GENERAL SURVEY AND FIRST NOTICES.
§1. General Considerations upon the Reception of the Ossianic Poems in
Germany.
Almost a century and a half has elapsed since the literary world of
Europe bowed to a new offspring of the poetic muse that many thought
would be immortal. The poems of Ossian were assigned to a ‘natural
genius,’ whom men of unquestioned literary sagacity placed next to and
even above Homer. Now they are almost forgotten, and their interest lies
mainly in the influence they exerted upon some of the greatest minds of
the 18th century.
It was in the year 1760[15] that James Macpherson, a Scotch youth of
twenty–four,[16] published in Edinburgh some _Fragments of Ancient
Poetry, Collected in the Highlands of Scotland, and Translated from the
Gallic or Erse Language_. Neither Macpherson nor his friends anticipated
the tremendous sensation these fragments were destined to make, not only
in Scotland and England, but on the whole continent of Europe. But
Macpherson was not the man to underestimate the position which he had
suddenly attained, and accordingly, emboldened by his initial success,
he published in 1761 _Fingal_, an epic poem in six books, and in 1763
_Temora_[17] in eight books. With the dispute over the authenticity of
the poems we are not here concerned. The researches of modern Celtic
scholars have cast much light upon the long–disputed question. They have
accorded Macpherson the place that in justice belongs to him, the place
of a ‘skillful artificer,’[18] who took a few crude scattered fragments
of Irish—not distinctively Scotch—folk–songs as his foundation, and
not only lengthened them into more elaborate and refined poems, but
built up long epics, which, although accepted as genuine by a credulous
age in a moment of blind enthusiasm, have not been able to withstand the
scrutiny of the unprejudiced scholar.
Macpherson’s _Ossian_ was not the first literary product of England that
was received with favor by the Germans in the 18th century, but no other
made its influence felt so strongly. A glance at the bibliography will
show the importance of Ossian in the literary history of Germany. There
was scarcely a writer of note who did not at some time or other fall
under the spell. First came Klopstock, who, regarding Ossian as a
German, found the songs of the bard a fit vehicle for the transmission
of his patriotic ideas. Gerstenberg wrote a long drama in the Ossianic
vein. Denis translated the poems of the bard and imitated him zealously.
Kretschmann and many so–called ‘bards’ of smaller caliber fell into
line. Herder hailed the advent of the songs with delight and based his
theories of popular poetry largely upon them. Goethe, inspired by
Herder, took a passing but deep interest in the literary curiosity,
which left its impress upon a portion of his work.[19] Schiller’s
earliest dramas show traces of Ossian’s influence. The _Storm and
Stress_ writers found nourishment in the writings of a genius who
observed no rules. Merck edited an English edition of the poems. Lenz
translated _Fingal_. The poets of the _Göttinger Bund_—Bürger, Hölty,
Voss, Fried. Stolberg, Cramer—have all left testimony of their
admiration for the Gaelic Homer. Then there were Claudius and Matthisson
and Kosegarten, all influenced by Ossian. Even Gessner shows his
indebtedness in some of his later idyls. Weisse and Haller wrote
detailed reviews. Adelung strongly opposed the authenticity of the
poems. Wilhelm Schlegel seconded the latter’s efforts. Friedrich
Schlegel seriously discussed the authenticity. Jacob Grimm was extremely
anxious to appear as their champion. The melancholy of Novalis sought
consolation in the Ossianic ‘joy of grief.’ Tieck produced several
imitations in his youth. Hölderlin also read the poems with ardor.
Freiligrath wrote a ballad “Ossian.” And so on to the end of the
chapter. Schubert and Brahms, Zumsteeg and Dittersdorf, Seckendorff and
Löwe, and other German composers, have set portions of the poems to
music. German artists have tried their hand at illustrating Ossianic
scenes and depicting Gaelic heroes. But why pursue the subject further?
It were almost impossible to overestimate the favor which the poems of
Ossian once enjoyed in Germany. The baptismal name Oskar, so common in
Germany, and those of Selma and Malvine,[20] still found there, serve as
perpetual reminders of the proud rôle that Ossian, son of Fingal, once
played on German soil.
In order to comprehend this wide–spread influence, let us glance at the
literary condition of Germany in the seventh decade of the 18th century.
As far as their success in Germany is concerned, the poems of Ossian
could not have been ushered in at a more opportune moment. We may safely
assert that at no time before were the chances of a favorable reception
so good; and had they been published in the 19th century, their
influence would have been nil. And it was fortunate in many respects
that the songs appeared when they did, for although we have long ceased
to regard Ossian as a classic, we have no reason to consider his
influence pernicious. Of course the danger of drawing false conclusions
and exaggerating the value of the poems was great, and that they worked
a certain amount of mischief no one will deny. Yet the indisputable
facts remain, that the poems of Ossian aroused a wide–spreading interest
in the ‘tales of the times of old,’ that they helped to draw the
attention of the Germans to their own rich store of popular poetry; that
they aided in eradicating the general idea that German literature
depended for its prosperity upon imitation. Themselves artificial, by a
strange paradox they helped to dispel artificiality, and we really owe
to Macpherson a debt of gratitude for making us acquainted with those
‘deeds of the days of other years’ when ‘Fingal fought and Ossian sung.’
The controversy that arose over the genuineness of the songs was
instrumental in calling general attention to them. A fight usually
attracts a crowd, and it did not fail to do so in this instance.
Aspirants for critical honors were allured into the polemical arena like
moths into the flame. The majority of the German critics came nobly to
Macpherson’s defense, and their decided views as to the authenticity and
beauty of the poems had a marked effect upon the opinions of their
readers.
And then the poems appeared in English, a language that had become
interesting to the Germans, especially after the Seven Years’ War drew
Prussia and England closer together. It did not require a thorough
knowledge of English to read Ossian. The periods were short and simple,
involved constructions were almost entirely lacking, and repetitions of
the same thought in terms virtually similar were of frequent occurrence.
The episodes themselves were simple and called for no serious
application of the reasoning powers; any complications that might arise
were explained away by a careful argument preceding each poem, and those
who were curious to know more about the origin and age of the poems
found abundant material to satisfy them in the various dissertations
prefixed to many of the editions and translations. On the whole, nothing
in the entire range of English literature could have been found
that better met the demand for a text shorn of the most common
difficulties. The number of English reprints that appeared in Germany is
incontrovertible evidence of the frequency with which these poems were
read in the original. And it is patent that this circumstance
contributed in some measure to their popularity. A German of the 18th
century, possessed of a moderate knowledge of English, would be less
drawn to _Paradise Lost_ than to Ossian. While the nature of the subject
is the primary cause for the large number of German translations of
Ossian, the apparent simplicity of the material no doubt induced more
than one person to present his countrymen with a new translation. And
thus it came about that Ossian was in more cases than one translated
into German by men who absolutely lacked poetic talent. The earliest
translations were in rhythmic prose, a fact that did much to increase
the popularity of this style of writing in Germany at that time. About
the time of Klopstock’s entrance upon the literary stage, and for some
time afterwards, the theory widely prevailed, that the poet enters into
more direct contact with nature by clothing his thoughts in prose. This
prose, however, was to be a poetic prose, poetic and at the same time
natural; for prose was regarded as the most natural expression of the
soul. Surely the sensation that Ossian made in Germany would not have
been so prodigious had his poems appeared in meter. An indignant protest
arose on all sides when Denis introduced an innovation by publishing a
translation in hexameters.[21] Had the poems of Ossian appeared
originally in the measures of the so–called Gaelic originals, they might
have found readier acceptance with scholars, but scarcely with the
reading public. There was something in Macpherson’s abrupt but pompous,
rhapsodical, measured prose _per se_ that won the hearts of the admirers
of ‘these glorious remains of antiquity.’
Two distinct tendencies stand out prominently on the literary horizon of
Germany in the middle of the 18th century: imitation of the ancients,
and the return to nature as preached by Rousseau and his disciples. It
is a signal coincidence that Macpherson’s poems and Rousseau’s _Nouvelle
Héloïse_ appeared about the same time. It is well known with what
acclaim Rousseau’s doctrines were hailed in Germany. To a people
professedly longing for a return to the delights of savage life, nothing
could have been more opportune than the practical illustration of
Rousseau’s theories in the account of the crude civilization depicted by
Macpherson, whose characters, while leading a life of freedom in the
wild fastnesses of the mountains, far from the haunts of civilized man,
had been supplied by Macpherson with a veneer of nobility and refinement
that would have better befitted a powdered and perfumed gallant of the
18th century. There are some points of resemblance between the
panegyrists of Thomson’s _Seasons_, who sang the beauties of the sunrise
but never rose before noon, and those followers of Rousseau who never
wearied of sighing for the advantages of savage life, but would have
indignantly declined to be taken at their word and transported among a
tribe of Patagonians. The heroes of Ossian were more to their taste:
these at least made some pretension to refinement of manners, even if
they did not powder their hair nor use snuff. We can vividly picture to
ourselves the immense stir that the sudden appearance of Ossian must
have made in a society that was ready to embrace Rousseau’s cause with
such alacrity.[22] To a certain extent the return to nature went hand in
hand with the awakening of a love for wild and lonely scenery, and here,
also, Macpherson gave all that could be demanded, even by the most
fastidious. Rousseau was a true lover of nature; he was passionately
fond of the Alps, and his example inspired the Germans with a new love
for mountain scenery. His writings did much to bring on the era of
nature–worship in Germany, and they were nobly seconded by Macpherson’s
descriptions of the Scottish Highlands.
In an age when it was considered good taste to imitate the ancients,
Ossian could not fail to arouse more than passing interest. From
imitation of the French and English, the Germans had, in accordance with
the ideas of Lessing, come back to the Greek source. But even in
imitation of the Greeks there was no real salvation. It needed a
Klopstock to arouse an interest in Germanic antiquity, in a civilization
that was less alien to the specifically German _Anschauung_. And here
Ossian’s beneficent influence enters, for his works undoubtedly
increased the interest that was beginning to be taken by the Germans in
their own antiquity. Klopstock regarded Ossian as a German, and Herder
based many a theory of the folk–song upon the lays of the Gaelic bard.
The influence, then, that Ossian had in this respect was rather an
indirect one. When we regard his direct influence in the matter of
imitation, the outlook is not so encouraging. Ossian’s world is
encompassed by narrow bounds, the field of his images and descriptions
is small, the emotions and sentiments expressed by his actors are
confined to a limited sphere; and all this, coupled with the continual
repetitions, greatly simplifies the process of direct imitation. And
this very simplicity proved an irresistible temptation and a snare to
many not at all qualified to enter the lists. Thus we find sorrowful
examples of attempts at Ossianic imitation in the work of some of the
so–called ‘bards’ and elsewhere. One thing Ossian did, however: he aided
Klopstock in his attempt to elevate the personal rank of the poet. At a
time when Klopstock was making strenuous efforts in this direction, it
was a great gain for those similarly minded to be able to point to the
times of old, when the bard was placed upon an equal footing with the
warrior and held in extraordinary esteem by the people. If Macpherson
involuntarily contributed his mite to the spread of the idea that the
poet’s vocation is a noble one, he deserves our sincere gratitude.
The influence exercised in Germany by Shakspere and by Bishop Percy’s
_Reliques_ in several particulars goes hand in hand with that of Ossian.
Herder grasped all three in close connection, but we shall postpone our
account of their inter–relation to the paragraphs on Herder. A few words
are due, however, to Young’s _Night Thoughts_ and his _Conjectures on
Original Composition_,[23] in the latter of which the poets of the
_Storm and Stress_ found much fuel for their fire. Original genius is a
shibboleth frequently met with in the German literature of the time. In
Shakspere the Germans believed they had discovered a true original
genius, and he came to be regarded as the perfect type of the natural
poet, who, throwing aside existing rules and conventionalities, became a
law unto himself. But when they came to Ossian, they discovered a man
that really stood in much closer communion with nature than even
Shakspere, for the former lived in surroundings that precluded the
establishment of fixed rules of poetical composition. If the poems of
Ossian were genuine—and it took a very long time to convince the
Germans of the fact that they were not—here they had certainly to deal
with a poet who was a genius born not made—an undeniable original. Dr.
Blair had in his “Critical Dissertation” undertaken to make a comparison
of the characteristics of the work of Ossian and Homer, and nowhere did
his conclusion fall upon more willing ears than in Germany. Soon a most
delightful controversy arose over the relative excellence of Homer and
Ossian, and it was intensified by the appearance of Robert Wood’s _Essay
on the Original Genius and Writings of Homer_ (1769), in which, too,
Homer was proclaimed as a product of the soil. Homer generally came out
second best in the comparison, critics vieing with one another in
discovering some new phase wherein Homer could with apparent justice be
placed beneath Ossian.[24] And how many German translations of Ossian
had appeared before one respectable version of Homer came into being!
The latter’s heroes were branded not only as cruel and artful, but as
possessed of other unattractive qualities that relegated them to a lower
level than the characters depicted by Ossian, who never failed to
develop the attributes that distinguish the true hero, and so on _ad
absurdum_. Fortunately the aberration was only temporary. No doubt the
frequent comparisons are responsible for the Homeric dress occasionally
given to Ossian’s warriors in illustrations; _e. g._, in No. 14 of
Ruhl’s sketches, Oscar wears a Greek helmet, coat–of–mail, etc.
A translation of the _Night Thoughts_[25] by Johann Arnold Ebert
(1723–95) had appeared in 1760 and its influence soon began to manifest
itself in the odes of Klopstock and his pupils. The profound melancholy
underlying the _Thoughts_ was the leading cause of its popularity in
Germany and in a measure paved the way for the related strain that runs
through Ossian. In this respect, then, the influence of the one
accentuated that of the other, although the popularity of Young waned
noticeably after the appearance of Ossian. Closely bound up with the
spirit of melancholy is that of sentimentality, and here again Ossian’s
sway is unmistakable. Before the appearance of _Werthers Leiden_ (1774),
the influence of Ossian had been felt in several directions, but it was
reserved for Goethe to open up a new field for the Gaelic bard. Feeling
began to enter the arena,[26] and Ossian’s ‘joy of grief’[27] began to
symbolize for many a German youth and maiden “the shower of spring, when
it softens the branch of the oak, and the young leaf rears its green
head.” Goethe, through his incomparable translation of “The Songs of
Selma” in _Werthers Leiden_, served to increase the admiration that had
so willingly been offered on the shrine of Ossian. But we must not
anticipate the paragraphs on Goethe.
And now that the famous bard had once been started upon his triumphal
career, nothing of importance occurred for some years to disturb the
general tenor of his fame. The work of translation and imitation went on
and there was always some one prepared to enter the lists as his
champion. For a long time it was considered bad form for a German critic
to doubt the authenticity of the poems. Not one had the courage of his
convictions, not one was prepared to damn with faint praise. A number of
literati had their private doubts as to the genuineness of the poems,
but they feared to share their opinions with the public—as witness the
following passage in a letter of Klotz to Denis, dated Halle, July 6,
1769: “Aufrichtig unter uns geredet (denn dem Publico mag ich, darf ich
es nicht sagen) ich kann mich immer noch nicht überreden, dass diese
Gedichte völlig ächt wären, dass gar keine neuere Hand an ihnen polirt,
gewisse Bilder abgeändert, andere hinzugesetzt hätte u. s. w.”[28] And
Denis says in his reply: “Ich hatte ihn auch, diesen Zweifel; allein D.
Blair’s Abhandlung, und Macphersons Betheurungen haben mich hierüber
ziemlich beruhiget. Dennoch mag wohl an den Übergängen, an den
Verbindungen der Stücke hin und wieder eine neuere Hand polieret
haben.”[29] Ossian filled so many long–felt wants, that it was not to be
expected that the Germans would give him up easily, and yet this
one–sided chorus of praise could not satisfy perpetually.
When the poets of the Romantic School arrive upon the scene, Ossian has,
to be sure, lost some of his old–time glory, yet he is still ready to
respond to the calls made upon him. Macpherson died in 1796, and soon
afterwards steps were taken looking towards the publication of the
supposed Gaelic originals. Rumors of the circumstance reached Germany
and called forth wide–spread interest. The dying embers were for the
last time blown into a bright flame, to which fact the mass of Ossianic
literature which appeared from 1800 to 1808 clearly attests. Much of the
renewed interest must be ascribed to the influence of Ahlwardt, who
prepared a translation from the original Gaelic (1811). The excellence
of this translation was trumpeted throughout the land long before its
appearance, a specimen was published as early as 1807 and widely
reviewed, so that when the complete translation finally appeared, little
was left to be said. Ahlwardt’s translation really marks the beginning
of the end. What a lowering from their former position the poems had
suffered even at the beginning of the century, is shown by a statement
made by Schröder in the preface to his translation of _Fingal_ (1800),
where he refers to Ossian as one of those poets that are praised more
than read. We still meet with an occasional translation and imitation,
to be sure, but they are of little weight when compared with the hold
the Ossianic craze once had on the German people. Ossian came generally
to have more interest for the philologist than for the man of letters.
More than one critic no longer concealed his doubts of the authenticity,
until finally Mrs. Robinson’s (Talvj’s) work upon the non–genuineness of
the poems was published (1840), which treatise marks the turning–point
in German Ossian criticism. Since Talvj’s days the Celtic scholars
of Germany have sought to make good the errors into which their
predecessors of the previous century had fallen, and to them we owe much
of the light that has been shed upon the long–mooted question in
comparatively recent years. At the present day Ossian is read but little
in Germany, and where he is known attention has generally been called to
him by Goethe’s famous translation of “The Songs of Selma.” He still
attracts the average reader if read in snatches, but few will be found
who can derive pleasure from the reading of his entire works.
Macpherson’s Ossian has become the property of the literary historian,
and the genuine old folk–songs connected with his name that of the
Celtic scholar.
§2. Earliest Notices and Translations.
It is generally stated that the first German notice of the _Poems of
Ossian_ was given by Raspe in No. 92 of the _Hannoverisches Magazin_ for
1763. This is, to be sure, the first extended review, but a notice of
_Fingal_ had appeared the year before in the _Bibliothek der schönen
Wissenschaften_.[30] It is interesting to note what attracted this first
critic, who regards the characters of the epic as full of strength and
feeling, and endowed with all the virtues that go to make up true
heroism. He marvels at the bold poetic expression, and seems to detect
in it a resemblance to the oriental style. In a review of _Temora_ which
appeared in the same magazine in the following year, the author tells us
that, on the one hand, the various critical dissertations written by
Macpherson and, on the other, the nature of the poetry itself have
convinced him of the authenticity of the songs, which he thinks ought to
be made more widely known through German translations. He is attracted
particularly by “the grandeur and sublimity of thought, the spark of
genius, the power of expression, the boldness of metaphor, the sudden
transitions, the irresistible and unexpected touches of pathos and
tenderness, and the similarity in similes and phrasing.” In these
notices we encounter several remarks that are characteristic of the
Ossian craze in Germany. In the first place, doubts as to the
authenticity are not to be entertained.[31] Equally interesting is the
impression made upon the critic by the ‘spark of genius,’ the ‘power of
expression,’ the ‘boldness of metaphor’; in other words, the Gaelic bard
was considered fairly well endowed with those qualities that constitute
the ideal poet of the _Storm and Stress_, and he might well be placed by
the side of Shakspere as a natural poet. We note further that the pathos
and tenderness exhibited in the poems of Ossian attracted attention from
the beginning, and this very pathos and sentimentality and melancholy
did much to establish Ossian in the popular favor. The German is by
nature inclined to be sentimental, and to the German of the 18th century
the joy of grief, the ἵμερος νόοιο was a large reality.
Two years before the appearance of Engelbrecht’s translation of the
_Fragments_, there appeared in the _Bremisches Magazin_ a German prose
translation of two fragments that had been published in the _Gentleman’s
Magazine_ in 1760. In a notice of _Fingal_ in Volume 6 of the same
magazine (1763), the epic is characterized as “beautiful, pathetic, and
sublime.” The characterization of _Temora_ given in the following year
is but an echo of the sentiments expressed in the _Bibliothek der
schönen Wissenschaften_.
One of the first to draw attention not only to the poems of Ossian but
to Bishop Percy’s _Reliques_ as well,[32] was Rudolf Erich Raspe. Raspe
had studied at Göttingen and spent some years in Hannover, so that
nothing was more natural than that he should take an interest in English
literature. His first notice of Ossian appeared in No. 92 (1763) of the
_Hannoverisches Magazin_. The tone throughout is one of hearty
appreciation, and supreme confidence is placed in the authenticity of
the poems, which he defends enthusiastically, basing his arguments upon
the various dissertations prefixed to the works of Ossian. The supposed
originality of the Gaelic bard appealed strongly to him. “With justice,”
says Raspe, “can he be styled an original, he is new throughout.”[33]
And in another place: “Ossian is in the opinion of many great
connoisseurs a genius of the first order.”[34] Here then we have our
_Originalgenie_ without further search. Raspe was thus struck by what he
was pleased to regard as Ossian’s naturalness. The fact that Dr. Blair
in his “Dissertation” had not hesitated to place Ossian on a par with
Homer causes Raspe to marvel that Ossian was gifted enough to raise
himself to the height demanded by an epic poem “without the machinery,
the gods, and the comparisons of the Roman and Greek poets.”[35] He
regarded Ossian as the embodiment of the ideal that Winckelmann saw in
the Greek masterpieces, a soul characterized by ‘noble simplicity and
quiet grandeur.’ Ossian’s noble sentiments are set up as an example
worthy of emulation in these degenerate times.
In Nos. 94 to 97 (1763) of the same magazine, Raspe gave a translation
of extracts, ‘disjecta membra Hippolyti,’ from the six books of _Fingal_
in rhythmic prose. The portions omitted are briefly summarized. The
translation possesses no special merits and we can pass over at once to
the first translations that appeared in book form, that of the
_Fragments_ by Engelbrecht (1764), and that of _Fingal_ by Wittenberg
(1764), both of which appeared anonymously and both in rhythmic prose.
Neither of these translations met with a particularly flattering
reception; the magazines seem to have taken no notice of them whatever,
the editions were probably limited, and we have no record of a second
edition in either case. Wittenberg, indeed, intended to publish two
additional volumes, the second to contain _Temora_ with several smaller
poems and the third the remaining fragments, together with Dr. Blair’s
“Dissertation,” but his plans bore no fruit. Wittenberg was no great
literary light and would have been forgotten long ago had he not been
mixed up in the Lessing–Goeze controversy.[36] In his preface he
tells us that he took pains to make the translation as literal as
possible—quite a wise proceeding for one who had no hope of improving
upon the original and no ability to turn Macpherson’s prose into
respectable verse. When he remarks in the preface that the poems of
Ossian are, even thus early, too well known among the Germans to call
for further commendation to the reader, we may see how quickly Ossian
had found a place in the public favor. However, Wittenberg can not
abstain from recording his appreciation, and takes up the cudgels in
defense of the authenticity.
Engelbrecht, the translator of the _Fragments_, was a merchant and by
way of avocation a literary dilettante. He began to translate the
fragments partly in prose and partly in verses without rime, but
business interfered with the continuation of the work and when he again
took it up, he cast aside the poetic portion and translated in rhythmic
prose from the first edition of _Fingal_ (1761). He intended originally
to publish a translation of the epic _Fingal_ as well, but abstained,
because Wittenberg anticipated him.[37]
In the year after the appearance of the two translations just discussed
(1765), a reprint of the _Mémoire sur les Poëmes de Macpherson_
mentioned above (p. 5) was published in Cologne, and a partial
translation of the same article appeared in the _Hamburgische
Unterhaltungen_ the following year. Little attention was paid in Germany
to the attempt to transport Ossian and his heroes to Ireland. The
translator might have foreseen that an article of this nature would be
apt to be received with disdain. Gerstenberg, to be sure, believed in
the article,[38] but then he had had his doubts from the very first.
Yet he was the exception, and the view of the general public is
better illustrated by a sentence in the review of _Fingal_ from the
_Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_ (1765), where the critic writes: “We
must at the outset reject the suspicion expressed in certain French
monthlies, which declare these poems to be the work of the publisher and
consequently a forgery. In a hundred places do we find proof that
refutes this suspicion.”[39] In the same review Ossian is characterized
as less loquacious than Homer, and in a review of the _Works of Ossian_
(London, 1765) in the same magazine (1767), the critic remarks how
infinitely superior the character of the Gaels is to that of Homer’s
heroes: “Ossian’s heroes are throughout far more generous, more modest
and more kind than Homer’s robbers, who are sublime solely in virtue of
their strength.”[40] And again: “Ossian’s soul felt infinitely more, his
code of morals was better, he knew the human heart in its more delicate
emotions; and, what might not be expected from a Highlander, he was
infinitely more tender in love and had a greater partiality for women
than the Greek.”[41] Macpherson’s peculiar prose did not fail to impress
the reviewer, who saw in it a mixture “made up of the Holy Scriptures,
of Homer and of the speeches of the Iroquois, yet nevertheless
possessing something of its own.”[42] Verily a strange combination that
could not fail to be effective. However, carried away as the average
reviewer was by the beauty inherent in the poems, by the noble, almost
sublime character of the old Gaelic heroes, and by the grandiloquent
language in which the poems were couched, they were not always entirely
blind to the cardinal defects of the work, and we must give the reviewer
credit for his candor when he says: “To be sure, the comparisons are
too frequent and the style somewhat too monotonous.”[43] This was no
small admission to make in regard to a poet greater even than Homer, and
so in the second review a reason for this defect is given in palliation.
“Ossian lived,” we read, “in a different clime, where nature does not
possess half the beauty of the Greek.... It is therefore easy to see
that Ossian, whose wealth of comparison is altogether too great, is
forced to become monotonous as far as these and his descriptions of
scenery are concerned.”[44]
We have seen that the first notice of Ossian appeared in the _Bibliothek
der schönen Wissenschaften_, and for a number of years this magazine
assumed the leading rôle in Ossianic criticisms and discussions. Several
notices appeared in the first three volumes of the _Neue Bibliothek_. In
Vol. 1 (1766) we have a notice of Cesarotti’s Italian translation. The
reviewer expresses his astonishment that the Abbé has dared to render
the translation in verse, a criticism that Denis was soon to call down
upon his head in still greater measure. In Vol. 2 (1766) appeared a most
sympathetic review of the _Works of Ossian_ by Christian Felix Weisse,
who had been editor of the _Bibliothek_ since 1759. Weisse took a
lifelong interest in Ossian, a fact that is attested not only by his
reviews, but also by his translations of John Macpherson’s _Critical
Dissertations_ ... (1770), and of Smith’s _Gaelic Antiquities_ (1781).
In his review he feels called upon to defend the authenticity of the
poems against the attacks of English and French scholars, particularly
against the article in the _Journal des Sçavans_; he does not mention a
single German scholar, which goes far to show with what unanimity Ossian
was accepted when he first made his appearance. Weisse’s review is taken
up principally with an extensive résumé of Dr. Blair’s “Dissertation,”
prefixed to the edition under discussion. The comparison of Homer and
Ossian receives a due share of consideration. The notice is concluded in
Vol. 3 (1766), where the plan and character of the two epics _Fingal_
and _Temora_ are given, together with several specimens from the poems
in German prose. And then Ossian is proclaimed a poetic genius.[45] “If
strong feeling and natural description are the two chief ingredients of
a poetic genius, we must confess that Ossian possesses a large amount of
genius. The question is not whether there are mistakes in his poems ...
but has he the spirit, the fire, the inspiration of a poet? Does he
speak the speech of nature? Does he elevate by his feelings? Does he
interest by his descriptions? Does he depict for the heart as well as
for the imagination? Does he cause his readers to glow, to tremble, to
weep? These are the great characteristics of true poetry.”[46] And these
grand characteristics of true poetry, as laid down by Weisse, Ossian
certainly possessed. The form in which the poems came out approached
closely to what was then regarded as constituting the language of
nature. His sentiments were surely ennobling. His descriptions, while
their monotony would soon tire a reader of to–day, interested and
charmed by reason of their novelty, and while sufficient play was left
for the imagination, no one could complain of failure to touch the
heart; and lastly, if an author was to be judged by his ability to cause
his readers to glow, tremble, and weep, was it strange that a high rank
was assigned to a poet whose heroes and heroines spent a goodly portion
of their time in doing the one or the other, especially the last? Tears
play a most important part in the economy of Ossian’s poems, and we need
not wonder that the sentimental youth and maiden of the day were so fond
of him. And so Weisse needed no external proof to convince him of the
genuineness of the poems; their character was proof sufficient to him.
It would have been difficult for him—and in this respect he represents
a numerous body—to reconcile the spuriousness of the songs with the
undeniable effect they produced.
Before closing this discussion of the earliest notices and translations,
we must mention two further translations that appeared prior to the
publication of Denis’s hexameter version in 1768–9. The one is a
translation of the _Fragments_ that appeared anonymously in 1766. It was
originally published in the _Neues Bremisches Magazin_ and then printed
separately as _Fragmente der alten Dichtkunst_. The translation evoked
little attention and soon passed into oblivion. To the second
translation fate was more kind. It was a poetic rendering of two
extracts from “The Songs of Selma.” They appeared anonymously in Vol. 4
of the _Unterhaltungen_ and were later reprinted several times in
various places. The translator is Ludwig Gottlieb Crome, a collection of
whose poems appeared after his death.[47]
The bibliography brings out two interesting additional points. We see
first that not a single imitation of Ossian exists before the advent of
Denis’s translation, and secondly, that most of the early publications
hailed from Bremen and Hamburg, the cities in which the originals were
soonest accessible. That the periodicals of Hannover and Göttingen
should be among the first to pay tribute to the newly discovered genius
is easily explained by a reference to the dynastic connections between
Hannover and England.