James MacPherson produced one of the greatest forgeries in history when he passed off his own writings as "discovered" antique Gaelic poetry, by a blind bard named Ossian. Ossian was praised by figures as distant as such as Jefferson, Goethe, Napoléon, etc. However, on the discovery that Ossian was, in fact, a forgery, the Celtomania that had been inspired by it died out, Goethe doing a famous retcon when he wrote that his hero, Werther, "praised Homer when sane, and Ossian when mad". According to the Ossian Online Projects, MacPherson's texts basically disappeared from common printing until the 1990s.

Ironically, Ossian is cited as a text awakening an interest in the Gaelic past of Scotland (especially after the Jacobite suppressions after 1745), but also apparently influenced Byron and Scott. (I've never read MacPherson's work, so I have no idea as to the veracity of this statement), not to mention numerous composers (Méhul, LeSueur (and through him, Berlioz), Pleyel, Catel, Mendelssohn, Gade, Wagner and d'Indy) and painters (Girodet, Isabey, Gérard).

So, what if the Ossianic revival is longer lived? Does it need MacPherson's forgery to not be discovered? And what impact might this have in bridging the Sturm und Drang movement and the Romanticism of the 19th century (which was largely a knee-jerk to the Classical overtones of the Revolutionary era). And what would Ossian's role be (if any) in Scottish nationalism?
 
Hm, interesting. I know this isn't quite answering the question (and I hope you don't see it as derailing the thread), but do you see a possibility in real Gaelic texts like the Táin becoming popular instead of a forgery - maybe MacPherson or his TTL Irish equivalent finds it and decides it's better to not do the spectacularly unethical thing? That would get us over the inevitable, devastating reveal and probably energise Celticism in a more stable direction, and given the story's epic presentation, more closely connected with the rise in Indo-European studies on the Continent.

The problem being that Irish identity was severely deprecated in 18th/19th-century Europe, while Protestant Scottish identity was lionised - but then, they were the same people in the time period that antiquarians were interested in. I wonder if the "epic pride against brutal invaders" image could somehow tide over the "lazy, superstitious Catholic" stereotype. Unfortunately, though, I don't know of any real pre- or semi-Christian Scottish Gaelic epics that could do the job for antiquarian Romantics in the same way.

Also, a little rant: how in the hell is it easier to write thousands of lines of epic poetry than to slightly expand your mindset and go find the exact traditions that you're looking for, which have the distinct advantage of being real? I guess because it's much harder to romanticise a culture in which you're the oppressors, rather than some nasty Turks far away.
 
Last edited:
To answer your first question, I have no idea if it's possible. And "unethical" is a nebulous concept (although, considering that MacPherson was derided within fifty years of his publication as being a "charlatan" (Johnson was one of the detractors), I think it's safe to say that it would've been regarded as such).

Also, a little rant: how in the hell is it easier to write thousands of lines of epic poetry than to slightly expand your mindset and go find the exact traditions that you're looking for, which have the distinct advantage of being real? I guess because it's much harder to romanticise a culture in which you're the oppressors, rather than some nasty Turks far away.

With MacPherson's texts, I came across an article about it. However, it doesn't seem to say "yay" or "nay" on the subject of forgery. Sure, the social networks are the same, which is unlikely to appear by chance, but the social networks in Homer's the Illiad/Odyssey are almost identical to those in Greek mythology, does that make "it" a forgery? As far as my Greek lecturer at university was concerned, Homer and Shakespeare are the two biggest frauds in world literature. Shakespeare because it's pretty likely he didn't write his plays himself. Homer because there's a good chance (apparently) that he himself never existed, yet nobody talks of either sets of works as a forgery.

Basically, I was aiming for that for Ossian. It can be discovered as a forgery, if only perhaps later, after it's "wrought its magic"
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Short of some work that somehow very effectively popularises real Celtic myth and history, the best thing for 'Ossian' would be an ATL wherein MacPherson has a moment of 'let's make no enemies here', and instead of ascribing the work purely to Scottish history, explicitly states that it represents a common Gaelic culture from which both the Scottish and Irish cultures can claim descent. His earliest critics were irate Irish scholars, and placating them by giving them a 'claim' to the work as well would help credibility along. Instead of a lot of Irishmen being out to discredit the work, they'd be embracing it (meaning they'd vocally oppose those questioning it later, since their own reputation and pride -- personal and national -- would be on the line.)

This would leave Johnson as the most evident critic, and Johnson made a lot of wildly absurd counter-claims (e.g. that Gaelic culture was a recent fabrication, and that no Gaelic mansuscripts older than a century even existed), which were disproved.

After this, truly the best thing to happen as far as credibility is concerned would be... well, a destructive fire that kills MacPherson and his property, also destroying the supposed original text(s) he had used. Sucks for MacPherson, obviously, but it would make his critics look like they're kicking at a dead man when they criticise him, and it gives a plausible reason as to why there's no 'original text'. It got burned.

When Johnson takes his study-trip to the Hebrides and declares (and produces evidence) that MacPherson just based his stuff on folk-songs and old tales from the region, a defender of MacPherson successfully claims that those folk-songs are simply proof that the same myths and stories have lived on in the popular consciousness. It ends up strengthening MacPherson's position, because this view suggests direct continuity between the ancient Celts and the current inhabbitants of the region.

Ultimately, while there would still be major detractors, the matter wouldn't end up being seen as "settled", and believing in Ossian's authenticity would become a politicised matter. Those supporting Celtic identity would believe it, those wanting to downplay that identity would dismiss Ossian as a forgery, and people uninvolved in this political issue would be divided on the matter. But saying "oh, it's definitely fake" would be commonly seen as a political, rather than an objective statement.


Shakespeare because it's pretty likely he didn't write his plays himself.

Why is this myth still going around? Its total bull

There are a lot of (serious) people who still believe this, and I can easily answer the 'why' question, but let me first say that the "Shakespeare never existed" story is demonstrably false. He's as well-documented as any person from his time. We even know exactly what school he attended, and we know that school owned a copy of a popular book on classical history. A book that is known to contain critical errors. Errors that were repeated in Shakespeare's play. Errors that a hypothetical 'secret, high-placed author' (certainly educated with better materials) would never make.

The question still exists, however, because Shakespeare knew too much about court politics. More than someone from his background could or should know. Hence the idea that someone who did know such things (a high-placed man, or even woman, at court) secretly authored those plays. But it doesn't hold up. I suspect that Shakespeare existed, and simply had a high-placed 'fan'/informant/benefactor, who gave him the information he needed to write some elements of his plays. That explains everything, and (unlike a vast conspiracy with secret identities) it's the sort of thing that has often occurred in history.


Homer because there's a good chance (apparently) that he himself never existed

This is also nonsense. We can't say much about this for sure, but there is no reason to assume Homeros didn't write his works. What he did was write down (the definitive version of) previously oral traditions. He marks the transition from bardic culture to literate culture. Saying he never existed is like saying Snorri Sturluson never existed. All the same 'arguments' apply, except we know Snorri existed. But he did the same thing Homeros did (collecting and writing down older material), which rather proves it's a completely realistic endeavour.
 
Last edited:
Why is this myth still going around? Its total bull
Short of some work that somehow very effectively popularises real Celtic myth and history, the best thing for 'Ossian' would be an ATL wherein MacPherson has a moment of 'let's make no enemies here', and instead of ascribing the work purely to Scottish history, explicitly states that it represents a common Gaelic culture from which both the Scottish and Irish cultures can claim descent. His earliest critics were irate Irish scholars, and placating them by giving them a 'claim' to the work as well would help credibility along. Instead of a lot of Irishmen being out to discredit the work, they'd be embracing it (meaning they'd vocally oppose those questioning it later, since their own reputation and pride -- personal and national -- would be on the line.)

This would leave Johnson as the most evident critic, and Johnson made a lot of wildly absurd counter-claims (e.g. that Gaelic culture was a recent fabrication, and that no Gaelic mansuscripts older than a century even existed), which were disproved.

After this, truly the best thing to happen as far as credibility is concerned would be... well, a destructive fire that kills MacPherson and his property, also destroying the supposed original text(s) he had used. Sucks for MacPherson, obviously, but it would make his critics look like they're kicking at a dead man when they criticise him, and it gives a plausible reason as to why there's no 'original text'. It got burned.

When Johnson takes his study-trip to the Hebrides and declares (and produces evidence) that MacPherson just based his stuff on folk-songs and old tales from the region, a defender of MacPherson successfully claims that those folk-songs are simply proof that the same myths and stories have lived on in the popular consciousness. It ends up strengthening MacPherson's position, because this view suggests direct continuity between the ancient Celts and the current inhabbitants of the region.

Ultimately, while there would still be major detractors, the matter wouldn't end up being seen as "settled", and believing in Ossian's authenticity would become a politicised matter. Those supporting Celtic identity would believe it, those wanting to downplay that identity would dismiss Ossian as a forgery, and people uninvolved in this political issue would be divided on the matter. But saying "oh, it's definitely fake" would be commonly seen as a political, rather than an objective statement.






There are a lot of (serious) people who still believe this, and I can easily answer the 'why' question, but let me first say that the "Shakespeare never existed" story is demonstrably false. He's as well-documented as any person from his time. We even know exactly what school he attended, and we know that school owned a copy of a popular book on classical history. A book that is known to contain critical errors. Errors that were repeated in Shakespeare's play. Errors that a hypothetical 'secret, high-placed author' (certainly educated with better materials) would never make.

The question still exists, however, because Shakespeare knew too much about court politics. More than someone from his background could or should know. Hence the idea that someone who did know such things (a high-placed man, or even woman, at court) secretly authored those plays. But it doesn't hold up. I suspect that Shakespeare existed, and simply had a high-placed 'fan'/informant/benefactor, who gave him the information he needed to write some elements of his plays. That explains everything, and (unlike a vast conspiracy with secret identities) it's the sort of thing that has often occurred in history.




This is also nonsense. We can't say much about this for sure, but there is no reason to assume Homeros didn't write his works. What he did was write down (the definitive version of) previously oral traditions. He marks the transition from bardic culture to literate culture. Saying he never existed is like saying Snorri Sturluson never existed. All the same 'arguments' apply, except we know Snorri existed. But he did the same thing Homeros did (collecting and writing down older material), which rather proves it's a completely realistic endeavour.

I'm not coming to my lecturer's defense, but I was unaware of the proof/disproof of Shakespeare/Homer argument. Which sound pretty plausible to me (I've admittedly, never bothered any more about whether there was an actual Bill Shakespeare than I have about whether there was an actual Moses to write the pentateuch. The quote of Voltaire's that if such a person didn't exist, we'd have to invent him, being my general argument).

Moving on to Ossian. What @Skallagrim is proposing for MacPherson (house fire and everything) sounds plausible. Giving credit to other people (or giving them an equal reason to defend the work) makes sense. I like the idea of it being politicized. I always did wonder why the French Republic/German Sturm und Drang identified with Ossian stuff (surely they've got enough Gaulic characters - Asterix and Obelix...kidding :p, but seriously, Vercingetorix, Brunhilde and co. (just look at a bunch of Füseli's works), etc. - that they could've used for this purpose?). I wonder if the French Empire/Republic were to still fall if the Republicans/Imperials would be on the Ossianic side of the argument and the Bourbons/Legitimists on the more Classical end of the spectrum.
 
Top