Who were the Scots? This is a question extremely difficult to answer. No
satisfactory account of the origin of the appellation has been given. It
has puzzled the most distinguished antiquaries, whose conjectures serve
rather to perplex than clear up the difficulty. Nor is this surprising,
when Varro and Dyonysius could not agree about the etymon of Italia, nor
Plutarch and Selinus about that of Rome. All that is known with certainty
is, that it was at first a term of reproach, and consequently framed by
enemies, rather than assumed by the nation distinguished by that name.
The Highlanders, who were the genuine descendants of the ancient Scots,
are absolutely strangers to the name, and have been so from the beginning
of time. All those who speak the Gaelic language call themselves
_Albanich_ or _Gael_, and their country _Alba_ or _Gaeldochd_.
The Picts, who possessed originally the northern and eastern, and, in a
later period, the more southern division of North Britain, were at first
more powerful than the Caledonians of the west. It is therefore probable
that the Picts, from principles of malevolence and pride, were ready to
traduce and ridicule their weaker neighbors of Argyle. These two people
spoke the same language—the Gaelic. In that language _Scot_, or _Scode_,
signifies a corner or small division of a country. Accordingly, a corner
of North Britain is the very name which Giraldus Cambrensis gives the
little kingdom of Argyle, that the six sons of Muredus, King of Ulster,
are said to have established in Scotland. _Scot_, in Gaelic, is much the
same as _little_ or _contemptible_ in English; and _Scotlan_ literally
signifies a _small flock_, but metaphorically stands for a small body
of men. _Scuit_, a wanderer, is also from the Gaelic, and a few writers
suppose that this may have been the origin of the name of _Scot_, a
conjecture which seems to be countenanced by a passage in Ammianus
Marcellinus, where the men are characterized “_per diversa vagantes_.”
All that can be affirmed is, that, for some one of the reasons stated
above, the Picts or the Britons may have given, out of derision, the
appellation of _Scots_ to the ancestors of the Scottish nation.
At what time the inhabitants of the west of Scotland came to be
distinguished by this name is uncertain. Porphyrius, the philosopher, is
the first who mentions them, and this was about the year of the Christian
era 267. Towards the middle of the fourth century Ammianus Marcellinus
speaks of them along with other British nations.
Much discussion among antiquaries of note has taken place in regard
to the origin of the Scots. Dr. Macpherson contends that they are of
Caledonian, and Mr. Whitaker that they are of Irish extraction. Each
supports his position with such arguments and authorities that an
impartial inquirer is almost at a loss to know which to accept. What
appears most probable is, that both are partly in the right and partly
in the wrong. From what can be gleaned from past records the Scots seem
to have been originally descended from Britons of the south, or from
Caledonians, who, being pressed forward by new colonies from Gaul till
they came to the western shore of Britain, passed over into Ireland
probably one hundred years before the Christian era. Subsequently, about
the year of Christ 320, they, or a large colony of them, returned under
Fergus to Britain, and settled on the western coasts of Caledonia, from
which place they had formerly migrated. As early as 340 they are found
associated with the Picts in their expeditions into the Roman province,
and for ninety or a hundred years afterwards Roman and British writers
make frequent mention of their depredatory excursions.
The territory of the ancient Scots comprehended, before the annexation
of Pictavia, all that side of Caledonia that stretched along the coast
from the Frith of Clyde to the Orkneys. Towards the east their dominions
were divided from those of the Picts by the high mountains running from
Dumbarton to the Frith of Tain. In course of time the Scots, under the
reign of Kenneth, son of Alpin, became so powerful as to subdue their
neighbors the Picts, and to give their own denomination to all Caledonia,
Pictavia and Valentia, which territories are still comprehended under the
general name of Scotland.
Like those of all other nations, the historians of Scotland assume too
great an antiquity for their countrymen, but are, however, much less
extravagant in this particular than many others. According to them, the
reign of Fergus, the first Scot monarch, is placed at 330 B. C. He was
the son of Ferchard, an Irish prince, and is said to have been called
into Scotland by the Caledonians to assist them against the Southern
Britons, with whom they were then at war. Their language and manners he
found to be the same as those of his countrymen. This happy condition
of things rendered his position a very easy one. Placing himself at the
head of his new allies, he engaged the Britons under their king, Coilus.
Events proved him a brave and efficient leader. Coilus was defeated and
killed, and victory soon settled upon the banners of the Scots. Shortly
afterwards Fergus was declared, with the solemnity of an oath, king of
the Scots. But he did not long enjoy his new dignity, for, being called
to Ireland to quiet some commotions there, he was drowned on his return
voyage at a place on the coast of Ireland, which was called for him,
_Knock-Fergus_, or _Carrick-Fergus_; that is, Fergus’s Rock.
Feritharis, brother of Fergus, succeeded to the throne to the prejudice
of his nephews—Ferlegus and Mainus. His reign was not a peaceful one,
for Ferlegus fomented strifes and dissensions, which failed of success,
and only resulted, after the death of his uncle, in his being set aside
from the succession. The throne was conferred upon his brother Mainus,
Ferlegus having died in obscurity. The reign of Mainus and those of
Dornadill and Nothat afford nothing remarkable. Reutha, Thereus, Jafina
and Finnan then followed in regular succession, but no transactions of
note marked their administrations, save that of the last, where we find
the first beginnings of the Scottish Parliament. Durftus, Even and Gillus
then succeeded, but their reigns were barren of interest. Even II, the
nephew of Finnan, who came after Gillus, is said to have built the towns
of Innerlochy and Inverness. He overcame Belus, king of the Orkneys, who
had invaded Scotland. His son Ever, who next assumed the reins, became
king at the time of the invasion of Britain by Julius Cæsar, and assisted
the Britons against the common enemy. Even III, his successor, was a
monster of cruelty and lust. His great wickedness occasioned a rebellion,
and ended in his dethronement, imprisonment and death. Nothing memorable
in the history of Scotland is met with from this time until that of
Agricola, who having completed the conquest of the southern parts and in
a great measure civilized the inhabitants, formed a like plan with regard
to Scotland. Here he met a most formidable opposition, but Scotch valor
was not proof against the discipline of Roman troops and the experience
of their commander. The subsequent history of the Scot, his contact
with the Dane, the Angles and the Saxons, and the Normans, must be left
unmentioned. We have called attention to these people for the reason that
they had in manner and language impressed the Scot of their days, and
left an influence behind which is even felt in his progenitors of the
present time. Our purpose at the beginning was to give but the history
of the origin of the name and of those who had it imposed upon them, and
this we have briefly, and it is to be hoped, successfully, accomplished.