75
wards each other. Fresh champions of the opposite
creeds followed each other in endless succession, as
their predecessors retired, exhausted or defeated,
from the lists. At one moment the authenticity of
the poems seemed established beyond all doubt; in
the next it was made still more clear that they were
the most impudent forgeries that were ever imposed
upon the credulity of the literary world. These were
the results of the labours of the more active and
zealous partisans of the denying and believing fac-
tions; but there were others again, who did not
strictly belong to either, and these, taking arguments
from both sides, succeeded with much ingenuity in
involving the question in an obscurity from which it
has not emerged to this day.
The Ossianic controversy, like all other contro-
versies, soon became personal, and in nearly every
case the discussion of the point exhibited fully as
much abuse as arguments. During all this time
Macpherson himself, the cause of all this bitterness
of spirit and uncharitableness, and the only person
who could have allayed it, kept sullenly aloof, and
refused to produce that evidence which alone could
restore the peace of the literary world, and which
he yet declared he possessed. Notwithstanding the
celebrity, however, which he was thus acquiring, his
situation, in other respects, was by no means an
enviable one. By those who did not believe in the
authenticity of the poems, he was reviled as an
impudent unprincipled impostor; by those who did,
he was charged with being a bungling unskilful
translator ; and by both he was abused for his ob-
stinacy in refusing to come forward with his testi-
mony in the cause in dispute.
Before proceeding to take a nearer view of the
Ossianic controversy itself, there will be no impro-
priety in alluding to certain opinions regarding the
subject of it, which have now pretty generally ob-
tained. These are, that it is of little moment whether
the poems are genuine or not; and that they are not,
after all, worthy in point of merit of the notice they
have attracted, or of the discussion and dissension
they have created. With regard to the last it is
matter of opinion, and must always remain so, since
it cannot be decided by any rule of taste. The first
again involves a sentiment more specious perhaps
than profound; for, besides the consideration that
truth is at all times and in all cases better than false-
hood, and possesses an intrinsic value which in
almost every instance renders it worthy of being
sought for, the investigation into the authenticity of
the poems of Ossian involves, in the language of the
ingenious commentator already named, matter of
importance to the "general history of literature, and
even that of the human race."
Whatever weight, however, may be allowed to
these considerations, it is certain that Macpherson's
Poems of Ossian have lost a very large portion of the
popularity which they once enjoyed, and are evi-
dently losing more every day. The rising genera-
tion do not seem to have that relish for their beauties,
or rather do not see those beauties in them which
captivated their fathers, and this can be ascribed
only, either to a change in literary taste, or to some
defect or defects in the poems themselves, which
improved intellectual culture has detected; for it is
the result of an opinion formed on their abstract
merits as literary compositions, and is wholly un-
connected with the question of their authenticity,
that now being considered a point of such indiffer-
ence as to be but rarely taken into account in the
decision. The book is now taken up without a
thought being wasted on the consideration whether
it be the production of Ossian or Macpherson, and
is judged of by its own intrinsic value; and tested in
this way, it would appear that it has been found
wanting—a result which seems to show that the
greatest charm of the poems, even at the time when
they were most appreciated, co-existed with the belief
that they were genuine relics of antiquity; that it was
inseparable from this belief; that it was born of it,
fostered by it, and perished with it; that, in short, it
lived and died with it, and was exactly proportioned
to its strength and its weakness.
Of the controversialists in this celebrated literary
war the list is both long and illustrious, and com-
prehends some of the proudest names of which this
country has to boast. Amongst them occur those
of Dr. Blair, Dr. Gregory, Lord Kames, Hume,
and Dr. Johnson. The most remarkable next to
these were, Dr. Smith of Campbelltown, Dr. Graham
of Aberfoyle, Sir John Sinclair, Mr. Laing, author
of Notes and Illustrations, introduced into an edi-
tion of Ossian's poems, published in Edinburgh
in 1805; Mr. Alexander Macdonald, author of a
work entitled " Some of Ossian's Lesser Poems Ren-
dered into Verse, with a Preliminary Discourse in
Answer to Mr. Laing's Critical and Historical Dis-
sertations on the Antiquity of Ossian's Poems," 8vo,
Liverpool, 1805; and W. Shaw, A.M., author of
An Inquiry into the Authenticity of the Poems of
Ossian, London, 1781. There were besides these
a host of others, but of lesser note. Of those just
named, there were six who may be said, generally
speaking, to have been in favour of the authenticity of
the poems, and five against it. The former were Dr.
Blair, Dr. Gregory, Lord Kames, Dr. Graham, Sir
John Sinclair, and Mr. Macdonald. The latter Mr.
Hume, Dr. Johnson, Mr. Laing, Dr. Smith, and
Mr. Shaw.
Here then we are startled at the very outset by
the near approach to equality in the amount of in-
telligence and talent which appears arrayed on either
side; nor is this feeling greatly lessened in comparing
the evidence adduced by each party in support of
their opposite opinions, and in confutation of those
of their opponents. Both seem conclusive when
taken separately, and both defective when placed in
juxtaposition.
Although, however, two classes only of contro-
versialists have been made above, there were actually
four, or rather the two given are found on closer in-
quiry to be again subdivided—of the believers, into
those whose opinion of the authenticity of the poems
was unqualified, and those again who believed them
to be authentic only to a certain extent, while the
remainder were interpolations by the translator. Of
the former were Blair, Gregory, Lord Kames, Sir
John Sinclair, and Macdonald. Of the latter was
Dr. Graham, and though only one, he was yet the
representative of a large body who entertained a
similar opinion. Of the disbelievers, again, there
were those who utterly denied their authenticity; and
those who, entertaining strong doubts, did not yet
go the whole length of rejecting them as spurious.
Of the first were Dr. Johnson, Laing, and Shaw.
Of the last, Mr. Hume and Dr. Smith.
The controversy thus stands altogether upon four
separate and distinct grounds. These are, first, an
entire and unqualified belief in the authenticity of
the poems; second, a belief that they are in part
genuine, and in part spurious, including a charge of
interpolation and false translation; third, much doubt,
but no certainty; and fourth, a thorough conviction
of their being wholly forgeries.
The principal arguments adduced in support of the
first opinion are—that the poems bear internal evi-
dence of antiquity;—that their originals are or were