Romanticism, Sincerity and Authenticity pp 58-79 | Cite as
‘A Blank Made’: Ossian, Sincerity and the Possibilities of Forgery
Abstract
On the face of it, trying to understand James Macpherson’s Poems of Ossian in terms to do with sincerity or authenticity would seem a perverse and potentially frustrating activity. Whatever ambitions Macpherson might have had for his poems, they have gone down in history as an archetype of the inauthentic, the charlatan, the opposite of everything or anything that might conceivably be meant by literary sincerity. It is for this reason, for example, that John Valdimir Price is ‘only too happy to admit that [he] get[s] no real literary pleasure from reading the works’, and why as sympathetic a reader as Joep Leerssen can claim that ‘there is no way of reading Ossian for mere textual pleasure’ in the face of the ‘unavoidable genetic issue of authenticity’.1 However, in this chapter I will try to suggest a way in which the later Romantic engagement with Ossian was in significant part to do with an engagement with the possibility and definition of a troubling but ineffably Romantic type of authenticity as a category beyond the conventional ones of truth and sincerity. Notions of the insincere and inauthentic will always exist in a close and at times potentially troubling proximity to those of the sincere and authentic, but I hope to go beyond drawing attention to this obvious binary and suggest something else about Ossian’s use within Romantic imaginative sincerity.
Keywords
Mountain Stream Romantic Idealism Romantic Type Negative Capability Literary MeritPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 1.John Valdimir Price, ‘Ossian and the Canon in the Scottish Enlightenment’ in Ossian Revisited, ed. Howard Gaskill, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991), pp. 109–28.Google Scholar
- 3.Jerome McGann, The Poetics of Sensibility: A Revolution in Literary Style (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), p. 33.Google Scholar
- 5.Thomas M. Curley, ‘Samuel Johnson and Truth: The First Systematic Detection of Literary Deception in James Macpherson’s Ossian’, The Age of Johnson, Vol. 17 (2006) pp. 119–96.Google Scholar
- 7.Leith Davis, Acts of Union: Scotland and the Literary Negotiation of the British Nation 1707–1803 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), pp. 74–106.Google Scholar
- 8.Nick Groom, The Forger’s Shadow: How Forgery Changed the Course of Literature (London: Picador, 2002), p.15.Google Scholar
- 9.Margaret Russett, Fictions and Fakes: Forging Romantic Authenticity, 1760–1845 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 4.Google Scholar
- 13.Marjorie Levinson, The Romantic Fragment Poem: A Critique of a Form (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), p. 34.Google Scholar
- 16.H. J. C. Grierson, The Letters of Walter Scott 1787–1807 (London: Constable, 1932), p. 321.Google Scholar
- 20.Fiona Robertson, Legitimate Histories: Scott, Gothic and the Authorities of Fiction (Oxford, 1994), p. 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Ian Haywood, The Making of History: a Study of the Literary Forgeries of James Macpherson and Thomas Chatterton in Relation to Eighteenth-Century Ideas of History and Fiction, (Rutherford: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1986) pp. 151, 162.Google Scholar
- 24.Murray G. H. Pittock, ‘Scott and the British Tourist’ in English Romanticism and the Celtic World, eds Gerard Carruthers and Alan Rawes, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 159.Google Scholar
- 25.Walter Scott, Waverley, ed. Andrew Hook (Harmondsworth, 1972), p. 176.Google Scholar
- 36.Ronald Paulson, Don Quixote in England: The Aesthetics of Laughter (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), p. 48.Google Scholar
- 55.Paul Baines, ‘Ossianic Geographies: Fingalian Figures on the Scottish Tour 1760–1830’, Scotlands 4.1 (1997), pp. 44–61.Google Scholar
- 62.John Wodrow, Fingal: An Ancient Epic Poem: In 6 Books. By Ossian … translated into English verse (1769).Google Scholar
- 64.David Hall Radcliffe, ‘Ossian and the Genres of Culture’, Studies in Romanticism 31.2 (1992), pp. 213–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar