle, 1973) 1 ff. (forthcoming).

6. HE III, 24, IV, 26.7. The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus, ed. Bertram Colgrave (Cambridge, 1927),

chapter 19.8. HE IV, 26. For a study of the battle, the sources for it and its significance, see F. T. Wain-

wright, ' Nechtanesrnere,' Antiquity 22 (1948) 82-97.9. HE IV, 26.

10. HE V. 24: Annals of Tigernach (henceforth cited as AT), ed. W. Stokes, Revue CeltiqueXVII & XVIII (1896 & 1897), XVII, 216. 222: Annals of Ulster (henceforth cited as AU), ed.W. M. Hennessy and B. MacCarthy. 3 vols. (Dublin, 1887-95), s.a. 698 and 711: Two of theSaxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. C. Plummer, 2 vols. (Oxford, reprinted 1952), D(E), s.a. 699and 710. Cf W. F. H. Nicolaisen. ' Some Early Name-Forms of the Stirlingshire Carron.'Scottish Studies 4 (1960) 96-104 (and on Avon. ibid.. 187-94). On the possible site of a battlewhich may be that of 711. see G. W. S. Barrow. The Border (Inaugural Lecture, Durham,1962) 10. Note with regard to the chronology of these and other events that in the AU theepact and ferial figures for each succesive year are correct but, owing to a scribal error, theYear of the Incarnation has been placed one year too low for the period 486-1012 (cf. P. Walsh.' The Dating of the Irish Annals. Irish Historical Studies II (1941) 355-75). In this and allsubsequent footnotes, the epact and ferial figures have been taken as the guide, and the Yearof the Incarnation cited is therefore the correct year and not the incorrect year which appearsin the manuscript and the printed edition.

11. HE I, 12, in its discussion of boundaries, is probably referring to the situation at the timeof writing. The frontier is evidently the Firth of Forth and the Giudi of HE I, 12 is Stirling:A. Graham, ' Giudi,' Antiquity 33 (1959) 63-5.

12. HE V, 23.

7

THE 1NNES REVIEW

probably meant that he was not anxious to place too much emphasis onthe period of hostilities before 711, and this could explain, at least partly,why he does not discuss the Northumbrian-Pictish wars in any greaterdetail. There was perhaps another reason for stressing the friendly rela-tions at this time between the Picts and the Northumbrians. The politicaltroubles of the reign of Ceolwulf, king of Northumbria (729-37), were

causing Bede concern, when so many Northumbrians were preferring thelife of a monk to that of a warrior.13 If he was concerned about Northum-brian weakness, he must also have been apprehensive about Pictishstrength. Oengus, son of Fergus, king of the Picts (729-61) was to provehimself one of the most formidable of Pictish warrior kings. In 740 thePicts did in fact attack Northumbria.14 By the end of his reign the Nor-thumbrians detested Oengus so much that a Northumbrian annalist couldsay that from the beginning of his reign until the end he behaved withbloody crime as a tyrannical slaughterer.15 It is more than likely thatOengus had given ample display of his potential for destruction by 731.The civil or dynastic strife in Pictland between rival contenders for thekingship—Nechtan, son of Derilei, Drost, Alpin, and Oengus, son ofFergus—between 724 and 729 is chronicled with unusual vigour anddetail by the Irish annals, and out of the melee Oengus emergedsupreme.16 Nechtan had reigned for eighteen years in relative peace whenDrost first challenged him in 724. Drost was expelled two years later byAlpin. Two years after that, in 728, Oengus defeated Alpin but thedecisive victory over Alpin was gained by a resurgent Nechtan. In 729Oengus overthrew Nechtan and in a subsequent conflict slew Drost. Whatcaused this political explosion between 724 and 729 is unknown. If we

possessed fuller annalistic records for Pictish history, we would probablylind that it was not unusual. The events suggest that a crisis of some kindoccurred in the Pictish royal succession between opposing provincialrulers: but it would be inadvisable to try to link this crisis necessarilywith what we otherwise know of Nechtan's reign.

Bede was intimately connected with some at least of the ecclesiasticaldevelopments of the reign of Nechtan, son of Derilei, among the Picts.Frequent meditation on ecclesiastical writings is said to have convincedNechtan that he should renounce the Celtic Easter, and in order to dothis with greater ease and more authority he sent envoys to Ceolfrith,abbot of Monkwearmouth and Jarrow. Nechtan asked for a letter givingthe arguments for the Roman Easter so that he might the better confutethose who opposed the change: he sought guidance on the correct shapeof the tonsure, and requested architects who would build him a church

13. HE V, 23.14. hedc's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Bertram Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors,

572-75.15. Ibid., 576-77.16. The most recent survey of the history of the Picts has been I. Henderson. The Picts (Ancient

Peoples and Places 54. 1967). Cf. also the notes in A. O. Anderson, Early Sources of ScottishHistory, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1922).

8


after the Roman manner. He promised that he and all his people wouldfollow the customs of the Roman Church as far as their remoteness fromthe Roman language and nation would allow.17 The reply was writtenby Bede on Ceolfrith's behalf.18 The letter, which laid down clearly therules for the correct observance of the Catholic Easter, was translatedand read before King Nechtan and his great men. Nechtan received itwith great enthusiasm and immediately ordered the observance of theRoman Easter and the adoption of the Petrine tonsure by all the clergyin his kingdom. Cycles of nineteen years were circulated throughout allthe provinces of the Picts to be transcribed, learnt and observed, andall monks and clergy were to be properly tonsured. Bede had personallyplayed a vital part in this revolution in the Pictish Church. It is notsurprising that his Ecclesiastical History draws to a conclusion with thisepisode. His own share in this event might even have led him to takethe Easter issue between Celt and Roman as one of the dominant themesof the Ecclesiastical History. Yet Bede did not initiate change in Pict-land: he simply responded to it on the direction of his abbot. From thispoint it is necessary to move backwards in time if we are to attempt toconsider some of the forces and historical circumstances attendant on

King Nechtan's revolution and the involvement of Bede. In the secondhalf of the seventh century the Church in Northumbria seems to haveembraced the whole spectrum of contemporary ecclesiastical opinion inBritain, and this was the Church which brought its diverse influence tobear directly on the kingdom of the Picts.

Describing the episcopal jurisdiction of Wilfrid as bishop of Yorkafter 669, Bede observes that he was bishop of the Northumbrians andof the Picts as far as the dominions of King Oswiu extended.19 It cannothave been particularly desirable that the first experience the Picts hadof an Anglo-Saxon bishop was Wilfrid. How he dealt with them remainsa problem. The records of his life provide no instance of willing com-

promise. For Northumbria and for the whole of the English Church asit came into conformity with Rome, the dating of Easter was but oneissue. Implicit in Oswiu's decision at Whitby was the acceptance of thewhole hierarchy of the Roman Church, and it must have been immedi-ately apparent that the absence of a metropolitan among the Celts andthe lack of regard paid to episcopal orders meant that there could beno more official communion with Scottish clergy. There was no alter-native but to question the validity of Celtic orders and sacraments.Archbishop Theodore ordered that all ordinations by Scottish or Britishclergy should remain unacceptable unless a Catholic bishop reordained:likewise, all churches consecrated by Scottish or British clergy had to bereconsecrated. The Chrism and the Eucharist were not to be given to

n. he v, 21.18, Baedae Opera Historica H, 3J2ff.19. he IV, 2.

9

THE INNES REVIEW

Celtic clergy unless they confessed their willingness to unite with theCatholic Church, and even those Scots or Britons who were uncertainabout their own baptism should be baptised again.20 It is difficult toimagine that at Whitby Oswiu anticipated anything like the drastic trans-formation with which Theodore confronted him. It is also difficult toimagine how Wilfrid can have been anything other than in completeaccord with this policy towards the Scots, a policy which would applyequally to Pictish clergy. Similar extreme attitudes were adopted bysections of the Celtic Church and had been for some time. The Irishman,Dagan, had refused to dine with Laurentius, archbishop of Canterbury,in the early seventh century,21 for example, but had this attitude beenconsistently adopted the mission of Aidan and his episcopal successorson Lindisfarne in Northumbria would have been impossible: nor wouldAidan have been so highly respected by Honorius, archbishop of Canter-bury.22 In the same way, on the English side after 669, there were stillchurchmen, certainly in Northumbria, who did not allow themselves tobe restrained in their dealings with Celtic clergy. Behind the officialorthodox pronouncements and attitudes, there would seem, for example,to have been less formal but nevertheless important relations with theChurch in Pictland.

It is a record of a journey of St Cuthbcrt beyond the Forth into Pict-land, mentioned quite incidentally in the Lives of Cuthbert, which revealsmuch greater contact between the Northumbrian and Pictish Churches atthis time than otherwise appears from the extant source-material. Cuth-bert undertook this journey while he was still only prior of Melrose, anoffice he held from 664 to c. 678,23 so the visit took place during theperiod that Wilfrid possessed episcopal authority in Pictland. In mid-winter, immediately after the festival of Christmas, Cuthbert and hiscompanions set out by sea on unspecified business to the land of theNiuduera or Niduari Picts. They were driven ashore in a storm on an

apparently deserted stretch of shore and prevented from continuing theirvoyage. The next day was Epiphany (6 January). Miraculously, in theireyes, they were provided with the flesh of a dolphin already preparedfor human consumption, and this sustained them for three days until, onthe fourth day, they were able to set sail and reach a port of safety 24 It

20. Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. A. W. Haddanand W. Stubbs, 3 vols. (Oxford. 1869-78). III. 418fT. (IX. 1-3): cf. J. T. McNeill and H. M.Garner. Medieval Handbooks of Penance (Records of Civilization 29 (1938)). 179ff. NoteTheodore's personal immediate rededication of the church on Lindisfarne to St Peter:HE III, 25.

21. HE II, 4.22. HE III, 25.23. Two Lives of St Cuthbert, 184-85. shows that Cuthbert succeeded Boisil as prior, and Boisil

died probably in the great plague of 664. B. Colgrave appears to have been incorrect in statingthat Cuthbert went with Fata to Lindisfarne soon after 664 (op. cit.. 7). Eata was bishop whenCuthbert went to Lindisfarne top. cit., 94-95), and he only became bishop in 678.

24. The account of this episode in the anonymous Life (Two Lives of St Cuthbert, 82-85) is muchmore satisfactory than that by Bede (op. cit.. 192-93), who has obscured many of the detailsand who is completely dependent on the anonymous writer: cf. Peter Hunter Blair, ' Theliernicians and their Northern Frontier,' Studies in Early British History, ed. N. K. Chadwick(Cambridge, 1959) 137-72 (p. 167).

10


was clearly Cuthbert's intention to spend the Feast of Epiphany at hispoint of destination in Pictland. On the occasion of such a festival, andat such an inclement time of year, this can hardly have been an isolatedor unimportant voyage. The details of Cuthbert's visit, though imprecise,suggest that the Niduari Picts were located in Fife or possibly just a littlefurther north.25 The whole narrative implies that a relationship of con-siderable significance had been established between the monastery ofMelrose and some religious community or communities among the Picts.The monastery of Melrose itself had been founded during the episcopateof Aidan from St Columba's great monastery on Iona.26 Columba is saidto have converted the northern Picts by Bede, who describes Iona as atone time chief among all the monasteries of the northern Irish and thePicts; and Aidan, judging from his appreciation of missionary methodswhile still on Iona, may have worked among the Picts before becomingbishop of Lindisfarne.27 Indeed, it is unlikely that the Scottish missionariesin Northumbria maintained absolutely no contact with their fellow-missionaries in Pictland. A network of Pictish contacts could have comeinto existence as a consequence of the period of Scottish missionaryactivity in the Northumbrian Church; and it is not inconceivable that areaction from the Scottish clergy at Lindisfarne to Oswiu's attack on thePicts could have also played a part in precipitating the synod of Whitbyand in the king's decision. Cuthbert, as bishop of Lindisfarne, was subse-quently prominent among those who sought to prevent Ecgfrith fromattacking the Picts in 685. This attitude may be contrasted with thejubilation of Wilfrid's biographer, Eddius, at the slaughter of the Pictsby Ecgfrith earlier in the reign. It is regrettable from our point of viewthat Cuthbert's journey to Pictland was of immediate interest to Cuth-bert's biographers only because of the miracle of the dolphin flesh, butsufficient detail has nevertheless been recorded to suggest regular com-munication between members of the Northumbrian and Pictish Churcheseven at the height of Wilfrid's power in Northumbria. It can hardly bewithout significance that when the Northumbrian see of Abercorn was

created in 681 to administer Pictish territory, the man appointed was

Trumwine.28 Trumwine was a friend of Cuthbert, and played a part inpersuading Cuthbert to accept the bishopric of Lindisfarne in 684: hesubsequently retired to the monastery of Whitby.29 The precise geogra-phical extent of the diocese of Abercorn is never described. Bede statesthat the see was for the province of the Picts, and this has been understood

25. F. T. Wainwriglit. ' The Picts and the Problem,' The Problem of the Picts, ed. F. T. Wain-wright (Edinburgh and London. 1955) 1-53 (pp. 42-43). There now seems nothing to be saidfor locating the Niduari Picts on the river Nidd in Galloway. Peter Hunter Blair discusses theuncertain meaning of Niduari (' The Bernicians and their Northern Frontier ' 168 (note 2)).and suggests a possible connection with Giudi. But since Giudi has now been identified withStirling in British territory, this seems, on the whole, unlikely.

26. Cuthbert entered the monastery of Melrose immediately after Aidan's death and it was alreadyan established community (Two Lives of St Cuthbert, 166-67, 172-73).

27. HE m, 3, 5.28. HE IV, 12.29. Two Lives of St Cuthbert, 64-5, 110-11, 156-57: HE IV, 26.

11

THE INNES REVIEW

to mean one of the seven provinces of Pictland, probably Fib,30 but Bedealso wrote of the province of the Angles, with reference to the whole ofEngland, the province of the Scots with reference to the whole of DalRiata, and the province of the Picts with reference to all Pictland, sothat Trumwine's episcopal authority could have extended throughoutall the Pictish territory subject to Northumbrian domination.31 BothCuthbert and Trumwine must have been prepared to go some way, there-fore, towards co-operating with the Pictish clergy and with the Scottishclergy in Pictland. When Ecgfrith was slain at Nechtanesmere, Trumwinewas forced to flee south from the Picts and his diocese was abandoned.It was never revived.

There is an interesting ambiguity in the evidence bearing on Cuthbert'sattitude to the Celtic clergy which must not be overlooked. According toBede the testimony of Herefrith, abbot of Lindisfarne and formerly a

monk of Melrose, who was with Cuthbert when he died, was that one ofCuthbert's dying injunctions to his disciples was to have no communionwith those who erred from the unity of the Catholic peace either bykeeping Easter at an improper time or by evil living. No explanation isoffered as to how this injunction was to be set against the fact thatCuthbert himself had had dealings with the Picts. It could be that Cuth-bert's attitude altered in his last years but, on the whole, it is highly

30. W. R. Kermack, ' Trumwine's Diocese,' Antiquity 17 (1943) 212-13.31. HE III, 3: III, 26: IV, 26. On the other hand, Bede was certainly aware that the Pictish

kingdom was divided into provinces (HE V, 21). Dr Kathleen Hughes, Early Christianity inPictland (The Jarrow Lecture, 1970) does not consider the episode of Cuthbert and the Niduari,nor the significance of Abercorn and especially Bishop Trumwine. Her conclusion (p. 16) thatin Pictland '

we should not think of a king and aristocracy giving Christianity their activesupport

. . .

until the beginning of the eighth century ' is an arresting one. Among the manyinteresting points raised in her paper, however, certain debatable hypotheses are advanced.Columba may not have succeeded in bringing Brude (Bridei), king of the Picts, to acceptbaptism (p. 12), but Adomnan gives only a very fragmentary account of Columba's workamong the Picts (he does not seem, in fact, to have regarded this as his main theme), and hedoes not mention at all that Columba preached along the Tay (p. 14) nor does he give thename of any other king with whom Columba came into contact. Dr Hughes herself, however,acknowledges that from Bede's words an ' inescapable inference is that Columban monas-ticism spread in Pictland during the seventh century ' (p. 12). If we wish to be really sceptical,we might argue that Bede is simply relaying false Iona propaganda; but it is not clear howDr Hughes, for her part, progresses from this statement to the conclusion that ' the seventh-century Columban foundations of Pictland

. . .

were minor cells, established without royalpatronage, exercising little influence on society ' (p. 15). This would be an unusual missionarysituation in Dark Age Europe. Moreover, she concedes that ' What little evidence we havesuggests that the state of the Pictish kingdom in the seventh century could (Dr Hughes' italics)have been conducive to the rapid spread of Christianity ' (p. 15), and she emphasises the powerof the king of the Picts (p. 15). How disinterested or pagan Pictish kings were induced toaccept the establishment in their territory of even minor monastic ' cells,' and who endowedthese ' cells ' if not the king nor the aristocracy is not clear. That the Columban clergy helda position in Pictland significant enough to warrant their expulsion (infra, p. 19) surelyexplains why Nechtan was anxious to enlist the support of such a powerful monastery as thatof Monkwearmouth and Jarrow in the Easter dispute so that he might act with greaterauthority (HE V, 21). Dr Hughes accepts that much of Bede's information about Columba andBridei came from the Picts in the time of Nechtan (infra, p. 23, note 91). but it is not likelythat there would have been much to say or even remember if her minimal view of the impactof Columba and Columban foundations is accepted. We cannot conclude (and this is funda-mental to the argument of Early Christianity in Pictland) that there was no Columban churchsecurely established in Pictland in the seventh century since no Latin ecclesiastical writingssurvive from Pictland for that period (p. 4): because the same is true of the period from theearly eighth century onwards (as seems to be acknowledged, p. 16), and if the survival of sucha literature were to be used as the yardstick with which to judge the state of the Church underthe MacAlpin dynasty from, say 848 to 1097, it would be necessary to take a similar view ofthe Scottish Church up to the time of Queen Margaret. It need not be doubted that the workof evangelization proceeded very slowly (p 16), but this is a different matter to not proceedingat all.

12

BEDE AND THE P/CTISH CHURCH

unlikely that he ever said any such thing.32 Bede's whole account ofHerefrith's testimony has every appearance of substantial elaboration.33It is usually said that Bede wrote his Life of Cuthbert c. 720, but, apartfrom the fact that he dedicated it to Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarnc (698-721), there is no other clue to the date of composition than that it waswritten some years before 725.34 This seems to allow for a slightly widermargin of time than has generally been envisaged. What this referenceto Cuthbert's alleged dying injunction suggests is that Bede was writingthe Life at the time when the Picts under King Nechtan, son of Derilei,were approaching the Northumbrians for guidance on the true date ofEaster, that is to say c. 715,35 for these Pictish overtures were madedirectly to Bede's own monastery and Cuthbert was an Anglian saintwho might well still have been remembered in Pictland among thosePictish communities with which he had had personal contact in the terri-tory of the Niduari. Moreover, there may well have been a link betweenNechtan, king of the Picts, and his envoys, on the one hand, and theNiduari, on the other.36 If this reconstruction is correct, Bede wrote theseparticular words regarding those who erred from the unity of the Catholicpeace when the issue to which they referred was very relevant to himand to his own community. Herefrith, alive perhaps to the current Easterdebate, may have felt it desirable to ascribe such a Catholic orthodoxsentiment to Cuthbert, particularly if pressed on this point by Bede. Inattributing to St Cuthbert such sentiments the Northumbrians were notonly apparently falsely associating Cuthbert with disapproval of Celticpractice but involving a saint for whom the Picts may have had some

continuing regard with the contemporary debate.When Wilfrid died in 709, perhaps the most powerful Romanising

influence in Northumbria, certainly the most powerful of which we haveany knowledge, was Bede's monastery of St Peter and St Paul atMonkwearmouth and Jarrow, founded by Benedict Biscop in 673-74(Monkwearmouth) and 681-82 (Jarrow). Benedict made a series ofjourneys to Rome and was professed a monk at Lerins. He secured booksand relics from Rome and Vienne, brought over glass-workers andmasons from the continent, introduced John the archchantor to teach theRoman mode of chanting and the Roman order of service, and purchasedpaintings with which to adorn his churches. The real development ofBenedictine monasticism in Northumbria has been ascribed to him.37Impressive though his achievement was, it should not be seen too much

32. Two Lives of St Cuthbert, 284-85. B. Colgrave, Two Lives of St Cuthbert, 356-57, could notaccept that these words were spoken by Cuthbert.

33. ' The whole story (of Cuthbert's death) is alleged to be by Herefrith, but the verbal reminis-cences from Possidius' Life of St Augustine, Gregory's Dialogues (a favourite work of Bede),and also from the Anonymous Life, prove that Bede had at any rate worked carefully overHerefrith's account ' (B. Colgrave, op. cit., 14).

34. B. Colgrave, op. cit., 16.35. Infra, p. 19.36. Infra, p. 23.37. Bede: His Life, Times and Writings, ed. A. Hamilton Thompson (Oxford, 1935). 83.

13

THE INNES REVIEW

in isolation. Wilfrid, who also made use of continental masons and glass-workers, had introduced the Roman chant and the Benedictine rule intohis own foundations at Ripon (c. 660) and Hexham (c. 675).38 Ceolfrith,whom Benedict appointed prior of Monkwearmouth in 673, came fromRipon,39 and, while Benedict was away in 675, the monks revolted againstCeolfrith's strict discipline.40 Benedict took Ceolfrith to Rome so that hemight acquire, so we are told, more thorough instruction,41 but it wouldseem that, at this period at least, life at Ripon represented a more exactingversion of the rule of St Benedict than that at Monkwearmouth. Neverthe-less, the great library assembled by Benedict Biscop made possible theliterary works of Bede, the most distinguished of all Old Englishscholars: and under Ceolfrith as abbot (689-714) Monkwearmouth andJarrow emerged in the vanguard of the Romanist party in Northumbria.But even at Bede's monastery there was an ability to coexist with themore Celtic strain in the Northumbrian Church. Bede's EcclesiasticalHistory has been seen from time to time as a piece of Romanist propa-ganda, but to take such a view does far less than justice to Bede's concernto record what he could of the early English Church. Without the Eccle-siastical History we would know virtually nothing of the Scottish missionfrom lona to Northumbria under Aidan, for whom Bede professed thegreatest admiration.42 Bede's monastery was in the diocese of Hexhamand many of Bede's writings were dedicated to Acca, bishop of Hexham,previously a disciple and companion of Wilfrid, but Monkwearmouthand Jarrow was also in touch with Whitby, founded under Aidan's direc-tion, from whence Bede derived a great deal of information about theconversion of Northumbria, and with the church of Lindisfarne for whichBede wrote both a metrical and a prose Life of Aidan's spiritual heir,Cuthbert.

Adomnan, who became abbot of lona in 679, was of the kindred ofSt Columba, and a close confidant of the southern Ui Neill king, Finsh-nechta (675-95), son of Dünchad.43 In 686 Adomnan went to Northumbriato secure from King Aldfrith the release of some sixty captives taken byEcgfrith's army in Meath two years previously. In 688 he returned toNorthumbria, and this time went to the monastery of Monkwearmouthand Jarrow under Abbot Ceolfrith.44 Perhaps it was at this time thatsome account of the work of Columba and the importance claimed for

38. The Life of Bishop Wilfrid, cc. 8. 14. 16. 17, 22, 47: HE IV, 2.39. Baedae Opera Historica I, 389.40. Ibid., 390.41. Ibid., 370, 391.42. HE III, 17. cf., H. Mayr-Harting, The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England

(London, 1972), 69ff.43. The Life of St Columba by Adamnan, ed. W. Reeves (Histories of Scotland VI: Edinburgh,

1874), cl. clxxxiv. For a more recent edition of the Life, see Adomnan's Life of Columba, ed.A. O. and M. O. Anderson (London and Edinburgh, 1961).

44. Adomnan II, 46: HE V, 15, 21. C. Plummer, Baedae Opera Historica II, 301, thoughtAdomnan visited Ceolfrith in 686: but Bede does not give the impression that Adomnan evercame back to Northumbria after his acceptance of the Roman Easter. From then on, hewould seem to have been occupied in Dal Riata and Ireland. The final visit was in 688.

14

BEDE AND THE P1CTISH CHURCH

the church of lona among the Picts and Scots was taken down in writingfrom what Adomnan had to say, and later used by Bede (who wouldonly have been fifteen at the time) together with independent Pictishinformation in the Ecclesiastical History. If Bede had sought for informa-tion from lona about Columba subsequently, he would surely have beeninformed by the community there that Adomnan had afterwards writtena Life of the saint, but Bede gives no sign of knowing anything about sucha Life. While at Monkwearmouth and Jarrow, Adomnan observed thecanonical rites of the Catholic Church,45 and Ceolfrith prevailed uponhim to accept both the Roman Easter and the Roman tonsure.46 Thedeparture of Adomnan was not the end of this new contact betweenCeolfrith's monastery and lona. Bede may not have known that Adomnanwrote a Life of Columba, but he did know that Adomnan converted anumber of Scots to the Roman Easter though he failed in his attemptsto convince the monks of lona; he knew also that Adomnan won overmost of the churches of Ireland.47 Adomnan went to Ireland in 69248 andagain in 697.49 On the second occasion, the synod of Birr acceptedAdomnan's Law of the Innocents, which attempted to protect women,clergy and monks, and children from acts of violence in war or peace.50Possibly at Birr, but certainly between 692 and 704, Adomnan achievedsuccess in Ireland with the acceptance by most of the Irish of the RomanEaster.51 Bede knew that in the last year of his life Adomnan returnedto lona and sought to win over the community again, dying before theEaster after his return could bring about the outbreak of a more seriousquarrel.52 Bede also obtained an account of how the NorthumbrianEcgberht, after many years spent in Ireland, successfully persuaded themonks of lona to adopt Catholic rites in the observance of Easter in716 and to accept the Petrine tonsure, and he describes the deathof Ecgberht on lona immediately after celebrating Easter in 729.53 Theinformation about Adomnan's achievements and the later activities ofEcgberht can only have reached Bede from lona, so that it is clear that

45. HE V, 15.46. HE V. 21.47. HE V, 15.48. AU s.a.. 692: AT (Rev. Celt., xvii. 212).49. AU s.a., 697: AT (Rev. Celt., xvii, 213).50. Cain Adamndin, ed. K. Meyer, Anecdota Oxoniensia: Medieval and Modern Series 12 (Oxford,

1905).51. L. Gougaud. Christianity in Celtic Lands (London, 1932) 192 associates the acceptance of the

Roman Easter in Ireland with the synod of Birr: cf. J. Kenney, The Sources for the EarlyHistory of Ireland I, 246. K. Hughes, The Church in Early Irish Society (London, 1966) 109(note 2) emphasises, however, that there are no real grounds for associating the acceptanceof the Roman Easter with the synod of Birr: though we know of no other Irish synod until780 (ibid., 1970), Bede implies that it was only in 704 that Adomnan finally celebrated Easterin Ireland according to canonical observance (HE V, 15).

52. HE V, 15.53. HE V. 22: AU s.a., 716: AT (Rev. Celt., xvii, 225-26). K. Hughes, op. cit., 107 (note 5)

regards it as possible to interpret Bede's account of the death of Ecgberht to mean that themonks of lona did not finally accept the Roman Easter until 729, but this ambiguity wasanswered by Plummer, Baedae Opera Historica II, 352. There is no reason to think in terms ofa schism at lona after 716; A. O & M. O. Anderson, Adomnan's Life of Columba, 100:and cf. K. Bannerman, Appendix to K. Hughes. 1 The Church and the World in Early ChristianIreland,' Irish Historical Studies 13 (1962-63) 114-15.

15

THE 1NNES REVIEW

Bede's church remained in touch with Iona right down to the eve of thewriting of the Historia Ecclesiastica.

Similar Romanising influences to those at work in Ireland and DalRiata were also exerting pressures on Pictland. In 693 it was apparentlyAdomnan who buried Bridei, son of Bili, reputedly on Iona.54 In 697the name of Bridei, king of the Picts (697-706), son of Derilei, appearsamong the guarantors of Adomnan's ' Law of the Innocents ' at the synodof Birr. Bridei, son of Derilei, figures in the traditions about St Servanus,possibly a contemporary of Adomnan, and the thirteenth-century textof the medieval Life of Servanus provides the details of this legend.55 Theaccount of the early life of Servanus is wholly fabulous and Servanus issaid to have been pope at Rome before setting out on a mission to distantlands. On his arrival at the Firth of Forth he is said to have been metby Adomnan. He subsequently cured the king of the Picts, Brude, sonof Dargart (Derilei), and his major ecclesiastical foundations were on theisland of Lochleven and at Culross in Fife, and when he died in his cellat Dunning, near Forteviot (a Pictish royal residence), his body was takento Culross for burial. The immediate purpose of the Life was probablyto give some account of the founding of the community of Culdees ofSt Servanus on the island of Lochleven. Though one form of Adomnan'sname, Odauodanus,56 indicates the use of earlier written material, it isdoubtful, however, if anything very much can be made of his Life so faras the Church in Pictland in the reign of Bridei, son of Derilei, is con-cerned. The association of Servanus with Rome has been interpreted as

indicating that Servanus was a Romaniser, attempting to bring the PictishChurch into conformity with Rome,57 but there was a tradition that hewas the son of a daughter of a Pictish king58 and the memory of his cellat Dunning, together with his association with a community of Culdees,suggests not so much a Romaniser as a Celtic anchorite, one of the neworder of ascetics who emerged in the latter part of the eighth centuryas the Culdees, the ' vassals of God.'59 There appear, moreover, to havebeen different accounts of Servanus, each of which placed him in adifferent chronological context.60 The association of Bridei, son of Derilei,

54. Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, ed. W. F. Skene (Edinburgh, 1857), 408-09.55. Ibid., 412-20.56. Ibid., 416.57. W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, 3 vols. (Edinburgh, 1886-90), II, 255-58.58. W. F. Skene, ibid., 258.59. For a recent account of the Culdees, see K. Hughes, The Church in Early Irish Society, 173ff.60. The Breviary of Aberdeen, in its main account, represents Servanus (Serf) as the disciple of

Palladius in the fifth century, and Jocelyn's mid-twelfth century Life of Kentigern representshim as the teacher of Kentigern in the late sixth century. A notice in the Liber CartulariumPrioratus Sancti Andree in Scotia records that Brude, son of Dergard. bestowed the island ofLochleven on the Culdees dwelling there, but this Brude is called the last king of the Picts(Early Scottish Charters, ed. A. C. Lawrie (Glasgow, 1905) no. III). This could mean thathe is to be identified with Brude (Bridei) (842), son of Ferad (Uurad). who is the last kingin List I. This record shows that Servanus belonged to the period before 842, and raises a

suspicion that Brude, son of Dergard. in the Life of Adomnan. is a confusion with Brude.son of Ferad (cf. K. H. Jackson. ' St Kentigern, Studies in the Early British Church, ed. N. K.Chadwick (Cambridge, 1963) 296 (note 2)).

16

REV. WILLIAM JAMES ANDERSON, MA,1894-1972

Father Anderson is photographed here at work in the Scottish Catholic Archives.The wooden cabinet dating from the mid-nineteenth century contains part of the largecollection of post-Reformation letters preserved in the archives.

o < [si —|8 ?re —.3-=•£.(")»*^§g» o"2 £~3 5'

i-b_l 3

J (T) r» JO "3" O

r.

O O TS

; S£ IB

e.g. 3t/> 3

re ™

< 3" O.

P3

o' o: q.

fD

ags,S CT

3 3 N> w~• B - =

>&= 1L fl p —

re euO. re -ire 3 W —; rpreg3.0"v SB

P

re Ea

3d2 c o

>r>NNO

* s 2" *o•

>

>z0>

D


however, with Adomnan's ' Law of the Innocents,' is striking, and inde-pendent evidence of some link between Bridei and Adomnan's work inIreland.

Another guarantor of Adomnan's Law in 697 was Bishop Curitan.The day of the death of Curitan, bishop and abbot of Ros Mind Bairend,is commemorated in an early Irish martyrology on the same day(16 March) as that of a St Boniface.61 The account of Boniface both inthe Breviary of Aberdeen, the Codex Ultrajectinus, and other late his-tories is slight and legendary.62 The saint, described as pope, as in thecase of Servanus, and named Boniface in the Breviary, is placed in thecontext of a Roman mission to Britain in the time of a King Nechtan.Boniface, called Kiritinus in the Codex, was received by Nechtan whenhe landed, according to the Breviary at Restenneth, according to theCodex at Invergowrie, and he eventually died at one of his major foun-dations, Rosemarkie in Ross. The mission is set in the period immediatelyafter the reign of the Emperor Maurice (582-602) and the pontificate ofGregory the Great, and it has been dated to the time of Pope Boniface IV(608-15) and King Nechtan, grandson of Uerb: but if the identificationof Boniface/Kiritinus with Curitan has any validity, Boniface belongsrather to the time of Nechtan, son of Derilei (706-24).63 The associationof Curitan with Adomnan at Birr in 697, the possible identification ofCuritan with Boniface, and the association of dedications to St Peter withthose areas in which Boniface is said to have worked, make it possibleto interpret these legendary accounts to the effect that Curitan did repre-sent a Romanising element within the Irish Church and that he playedsome part in the introduction of the Roman Easter among the Picts.

Though his principal church was apparently at Rosemarkie, Boniface(? Curitan) is said to have worked in particular in Angus and the Mearns(Circinn) and in Marr and Buchan (Ce), and these are the areas in whichdedications to St Peter are most numerous in Pictland. A great deal offantasy about the early history of the Celtic Church has been wovenaround Celtic church dedications or commemorations of as yet undeter-mined date, but those in Pictland to St Peter have a particular significanceand value. Bede records the resolution of King Nechtan, when heapproached the Northumbrians, to build a new church after the Romanmanner, dedicated to St Peter, and he subsequently speaks of the PictishChurch as newly under the protection of Peter, the blessed prince of the

61. The Martyrology of Tallaght. ed. R. I. Best and B. J. Lawlor (Henry Bradshaw Society 68,1929: published 1931), 24: W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland II, 229-31.

62. The account of Boniface in the Breviary of Aberdeen was edited by W. F. Skene, Chroniclesof the Picts and Scots. 421-23, and that of Kiritan in the Codex Ultrajectinus with othermaterial in Acta Sanctorum : Martii Tomus Secundus (Paris & Rome, 1865), 444.

63. ES I, 145 (note 3), where it is suggested that the mission was sent by Boniface IV (it couldjust as easily on the same grounds have been Boniface V) in the reign of Nechtan, grandsonof Uerb: but there seems no reason to suppose, when dealing with such garbled accounts, thatthe name of the missionary really contains the name of the pope in whose pontificate themission occurred. To deduce that Boniface was sent by a Pope Boniface seems to argue ina circle.

17

THE INNES REVIEW

apostles.64 It is evident that St Peter was the symbol of the Roman partyin the Pictish Church at this time. Though not all pre-Reformation dedi-cations to St Peter in Pictish territory will go back as far as the eighthcentury, those that do exist must contain within them a kernel of dedica-tions from this period. The churches at Restenneth and at Rosemarkieare dedicated to St Peter and the association of Boniface with those areasin which dedications to the apostle are marked65 do rather link Bonifacewith the movement for ecclesiastical change which was now bringingpressure to bear upon Nechtan, son of Derilei, king of the Picts. Nechtanmust have viewed with some concern the emergence of new friendly linksbetween Northumbria and Dal Riata from the late 680s onwards, thecontinuing contact between Iona and the Northumbrian Church andbetween Adomnan, abbot of Iona, and the Church in Ireland. If all theneighbouring Churches were to unite in acceptance of the Roman Easter,the king of the Picts could hardly remain indifferent to the threat ofecclesiastical isolation and its corresponding undertones of politicalencirclement.

The appearance also of the Northumbrian, Ecgberht, with BishopCuritan at the Synod of Birr in 697 as a guarantor of Adomnan's ' Lawof the Innocents' further tends to associate Curitan with a Romanisingcircle. It was Ecgberht who subsequently so successfully introduced theRoman Easter on Iona in 716. He was of noble birth and had gone toIreland to complete his education. At the time of the great plague of664, Ecgberht vowed that if he survived he would devote himself to goodworks and live always in a foreign land.66 He resolved ultimately to workamong the continental Germans. A monk, however, from Cuthbert's oldmonastery of Melrose, claiming to have had a vision of his former master,Boisil (formerly prior of Melrose), urged Ecgberht to devote himselfrather to instructing the monasteries of Columba in Catholic observancesand prevailed upon him not to go to Germany himself: in his own placeEcgberht sent first Wictberht and then Willibrord.67 The date of thisdecision must have been c 688.68 This was approximately the time thatAdomnan was converted to the Roman Easter but failed to win over themonks of Iona. The chronological synchronisation is arresting: and soare the apparent links between Melrose and Ecgberht, between Cuthbertas prior of Melrose and the Picts, and between Ecgberht and the churchesof Columba, for Ecgberht did not only work among the Scots but alsoamong the Picts. Bede states clearly that Ecgberht was on Iona from 716until 729, so that his work among the Picts must have been completed64. HE V, 21.65 W. D. Simpson. ' The Early Romanesque Tower at Restenneth Priory. Angus,' The Anti-

quaries Journal XLIII (1963) 269-83 argues that the dedications to St Peter at Restenneth andRosemarkie, and at Tealing (also associated is the legend with Boniface), and at the earlycentres of Meigle, Fyvie and Inveravon probably all go back to the eighth century (pp. 270-72).

66. HE III, 27.67. HE V, 9, 10.68. Willibrord went to the continent in 690: before this, Wictberht had worked for two years in

Frisia (HE V, 9: Baedae Opera Historica II, 288).18


by 716.69 Whether Ecgberht's work in Pictland was confined to Columbanfoundations is unknown. In fact, Bede gives no precise details about hisactivities among the Picts. We may conjecture, in view of the Melroseconnection, that Ecgberht worked among the Picts with whom the monas-

tery of Melrose had had or still had contacts, and these would includethe Niduari Picts. It is also possible that he visited the court of Nechtan,son of Derilei, and that he played a part in persuading the king of thePicts to approach the Northumbrian monastery of Monkwearmouth andJarrow for guidance on the Easter question. It might be thought that, ifthis were the case, Bede would have mentioned him when he came todescribe Nechtan's overtures to Abbot Ceolfrith, but Bede may not havepossessed detailed information when he wrote the Historic! Ecclesiasticafifteen or so years later about Ecgberht's activities in Pictland, and inaddition, at this point, he may have been concerned more particularly toemphasise the part played by his own monastery in the conversion of thePictish king to the Roman Easter. What is clear, however, is thatEcgberht, a Romanising Northumbrian, having some association withthe monastery of Melrose which itself had possessed Pictish contacts,worked among the Picts and endeavoured to persuade them to adoptCatholic observances. We have here a reliable glimpse of the kind ofinfluence to which Nechtan was reacting.

There has been some ambiguity as to the date of Nechtan's overturesto the Northumbrians. Bede begins his account with ' At that time,'apparently with reference to the period c 710,70 but he subsequently statesthat it was not long after Nechtan's acceptance of the Roman Easter thatthe monks of Iona were converted by Ecgberht in 716.71 A date c 715seems to be confirmed by Nechtan's expulsion of the Columban com-munities from Pictland across

' the ridge of Britain' into Dal Riata in717,72 for Bede says that Nechtan took immediate action on receipt ofthe letter. The Columban clergy would arrive back in Iona to find thatthe change had already taken place there. What is surprising is that theywere so uninformed about developments at home. Nechtan's action was

probably directed particularly against the Columban monasteries anddesigned to prevent a prolonged division within the Pictish kingdom. Hisposition was no doubt close to that of Oswiu in Northumbria in 664 andthe expulsion of the Columban clergy is perhaps best thought of as a

parallel to the expulsion of Colman and his followers from Lindisfarne.It may be that the community on Iona adopted the Roman Easter in 716in a vain attempt to forestall the expulsion of their dependent brethrenin Pictland. The period e 715-717 was certainly crucial for the church ofIona. Even Bede, writing in 731, implied that the importance of Iona

69. he v, 22.70. he V, 20 describes an event of 710.71. HE V, 22.72. AU s.a., 717: AT (Rev. Cell., xvii, 225).

19

THE INNES REVIEW

among the Picts and the Scots belonged by then rather to the past.73 Bythe late ninth century the Pictish Church had clearly evolved in a differentway from the Dalriadic. After the overthrow of the Pictish kingdom bythe Scots, as part of a general process of gaelicisation, Giric, son ofDungal, king of the Scots (878-89) is said to have given liberty to theChurch which jp to that time had been in servitude after the custom ofthe Picts,74 and in 905-6 Constantine, son of Aed, pledged that the lawsand disciplines of the Church should be kept in conformity with thecustom of the Scots.75 Differences between the Pictish and the ScottishChurches may well have been present before c 715-17, but there can beno doubt that the action of King Nechtan accelerated their development.We do not know how far the process of Romanisation proceeded amongthe Picts. In 721 Sedulius, a Scot and a bishop from Britain, and Fergus,a Pict, a bishop of the Scots, were present at a council in Rome,76 andFergus has been identified with the Fergus whose preaching activities inCaithness and Buchan are remembered in the Breviary of Aberdeen.11But there is certainly no evidence to show that any attempt was made tointroduce the Roman hierarchy of ecclesiastical orders, even though thiswas a fundamental and crucial issue. No archbishop, as the Romansunderstood the term, made an appearance in the Celtic Church in Scot-land or in Ireland.78 The influence of the Romanising element in Pictlandwas probably limited, confining itself primarily to bringing Pictish eccle-siastical communities into line with other Churches in the matter ofEaster and the tonsure. Nevertheless, the reign of Nechtan, son of Derilei,was a period of change in the Pictish Church and this change was in partat least a consequence of Northumbrian influence.

The Northumbrians never revived the see of Abercorn, but they didcreate an Anglian bishopric at Whithorn in south-west Scotland c 725-30:the bishop appointed was a Northumbrian, Pechthelm, who had been withthe West Saxon Aldhelm at Sherborne 79 The fact that the name Pecht-helm means

' Protector of the Picts' (and that the name of one of hissuccessors, Pechtwine means ' Friend of the Picts') does not necessarilyhave significance for Northumbrian and Pictish ecclesiastical relations,for there were no Picts (certainly at this time) in south-west Scotland80

73. HE III, 3.74. Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, 151.75. Ibid., 9.76. Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents II, I, 7.77. W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland II, 232: certainty, of course, is not possible.78. On the title ' archbishop ' in Celtic lands, see, for example, G. Donaldson, ' Scottish Bishops'

Sees Before the Reign of David I,' Proc of the Soc. of Antiquaries of Scotland LXXXVII(1952-3) 106-117 (pp. 109-111): but there were elements in the Irish Church in the first halfof the eighth century aware of the problem in the absence of a recognisable hierarchy. (K.Hughes, op. cit., 123).

79. HE III, 4: V, 23. The implication of these passages is that the establishment of a bishopricat Whithorn was relatively recent, though Bede nowhere gives the precise date. For Pechthelmas a companion of Aldhelm, HE V, 18.

80. F. T. Wainwright, ' The Picts and the Problem,' The Problem of the Picts, 40-44. J. MacQueenargues that the Picts of Galloway and the Gall-ghaidhil were virtually one and the same:' The Picts in Galloway,' Trans, of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History andAntiquarian Society XXXIX (1960-61) 127-43 (p. 143).

20


and Pecht- names were fairly common in contemporary Anglo-SaxonEngland.81 The establishment of the bishopric of Whithorn has been seenas an attempt by the Northumbrians to replace the church of Columba,Scottish missionary to the northern Picts, with that of Ninian, Britishmissionary to the southern Picts: for, in the same way as Iona wasColumba's chief foundation, so Whithorn was traditionally the greatchurch of Ninian.82 This kind of interpretation, in the face of slight literarymaterial, must always be intuitive rather than based on a series of sup-porting and well-attested pieces of evidence. There is nothing to show,for example, that the bishops of Whithorn ever played a prominent partin ecclesiastical affairs in Pictland, or that King Nechtan was preparedto concede any authority in Pictland to the church of Whithorn. Thismay, of course, be the consequence of inadequate material. Apart fromnotices about their consecration and death, nothing is known at all indetail of the bishops of Whithorn in the eighth century. But the idea ofWhithorn as a Northumbrian see deliberately selected for its Pictishassociations, has not been generally accepted. There could have been aninterval of more than ten years between the acceptance of the RomanEaster in Pictland and the creation of a bishopric at Whithorn. It hasbeen suggested that Bede, who describes Pechthelm as the first bishop ofthe church, only heard about the earlier existence of Ninian or Nyniaafter he had completed the Ecclesiastical History, and so had to inter-polate the passage about Nynia rather clumsily after his account ofColumba.83 The implication of this could be that, far from the Northum-brians selecting Whithorn as a bishopric because of the mission of itsfounder to the Picts, they only discovered a body of tradition aboutNynia accidentally and after the see had been established.

But this would require quite a remarkable coincidence. Too muchshould not be made of Bede's description of Pechthelm as first bishop,for Bede could have meant the first Anglian bishop. It is unlikely, onthe whole, that the Northumbrians would have considered establishing a

bishopric at Whithorn were it not for their knowledge of tradition thereabout an important saint. There is one point which bears on this matterwhich is of great significance. Bede does not specify the name of thePictish people among whom Nynia worked, but his account of Nynia wasderived from material which was subsequently independently incorpor-ated in the Miracula Nynie Episcopi,M written later in the eighth centuryby an Anglian and based on an older Celtic Life of the saint.85 The

81. J. MacQueen, St Nynia (Edinburgh, 1961) 33-34.82. N. K. Chadwick, 1 St Ninian: a preliminary study of sources,' Trans, of the Dumfriesshire

and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society XXVII (1950) 9-54 (p. 50).83. J. MacQueen, St Nynia, 26-27.84. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini, ed. K. Strecker, IV (Berlin,

1923), 943-62. There is a new edition with translation by W. W. MacQueen, ' MiraculaNynie Episcopi,' Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Anti-quarian Society XXXVIII (1959-60) 21-57.

85. J. MacQueen, St Nynia, 2-6.

21

THE INNES REVIEW

Miracula refers in the context of Nynia's mission to the naturae Picts andnaturae should almost certainly be amended to Niduarae.m It is funda-mental at this point to bear in mind the nature of historical tradition atthis time. Given the intensely localised nature of the oral tradition behindannals, histories, and saints' Lives, the reference to Nynia's work amongthe Niduari Picts is as likely to be a fragment of tradition from amongthe Niduari themselves as part of the traditions of the church of Whit-horn. Indeed it is more likely. The absence of detailed information aboutNynia's mission to the Picts in Bede's account and in the Miracula, andpresumably, therefore, in the older Celtic Life, strongly indicates thatnothing very much was known at Whithorn. Moreover, the form Niduarior Niduarae is Anglian:87 this small detail was probably not even partof the original Vita. The Northumbrians, certainly in the time of Cuth-bert, are known to have been in direct contact with the Niduari Picts,and which was their name for these particular Picts. But the Northum-brians would not know who was said to have originally converted theNiduari unless the Niduari told them. To maintain, therefore, that it isimprobable that Bede received information from Pictland about Nynia88is unwarranted. It was precisely the Niduari who were most likely topreserve some traditions of the saint who was remembered as the firstmissionary to preach among them. Even they—in view of the timeinterval—may not have known a great deal about his activities, but theextent of their knowledge is unknown. What is apparent is that the churchof Whithorn appears to have been singularly uninterested in Nynia'smission to the Picts.89 This suggests that the church of Whithorn in theeighth century had no special Pictish ties, and that it was essentially theBritish birth of its reputed founder and not his mission to the Picts whichled the Northumbrians to select it as the site for a bishopric for theBritons of south-west Scotland. Setting Whithorn itself to one side, how-ever, much more might have been known in the Northumbrian Churchgenerally about Nynia's mission to the Picts than Bede reveals, for Bede'sconcern was not directly with the Pictish Church and he only mentionsNynia as background information in the same way as he briefly outlinesthe career of Columba. It was obviously known in Northumbrian eccle-siastical circles, for example, though Bede does not mention it, thatNynia worked among the Niduari Picts. The problem is when this infor-mation was acquired. It could have been acquired in the time of Cuthbert;

86. W. Levison, ' An Eighth-Century Poem on St Ninian,' Antiquity 14 (1940) 280-91 (p. 288).The reference occurs in the heading to Chapter 3 of the Miracula.

87. Peter Hunter Blair, ' The Bernicians and their Northern Frontier,' 168 (note 2).88. J. MacQueen, St Nynia, 22. There are absolutely no grounds for simply rejecting a mission by

Nynia to the Picts completely.89. J. MacQueen. Si Nynia. 22-24. It will be seen that I have now in fact modified my own view,

expressed in ' Bede's Native Sources for the Historia Ecclesiastica,' 350, that Bede's informa-tion about Nynia's mission to the southern Picts derived from Whithorn.

22


and indeed it is quite possible that Cuthbert did learn something of thetraditions of the Niduari, but whether such knowledge passed fromCuthbert in particular into more general Northumbrian knowledge ofPictish history is unknown. It could also have been acquired between thewriting of the Historia Ecclesiastica and the writing of the Miracula, butthis, on the whole, is unlikely for Bede already knew about Nynia'smission to the Picts by 731. It is the years c 715-17 in particular whichprovide the most likely time for the acquisition in Northumbria of infor-mation about the Picts, about the legendary arrival of the Picts in Britain,for example,90 the division of the Picts into northern and southern, andthe peculiarities governing the succession to the Pictish kingship. Thiswas the time when Pictish envoys are known to have actually come rightinto the heart of Northumbria and to the monastery of Monkwearmouthand Jarrow to discuss the Roman Easter, and English envoys returnedto Pictland. This was exactly the moment when the Northumbrians wouldbe interested to know how the Picts with whom they were dealing hadbeen converted in the first place. King Nechtan would know traditionsabout Columba from the Columban foundations he was in the processof challenging; and that part of Bede's information about Columbawhich was probably from the Picts themselves was no doubt derived onthis occasion.91 From these envoys the account of Nynia's mission wouldalso be acquired, subsequently fused by Bede with an account of Nyniafrom Whithorn and the whole appended to an existing account of thework of Columba from lona: hence the apparently awkward nature ofthis chapter.

Bede wrote only in the most general terms about Nynia's Pictishmission, but the Pictish envoys who told the Northumbrians, if thisreconstruction is correct, that Nynia had originally converted them werethe Picts who were known to the Northumbrians as the Niduari. This ismost important for it implies that Nechtan himself, who was responsiblefor sending these particular envoys and for receiving the English envoys

90. Cf., Adomnan's Life of Columba, ed A O. & M. O. Anderson, 63.91. Cf., K. Hughes, Early Christianity in Pictland, 2. The name of Brude, son of Maelchon, as

Bede gives it (Bridius filius Meilochon), approximates to its Pictish form; Bridei, not theking of Dal Riata, is said to have given lona to Columba; and Columba's arrival is dated bythe regnal year of Bridei. Columba arrived in 563, not 565 as in HE III, 4, but the year issaid to have been Bridei's ninth, which is correct. The reign of Nechtan, son of Derilei, mayhave been a significant stage in the construction of the Pictish king lists (M. O. Anderson,'The Lists of the Kings II,' Scottish Historical Review 29 (1950) 13-22). and such a detailwould perhaps be well known to leading Pictish historians at this time. The dating of an eventwith reference to the specific year of a reigning king is typical, of course, of genuine oralchronological tradition in the Dark Ages prior to the compilation of annals and histories usingthe Year of the Incarnation (cf., D. P. Kirby. ! Bede and Northumbrian Chronology,' EnglishHistorical Review LXXVIII (1963) 514-27), and the chronology of early Pictish events in theIrish annals may well rest originally on such a basis rather than on hypothetical contemporaryentries in primitive Easter Tables. Further analysis of the Irish annals as a whole is neededto clarify this matter which is of fundamental importance.

23-.

THE INNES REVIEW

who went to Pictland, was in some way closely connected with theNiduari,92 or at least aware of the links between the Northumbrian Churchand the Niduari. Thus we have a link between Melrose and Cuthbert,between Melrose and Ecgberht, between Cuthbert and Ecgberht andthe Picts, between Cuthbert and the Niduari, and between the Niduariand the approaches of King Nechtan concerning the Roman Easter tothe monastery of Monkwearmouth and Jarrow where Bede was later tobe particularly interested in Cuthbert and Ecgberht. R seems quitecredible that Ecgberht, following the vision of the monk from Melrose,went in particular to the Niduari Picts and that there was a significantlyclose relationship between Nechtan, son of Derilei, and the Niduari. Theisolated pieces of the historical jigsaw begin to come together and we can

perhaps glimpse something of the pattern and consistency of evolvingevents and their original essential inter-relationship and unity.

The history of the Pictish Church can only really be attempted whenthe hagiographical traditions of Scotland, which are generally late andlegendary, have been adequately analysed and the evidence of churchdedications or commemorations properly understood. Preliminary studyhas already suggested that the great majority of church dedications inPictish territory, being to Irish saints, probably belong to the period afterthe Scottish conquest in the mid-ninth century,93 in which case they mayhave little bearing on the early history of the Pictish Church. On theother hand, if a site of a church can be dated by considerations of archae-ology or historical geography to a period before the mid-ninth century,the rededication would not affect the Pictish character of the location andoriginal foundation. When such an analysis has been systematicallyundertaken, our approach to the ecclesiastical development of Scotlandas a whole from the sixth to the twelfth century will be on a much sounderfooting. Even so, it is unlikely that the re-sifted material will bear to anyconsiderable extent specifically on the subject of the relations betweenthe Northumbrian and Pictish Churches in the pre-Viking period. Indeed,the localised nature of hagiographical legend and the Irish or occasionallyPictish nomenclature of the mass of early church dedications in Scotlandwill probably give the impression that there was very little ecclesiasticalcontact between Northumbria and Pictland. It is fortunate, therefore, thatthe written records for the second half of the seventh century and theearly years of the eighth, fragmentary though they are, illuminate impor-

92. Nechtan is usually associated by historians with the province of Atholl, because an apparentkinsman of his, Talorc, son of Drostan, ruled in Atholl (AU s.a., 717, 739: AT (Rev. Celt.,xvii, 223, 243)). This does not, however, preclude Nechtan from possessing family connectionsin other areas of Pictland also.

93. I. Henderson, The Picts, 79.

24


tant aspects of the scene and reveal what could probably have remainedotherwise unknown contacts and associations.94 Bede's EcclesiasticalHistory of the English People really tells us more about the Picts thanwe could have hoped.

94. One separate association or relationship may be mentioned but only with caution, namely thatAcca, bishop of Hexham, on his expulsion from Hexham in 731 or 732, went to Abercornfrom whence he may have influenced the dedications at Kilrymont to St Andrew. St Marythe Virgin and St Michael: see W. F. Skene, 'Notes on the Ecclesiastical Settlement at StAndrews,' Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland IV (1863) 300-21, and R. K.Hannay, St Andrew of Scotland (Edinburgh & London, 1934). This development, however, liesoutside the scope of the present study and requires quite separate analysis. The earliest accountof the founding of St Andrews by Ungus, son of Urguist (Chronicles of the Picts and Scots,139) contains some archaic and interesting details but has not yet been adequately analysed.Furthermore, while it is true that there was a community at Cen Rigmonaid (' the promontoryof the royal mount ') by 747 (AU s.a., 747: AT (Rev. Celt., xvu, 249)). later Kilrymont (' thechurch of the royal mount '), that is St Andrews, there is little to show that Kilrymont was

dedicated to St Andrew before the eleventh century, and much depends on the degree ofreliance placed upon document III in Early Scottish Clutrters. ed. A. C. Lawrie. It is possiblethat if there ever was any connection between Hexham and Kilrymont it dated to some periodafter the time of Acca. Sleibine, abbot of Iona (752-67) not only visited Hexham's sister houseat Ripon but was apparently a guest theTe long enough for him to pursue historical researches(Nennius et l'Historia Brittonum, ed. F. Lot (Paris, 1934), 228). This reference to the activitiesof Sleibine has survived quite by accident, but it reveals close contacts betwen Ripon and Ionain the late eighth century. At such a time, therefore, contacts between Hexham and Kilrymontare equally possible. Fragmentary records suggest that by the second half of the eighth centuryHexham. the principal Bernician see, was a half-way house, so to speak, between Lindisfarneand Whithorn, no doubt reaching out to the traditions these churches enshrined. When Cyne-wulf, bishop of Lindisfarne, was temporarily deposed in 760, his see was administered byAcca's successor, Frithuberht, bishop of Hexham: and after the assassination of ^Ifwold,king of Northumbria, in 788 and his burial at Hexham, the community subsequently built achurch on the site where he perished dedicated to St Oswald and St Cuthbert. In 789 i€thel-berht, bishop of Whithorn, was translated to Hexham. Any investigation of the growth of thecult of St Andrew in Alba with reference to Hexham must take this period very much intoaccount. All that can really be said for Acca in this connection is that he was bishop ofHexham when the Pictish envoys came to Monkwearmouth and Jarrow and so would beinvolved in the whole affair and familiar with it: but how far he developed contacts of hisown with Pictland either before or after his expulsion is really unknown.

25