Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

MacLachlan of Aberdeen, a Lochaber man and an accomplished Gaelic scholar, in one volume, in Edinburgh, in 1818. A third edition, edited by the Rev. Thomas McLauchlan, was published in Edinburgh, in one volume, in 1861 (although the title-page is dated 1859); and a fourth edition, edited by the Rev. Archibald Clerk, minister of the parish of Kilmallie in Lochaber, and a son-in-law of Dr Norman Macleod, was published in Edinburgh, in two volumes, in 1870. In 1902, a small reprint of the edition of 1818, with Thomas McLauchlan's preface of 1859, was published in Edinburgh, McLauchlan being also a scholarly Gael, who, along with Dr W. F. Skene, edited the Dean of Lismore's Book (of really ancient Gaelic fragments), in 1862.

Of these five editions of the Gaelic originals of Macpherson's English productions it has to be said that all of them-even the Highland Society's edition-implicated genuineness. Explain it how we may-and it is quite possible of explanation-all these scholarly and undoubtedly sincere men, accepted these Gaelic originals as, on the whole, authentic. It may be safely said that the last editor of these documents will be the last person of competency in Gaelic scholarship to do so.

There are many things to be said with regard to these Gaelic originals that shed new light on the situation, and not only dispose of their authenticity, but show pretty clearly how they came to be produced. In the first place, it is seen that they are written wholly in modern Gaelic, which is a very different thing from even the Gaelic of, say, the 17th century, and entirely different from the Gaelic of an earlier date than A.D. 1500. This at once disposes of Macpherson's claim that he translated from ancient Gaelic manuscripts, or that the 'originals he produced were copied from ancient manuscripts. It puts him, on this principal claim, fundamentally in error. No scrap of ancient Gaelic manuscript such as Macpherson claimed to have worked upon was ever produced, either in Macpherson's time, or since. The whole of the Gaelic 'originals,' as above, from which his translation was made, was in his own handwriting, or in that of amanuenses. This was so even with the portion of 'Temora' that was placed on exhibition in London, in 1762, and this fact alone is significant of Macpherson's actions throughout.

t

It has also been established that these Gaelic 'originals' were not obtained from genuine oral sources. Many hundreds of genuine Gaelic traditions have been collected, both in the Highlands and the Islands of Scotland and in Ireland, since Macpherson's time, dealing even with ancient Gaelic battles, and personages, and customs, and what not; but no collector, although some have been far more diligent and competent than James Macpherson, has ever come across a single scrap of tradition of the kind that was put forward by him in these singular productions. It is as certain now as if Macpherson had personally stated the fact that the Gaelic 'originals from which he made his translation were not obtained from genuine sources, either written or spoken, but were composed in Macpherson's own time, by a person illequipped in Gaelic history, and indifferently competent-generally speaking-in Gaelic composition and versification.

As to this it is a significant circumstance that whereas up to the date of the fourth edition of the Gaelic 'originals' of these romances Gaelic scholars were found arguing for the genuineness of the work, the last edition, 1902, was merely a reprint, without contemporary authoritative direction of any kind, and that, at the present day, no competent Gaelic scholar will be found in Europe who would take up the attitude that Macpherson's work, either in respect of the Gaelic 'originals,' or the English translations, was authentic. We may close this particular aspect of our study by quoting only one recent pronouncement on the subject. The most accomplished Gaelic scholar in Britain at the present time is Dr John Fraser, formerly Lecturer in Celtic and Comparative Philology at the University of Aberdeen, and now Professor of Celtic in Oxford University. Of James Macpherson and his work Prof. Fraser says:

'Celtic scholars are now agreed that Macpherson's "Ossian," though not a pure invention, was, nevertheless, a forgery; for on examination the Gaelic originals are found to be inaccurate in metre, and diffuse in diction, when compared with genuine compositions in early Scottish Gaelic. Again, the minute and finical descriptions of landscape, the vagueness of localities, and the atmosphere of vast sentimentality which envelope all these poems are traits which are entirely alien to early Scottish Gaelic poetry.'

[graphic]

One remarkable feature of all these Gaelic 'originals' is their homogeneity-they are not merely cast in the same strain, but are marked uniformly by the same defects, as well as by the same positive characteristics. Certain points are actually amusing. Here is one. In James Macpherson's day the science of Archaeology was only in its infancy; but we find Fingal, in 'Carric-Thura,' actually expatiating on the prospective antiquarian interests of the latest times. I quote, for this point, Macpherson's English version, which is a fairly close translation of the original':

'

""Son of Annir," replied the king, "the fame of Sora's race shall be heard! When chiefs are strong in war, then does the song arise. But if their swords were stretched over the feeble; if the blood of the weak has stained their arms, the bard shall forget them in the song, and their tombs shall not be known. The stranger shall come and build there, and remove the heaped-up earth. A half-worn sword shall rise before him; bending above it, he will say 'These are the arms of the chiefs of old, but their names are not in song.''

[ocr errors]

The picture of an antiquary bending over the half-worn sword (Meirg's an smùir, 'rusty in the dust,' is the phrase in the 'original') is so supremely modern that the wonder is that the whole episode was not laughed out of court. But the credulity-perhaps it was merely the acquiescent receptivity-of the times was almost beyond belief. There is no doubt now that Macpherson made his English version of 'Ossian' from these Gaelic 'originals.' His rendering is close, but not literal, and he operated skilfully as he went along to accentuate just the qualities that he knew would tell with Englishspeaking readers. Take, as an example, his manner of reproducing the names of characters in the work-in a form that would be easy and attractive to persons who were ignorant of Gaelic and Gaelic history. These names, in their correct form, are often good examples of pagan personal names among the Gaels in pre-Christian times, and in such a matter as this, we may be sure, the Gaelic assistants of James Macpherson, with their more intimate knowledge of the Gaelic speech, would be helpful.

Thus, 'Cath-Loda,' which opens the series of episodes, Vol. 245.-No. 486.

Z

properly is Cath-Loduinn, the Battle of Denmark (usually set down, Scandinavia); 'Carthon,' the title of another of the poems, a name supposed to be borne by the royal son of Moina, Macpherson thought to mean ‘Murmur of Waves,' but it signifies properly 'Car-Thonn,' Bending, or Winding Wave, and Bal-Clutha,' where the events of the poem mainly occur, is 'Baile-Cluatha,' Town of the Clyde-now improperly spelt Dumbarton. ‘OinaMorul' is another title in Macpherson's English version, a feminine name, 'Oigh-nam-mór-shùl,' 'Maid of the Big Eyes.' The flowing feminine name of Macpherson's English version, 'Colna-dona,' is his form of 'Gaol-nandaoine,'' Love of Men'; and, like it, Macpherson's 'Strinadona,' the King's daughter, is 'Stri-nan-daoine,'' Strife of Men,' likely enough to have been actually used. The title of Temora is particularly arresting. Macpherson, who had heard it pronounced-as, doubtless, with all the others-held it to stand for 'Tigh-mór-rìgh,' 'Great House of the King,' the palace. More than likely it is the same as the familiar Tara, the great hill in Meath, where a royal residence stood. This was, properly, Temhair.

[ocr errors]

Macpherson's translation otherwise, although he knew quite well what the Gaelic 'originals' contained, is marked throughout by an accentuation of sentimentality, and soft mysticism, done, obviously, for a purpose. In 'Cath-Loda,' the opening piece, the Gaelic version says that before the battle went each chief to his hill' and took up his position. Macpherson turns this into They went each to his hill of mist.' In 'Fingal,' Cuchullin, in his inciting address, calls on his people to 'Place two spears together by my side,' and this Macpherson turns into 'three' spears. Fingal' is a fruitful field for the study of this tendency in the translator. Sometimes-often, indeed-the English translation is quite different from the Gaelic 'original,' whether due to ignorance or design no one now can say. A good instance occurs in Cath-Loda,' in the hazy description of the hill, Lurthan, residence of Rurmar, hunter of boars.' Says the Gaelic:

[ocr errors]

'An àrd Thoirne, innis nan gaoith,
Dh'éireas Lurthan nan sruth-chàrn;
A liath-cheann gun choill', 's e maol.'

[ocr errors]

['In the height of Torno, island of the winds,
Rose up hill Lurthan of the streamy-cairns;
Its grey head clear of wood, and bare.']

Macpherson's rendering reverses this, clearly wrongly, for the idea intended is desolation, without trees. He says: In Tormoth's resounding isle arose Lurthan, streamy hill. It bent its woody head over a silent vale.'

The last stage of our study is to glance for a moment at certain fundamental deficiencies of these Gaelic 'originals,' indicating their authorship. We have seen that these 'originals' were written in modern Gaelic, which excludes the idea put forward by Macpherson that they were drawn from ancient documentary sources. We have seen, also, that nothing of their kind has been found in genuine tradition, which excludes the idea of a genuine oral source. But the contents themselves proclaim their quality and history. For instance, in the genuine oral fragments that have been collected-and on the same ground traversed by Macpherson-folk institutions and folk customs are distinguishing features. We find the most interesting tales of 'glaistigs' (shedevils, witches, carlines, and so forth), of uruisgs' (beings who haunted lonely places), water-sprites, fairy-knolls, and so on-beings who filled a large part of the ancient life of Gaelic folk. But these things are unknown to James Macpherson's work. The ancient (genuine) traditions deal largely, too, with satires on women, poems on individual clans, on the flocks that were herded, on clan family history, even on Celtic art, as expressed on sculptured stones, a specially attractive and widespread aspect of ancient Gaelic life, pre-Historic and Early Christian. But nothing of that is found in Macpherson's 'Ossian,' either Gaelic or English.

The most significant defects of these productions— sufficient in themselves to stamp them as belonging to Macpherson's own time, as well as to indicate the probability of an individual fabricator-are, first, the absence of any reference to hut-circles, and, secondly, to hill-forts. With regard to hut-circles, these only began to receive close attention in our own day, but already hundreds of them have been discovered in many parts of Scotland. They are the foundation-remains of houses occupied by the ancient Gaels, and these huts played

« VorigeDoorgaan »