Just as Klopstock had sacrificed the lyre for the telyn, so his followers. The harp of the bards replaced the Zionitic harp. The poet, or rather bard,[117] was no longer crowned with the laurel–wreath but with the leaf of the oak. To–day we smile at these vagaries, but these men were very earnest in their play. Kretschmann, and not Klopstock, is responsible for most of the nonsense. The most pleasing phase of the movement is its patriotic character, and we must give the bards credit for the earnestness with which they strove to inculcate a feeling for national unity. Then they praise virtue and maidenly modesty, a cheerful sign for that age.
If these bards had restricted themselves to singing the mighty deeds of the past, it would not have been so bad, but when Arminius and the old Germani had become exhausted, they came down to the present and endeavored to surround it with an air of antiquity. As a result bardic poetry became largely a matter of vers d’occasion. The unfavorable critics seized upon the aberrations and made a laughing–stock of the whole school, and so the few good illustrations had to suffer with the large majority of those whose poverty of conception and general inability have prevented their names from being handed down to posterity. Thus long before Ossian’s influence in Germany had ceased, bardic poetry was a thing of the past. Much of the machinery of Ossian’s bards was borrowed by the German bardic poets and even the druids were transferred to German soil. The old Norse mythology, which found such ready acceptance by Klopstock and Gerstenberg, is not so important in the poetry of Denis, Kretschmann, and the numerous minor bards. What the bards copied then from Ossian were the general paraphernalia, the characteristic motifs, the tone of the harp, the echoing grove, the ghosts of the departed,[118] and the like. The love for the dismal heath, the stormy sea, and other phases of Ossianic description of wild and forlorn nature, can not be said to predominate in the bardic poetry, although it is frequently noticeable, as e. g., in Maler Müller, who in his bardic poetry loses himself absolutely in the Ossianic descriptions of nature.[119] The importance of Ossian’s landscape painting lay in the circumstance that it acted upon the mood of the reader, and although the general tone of the nature depicted in Ossian does not change much, it was a marked advance to have a description of nature invested with some internal significance, to bring nature and the feelings into interaction with each other. Ossian again and again inserts a picture of nature at the opening of an episode and this device was frequently copied in the bardic poetry, with this only difference: in Macpherson the connection between the introductory description and the following action is evident, whereas in the bardic imitations it generally strikes the reader as something irrelevant. When Ossianic comparisons are introduced, as they frequently are, they usually bear the stamp of servile imitation, being cold and showing no trace of intense personal feeling. At the same time, however, an attempt is occasionally made to enter into the Stimmung of Ossian, reflected at first in mere imitation, but finally striking out for itself.[120] What the bards did not copy were his peculiar delineations of character, his management of the action,[121] although the noble qualities of Fingal and his heroes are transferred to the princes who are being extolled. All details will be left for the separate discussions to follow.
Heinrich Wilhelm Gerstenberg.
We have included Gerstenberg among the bards, but he was far from being a bard as we apply that term to Denis and Kretschmann. Denis wrote little poetry that was not in the bardic vein, whereas Gerstenberg moved in many spheres. Gerstenberg was not a prolific writer, yet three productions of his were quite influential in their day: The Briefe über Merkwürdigkeiten der Litteratur, the Gedicht eines Skalden, and Ugolino; and in all three the shades of Ossian are visible in one form or another. His early productions, including the Tändeleien, written in the Anacreontic manner, do not concern us here and we shall turn our attention at once to the Schleswigische Litteraturbriefe.[122] An account of the place that these letters occupy in the history of German literature, of their tendency and their influence, would lead us too far afield. We are interested here solely in the eighth letter and more particularly in the first portion of the letter which discusses the “Memoire eines Irrländers über die ossianischen Gedichte.”[123] Here for the first time in a German journal we meet with serious doubts as to the genuineness of the poems. Gerstenberg has occasionally been praised, and deservedly so, for having had the sagacity to see through the forgery at once; and he deserves particular credit also for having had the courage to stand by his convictions and to publish personal opinions that were almost certain to be received, if not with scorn, at least with indifference. It was no doubt Gerstenberg to whom Herder referred in his Briefwechsel über Ossian as one who so “obstinately doubted the truth and authenticity of the Scotch Ossian.” Gerstenberg realized that he stood almost alone in his opinion and he refers to the unanimity of the critics near the beginning of his letter. His doubts were not called forth by the “Mémoire,” but had presented themselves to him upon his first perusal of the songs. He says in the letter: “Dass entweder Hr. Macpherson seinen Text ausserordentlich verfälscht, oder auch das untergeschobne Werk einer neuern Hand allzu leichtgläubig für ein genuines angenommen hätte, glaubten wir gleich aus den mancherley Spuren des Modernen sowol, als aus den verschiednen kleinen hints, die der Dichter sich aus dem Homer x. gemerkt zu haben schien, wahrzunehmen.”[124] The more direct proofs he lacked at first were furnished by the author of the “Mémoire,” a synopsis of whose arguments he proceeds to give in a few lines, closing with the words: “... ich enthalte mich aber eines weitern Details, da Sie diess alles in der Urschrift selbst nicht ohne Vergnügen nachlesen werden.” It is unfortunate that Gerstenberg did not pursue the subject further; his views would no doubt have been exceedingly interesting and rather refreshing. He then passes over to the Reliques, which he stamps as more reliable than the songs of Ossian.
Der Skalde (1766).—The same year in which the first two collections of the Schleswigische Litteraturbriefe were published also marks the appearance of the Gedicht eines Skalden, or Der Skalde, as it was called later, one of the best poems written in the bardic manner, and one that exerted great influence upon the bardic poetry. Old Norse mythology was here introduced and combined with a few Ossianic touches. Knowing that Gerstenberg disbelieved in the authenticity of the poems, we should scarcely expect traces of their influence at this time. Der Skalde actually contains but few Ossianic reminiscences, particularly when compared with what we find in some of the poems of Denis. As Pfau has pointed out,[125] Gerstenberg no doubt derived from Ossian the idea of having the ghost of Thorlaug (Himintung) arise from his grave. There is nothing in old Norse mythology corresponding to the ghost–world of Ossian, and the only thing that distinguishes the appearance of Thorlaug’s ghost from that of one in Ossian is that Gerstenberg has breathed a Christian spirit into his resurrection, in contradistinction to the dismal and sometimes terrible apparitions of Ossian. We are reminded of Ossian’s ghosts when Gerstenberg sings:
(1. Canto.)
... Wo ruht
Mein schwebender Geist auf luftiger Höh?[126]
(2. Canto.)
Welch feierliches Graun
Steigt langsam über diese Hügel,
Wie im Nachtgewölk
Neugeschiedner Seelen, auf?