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.
CHAPTER III.
OSSIAN’S INFLUENCE UPON KLOPSTOCK AND THE SO–CALLED BARDS.
§1. Klopstock.
“Klopstock verliert alles, wenn man ihn in der Nähe und im Einzelnen betrachtet. Man muss ihn in einer gewissen Ferne und im Ganzen erfassen. Wenn man ihn liest, scheint er pedantisch und langweilig; wenn man ihn aber gelesen hat, und sich wieder an ihn erinnert, wird er gross und majestätisch. Dann glauben wir einen riesenhaften Geist Ossians zu sehen.”—W. Menzel.