CHAPTER II. 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 [Greek: himeros nooio] 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.