28 



honest critic. But here unfortunately no data are given by which 

 we can form a just estimate, or ascertain what respect is due to his 

 authority. The only criterion by which we can form any judgment, 

 is his declaration, that the translation falls short of the original, and 

 that Ossian is " not inferior to Virgil or Homer." The latter decla- 

 ration does not, we confess, enhance our opinion of his critical dis- 

 cernment. But we shall not dispute : 



" Cedite, Romani Scriptores ! Cedite, Graii !" 



Some prefer Robin Hood's Garland to the Iliad, and think Will 

 Scarlet and Little John much nobler heroes than Achilles and Ajax. 

 As to the former declaration, it is worth nothing unless supported by 

 proof. There are hundreds of Irish scholars at this moment, who 

 will affirm that no translation can render justice to the beauty and 

 force of their vernacular tongue. 



Our judgment of Farquharson must rest upon the credit which we 

 attach to the testimony of his friends and admirers. That testimony 

 is derived from memory, and after a lapse of many years. But me- 

 mory, as all men know, is often fallacious. It supplies a few broken 

 or insulated facts, which imagination combines, and endeavours to 

 form into a consistent history. Mr. Macgillivray, the principal wit- 

 ness, left the College of Douay in 1775, and thirty-one years after- 

 wards, in 1806, informs us, that in 1766 or 1767 Farquharson first 

 received a copy of Macpherson's translation, and compared it with 

 the Gaelic. Prior to this event, Mr. Macgillivray had been obsti- 

 nate in denying the merit of the Highland bards, but the beauty of 

 the new version wrought a complete revolution in his taste, and, con- 

 trary to the usual process, he found in the translation, perfections 

 which till now had never been discovered in the original. His eyes 

 were opened, and he was taught to believe that even the new version. 



