When the writer arrived at the conclusions just indicated, ten years ago, he was not so clear as to the process by which Macpherson wrought the Gaelic and English Ossians into their present forms. Since then, in 1883, he entered more minutely into the question in a paper read before [the Gaelic Society] of London and the conclusion forced upon his mind, as the result chiefly of comparisons between the various versions of the Gaelic fragments which were found in mysterious circulation in Macpherson’s lifetime, was that the Gaelic Ossian, like the English equivalent, was a production of the last century, and that James Macpherson was the author as well as translator of these celebrated compositions of the Gaelic muse. Dr Macdonald, M.P., President of the Gaelic Society, and other expert Gaelic scholars present, while reluctant to accept the conclusions of the paper, did not seriously attempt to dispute them; while Mr Macdonald Cameron, M.P., regarded the arguments brought forward as clearly decisive on the question. Since then Mr Macbain of Inverness ably discussed the poems from other standpoints, and has informed the writer that the late Dr Cameron of Brodick adopted similar views. The great Ossianic question may now be regarded as settled. What was needed all along to settle it was sufficient knowledge, culture, judgment, and honesty on the part of men familiar with the Gaelic language. Such men have appeared since the publication of Dr Clerk’s Ossian, the first note being sounded by Mr J. F. Campbell in his celebrated review of Clerk’s work in The Times. Mr H. Maclean adopted the same views; and the writer, in 1883, on independent and other grounds was forced to take up the same position. Dr Cameron and Mr Macbain, representing the midland and northern Highlands, having now concurred, the students of the Gaelic language north and south unite thus in regarding Macpherson’s Gaelic Ossian as compositions of the last century. These compositions are great original works, and ought to be thus described. Their spirit is ancient and Celtic, though their form is modern. They, James Macpherson their author, and Gaelic literature stand in the same relation to one another that we find illustrated in the case of the “Idyls of the King,” Alfred Tennyson, and Cymric literature. The only difference is that Tennyson has not given us the “Idyls” in Welsh as well as in English, and that Macpherson’s English version is in prose instead of being in blank verse. As long as Gaelic scholars of undoubted respectability believed otherwise, it was difficult for outsiders like the Blackies, Ebrards, and Waddells, who discussed the question, to be certain of their conclusions; but henceforth it will be inexcusable in any man of letters to argue for the old views, as Mr George Eyre-Todd does in an introduction to the “Poems of Ossian,” published in the Canterbury Poets series (1888) without taking any cognisance of the latest deliverances of those most entitled to express an opinion.
For a long time the controversy regarding the poems of Ossian had only the English version for its critical basis; so it was unreasonable then to expect a satisfactory solution of the vexed question of authorship. Those who knew the language could only guess at the originals; and those who did not know it had to be satisfied with all they could make of the English. Both parties occupied a position critically absurd. The one side ignorant of the language could not presume to pronounce whether the poems were or were not a translation; and the other had not yet the materials for judgment before them. But now in the year 1807 appeared the long looked-for and much discussed Gaelic originals of the Ossianic translations published some forty years previously. The following is the title-page in full:—“The Poems of Ossian, in the Original Gaelic, with a literal translation into Latin, by the late Robert Macfarlane, A.M., together with a Dissertation on the Authenticity of the Poems by Sir John Sinclair, Bart., and a translation from the Italian of the Abbe Cessarotti’s Dissertation on the Controversy respecting the Authenticity of Ossian, with Notes and a Supplementary Essay, by John McArthur, LL.D., published under the sanction of the Highland Society of London. Magna est veritas et praevalebit. Vol. I. London. [Printers and Publishers’ names], 1807, pp. ccxxxii., 278.
“—— —— —— Vol. II.,” pp. 390.
“—— —— —— Vol. III.,” pp. 576.
“Dana Oisen Mhic Fhinn, air an cur amach air son maith coitcheanta muinntir na Gaeltachd. Duneidin; clo-bhuailte le Tearlach Stiubhart. 1818.” 8vo., pp. 344.
This last is a copy of the Gaelic text contained in Sir John Sinclair’s [magnificent edition] of Ossian. It was printed at the expense of Sir J. Macgregor Murray and other gentlemen that it might be distributed among the Highlanders to cultivate and to preserve their old chivalrous spirit. There was a copy sent for the use of every parish school in the Highlands. These copies were addressed to the care of the parish ministers, in whose hands they generally remained. One thing is certain, they never reached nor became known amongst the people in the manner in which other books circulated amongst them.
Here were the Gaelic originals of Ossian at last; and certainly there was no great reason to regret the delay in their appearance, when they were now presented in so splendid a dress. Surely now all controversy about them should cease for ever. All Gaelic-speaking Highlanders thought so then; and there are many who think similarly still.
This text was not exactly as it came from Macpherson’s hands, who died while preparing it for the press. A standard of Celtic orthography was then in course of formation; and John Mackenzie, Esq., of London, one of Macpherson’s executors, engaged the Rev. Dr Thomas Ross to write out with him the text of Ossian in the style adopted by the excellent translators of the Gaelic Bible. Dr Ross, although well acquainted with the language, was not the most accurate scholar of his day. So until Clerk’s “Ossian” appeared in 1870 there was no fairly correct and scholarly text of these poems. Had the text come from Macpherson’s own hands, the orthography would probably have been very different. Macpherson enjoyed neither the time nor the practice in writing the language to enable him to write either consistently with himself or with any system of orthography. What he wrote, or took down, or copied at an earlier period, of which we have a fair specimen in the 7th Book of “Temora,” published with the translations, is like what many educated Highlanders of the present day would write. When conducting Highland periodicals, the writer frequently received articles from gentlemen with some reputation for Gaelic scholarship which were much in the style of Macpherson’s orthography. Yet these same gentlemen might be, as some of them were, profoundly acquainted with the vocabulary and idioms of the language, although they were unable to write consistently with their own or any other mode of spelling; and were they poets of first-class genius, they could produce, as far as acquaintance with the language was concerned, poetry like that of Ossian, Macdonald, or Macintyre, the last of whom could not write at all; whilst it will not be seriously contended that Ossian was so familiar with the pen as he was ever with the sword. The state of the text at any time since it was first moulded in Macpherson’s hands could not be of the slightest value in deciding the age of the poems. Neither could it be of more service philologically than any other Gaelic books printed during the last hundred years. It could have no value like The Book of Deer, and The Book of the Dean of Lismore.
Though a very inviting field, it is not here intended to enter into examination of the words of the text. When this question has been competently investigated some of our views which at present waver will be thoroughly confirmed.