14 
o s s 
character and language which fcareely any Highlander 
can diftindtly read ; and which, as far as it has been made 
out, contains no poems, either of Oflian or of any other 
bard. It has been already mentioned, that Macpherfon 
left a Aim of money for the purpofe of publifhing his 
Gaelic MSS. after his death ; from fome caufe or other, 
their publication was delayed till the year 1807, when 
the)' appeared, with a literal tranflation into Latin by 
the late Robert Macpherfon, A.M. together with a Dif- 
fertation on the Authenticity of the Poems, by Sir John 
Sinclair; a tranflation on the abbe Cefarotti’s Differtation 
on the Controverfy, with Notes, and a Supplemental 
EfTay, by Dr. Mac Arthur : the work was publifhed un¬ 
der the fanftion of the Highland Society of London. The 
editors of this work thought that they fliould decide the 
controverfy ; but there were certain awkward and trou- 
blefome queftions afked : the Gaelic poems thus publifhed 
were all in Macpherfon’s hand-writing ; what had become 
of the MSS. which he pretended to have got in the High¬ 
lands, and from which, if they really exifled, he mud have 
made his copy? To this no fatisfa&ory anfwer can be 
given. On the margin of the fir ft edition of his OlTian, 
Macpherfon marked, with his own hand, the time when 
the Gaelic was delivered to Mr. John Mackenzie, the 
fecretary to the Highland Society ; among thefe memo¬ 
randa, the following are found : “ Delivered the three 
Duans of Cathlode, as complete as the tranflation." Does 
not this expreflion warrant the belief that the Gaelic was 
written after the Englifli ? elfe why fay, “ as complete as 
the tranflation ?” It would be natural and proper to talk 
of a tranflation being as complete as the original, but 
to fpeak of an original being as complete as the tranflation, 
would fcareely have occurred to any one whole thoughts 
and language had not been at direif variance. Again, 
be fays, “ Delivered all that could be found of Carthon 
but, if the Englifli Carthon had been the tranflation, why 
could he find little more than half the original from 
which the tranflation was made ? The mere circumftance 
of the poems of Oflian being publifhed in Gaelic, from 
MSS. in Macpherfon’s li and-writing, can prove nothing 
in favour of their authenticity; nor be a fatisfaflory an- 
fwer to thofe who called for MSS. before they would give 
up t-heir fcepticifm ; unlefs there had been fatisfadtory 
evidence, that this Gaelic Oflian had been copied from 
old MSS. for Macpherfon could forge poems as well in 
Gaelic as in Englifli ; and the undoubted faffs, that he 
never would fliow any old MSS. that he delayed publifh¬ 
ing the Gaelic during his life-time, and that he was very 
flow in delivering it over to thofe to whom he committed 
the publication, confirm the fufpicion of Mr. Laing, that 
he tranflatetl his Englifli Oflian into Gaelic, and that this 
tranflation he left for publication after his deceafe. 
4. But Macpherfon, in various paffages of his prefaces 
and introdudtions, feems difpofed to acknowledge the 
impofture, and to claim the higher merit of an original 
poet : in one place he fays, “ Thofe who alone are capa¬ 
ble of transferring ancient poetry into a modern language 
might be better employed in giving originals of their own, 
were it not for that wretched envy and meannefs, which 
aftedts to defpife contemporary genius. I allure my anta- 
gonifts, I fliould not tranflaie what I could not imitate.” 
And in his preface lie fays, “ Without increafing his ge¬ 
nius, the author may have improved his language, in the 
eleven years that the poems have been in the hands of 
the public.” And again, “In a convenient indifference 
for a literary reputation, the author hears praife without 
being elevated, and ribaldry without being depreffed :” 
and, in the conchifion, lie fays, “ the tranflator who can¬ 
not equal his original, is incapable of exprefling its beau¬ 
ties.” Thefe paffages, when confidered in connection 
with all the other lufpicious circumflances ; with Mac¬ 
pherfon’s inability to produce any ancient MSS. with 
the plagiarifms contained in the poems; and with the 
internal marks of forgery which they dil'play ; tell ftrongly 
againft their authenticity. But there is more diredt and 
pofitive proof that Macpherfon confelfed the impofture ; 
I A N. 
The late venerable bifhop of Dromore, in a letter to a 
friend, (quoted by the Britifli Critic, for 1809, p. 275.) 
fays, “ I repeatedly received the molt pofitive affurances 
from fir John Elliot, the confidential friend of Macpher¬ 
fon, that all the poems publifhed by him as tranflations 
of Oflian, were entirely of his own compofition. This 
I did not underftand fo ftridllyas that Macpherfon might 
not have introduced fome fragments of ancient Erie 
poetry, preferved by tradition; but that he had no ge¬ 
nuine originals of Offian’s compofition. This, fir John 
Elliot did not communicate to me .as the refult of one 
fingle converfation, but what he was fully allured of, by 
repeated conventions, during the intimacy of many 
years.” 
We have now enumerated the moft important objec- 
. tions that have been ftated at various times againft the 
authenticity of Ofiian’s poems; from which objections has 
even arifen a doubt whether ever “ Fingal fought, or 
Oflian fung.” 
It was not to be expected that the admirers of Oflian, 
and the friends of his tranflator, fliould regard thefe hof- 
tilities with that filent contempt and pertinacious for¬ 
bearance which Macpherfon himfelf feems to have gloried 
in difplaying. At a very early period of the difpute, the 
refpedlable profefl'or, who had at firft attempted to prove 
the authenticity, and point out the beauties, of the poems, 
flood up in defence of hisadopted child ; and, in deference 
to the advice of his friend Hume, he colledled and pub- 
liflied numerous teftimonies in favour of its legitimacy. 
Tlrefe teftimonies confift chiefly of eleven letters from 
gentlemen and clergymen of refpedlabiiity in the High¬ 
lands, and are reprinted by the Committee of the High¬ 
land Society, at the head of the Appendix to their Re¬ 
port : they tend to prove that, at the time in which they 
were written, viz. 1763, there were living in the High¬ 
lands and I(lands of Scotland feveral perfons who either 
pofiefled ancient Gaelic MSS. or could recite long paffages 
from traditionary Gaelic poems, which agreed in their 
fubjedl, and often in their compofition, with thofe that 
had been publifhed in Englifli by Macpherfon. Thefe 
teftimonies, though fatisfadlory as far as they go, are by 
no means complete; and much more was wanting to 
fatisfy the doubts and remove the fcruples of the Englifli 
literati. 
In confequence of the ferious attack made by Mr 
William Shaw on the authenticity of the poems, and on 
the literary and moral character of Mr. Macpherfon and 
his advocates, but particularly to vindicate his own re¬ 
putation againft the attacks of that author, Mr. John 
Clark, member of the fociety of Scottifh Antiquaries, 
and tranflator ofthe Caledonian Bards, publifhed in 1781, 
“An Anfwer to Mr.Shaw’s Enquiry into the Authenticity 
of the Poems aferibed to OlTian.” In this Anfwer, Mr. 
Clark not only repelled the allegations of Mr. Shaw 
againft himfelf, and expofed Mr. S.’s ignorance of the 
Gaelic language and antiquities, but affirmed, on what 
appeared to be the fulleft evidence, that the accufations 
of Mr. Shaw had been dictated by private pique and re- 
fentment, and were in numerous inftances falfe and ma¬ 
licious; that Mr. S. had really been fhown an ancient 
Gaelic manufeript, referring to Ofcar the foil of Oflian, 
which, however, he appeared fcareely to underftand ; 
and-that he had never applied to Mr. Macpherfon for a 
fight of the MSS. in Mr. M.’s pofleffion, as he had aflerted. 
For the purpofe of throwing the fulleft light on this 
far-famed controverfy, and procuring the molt complete 
evidence which the nature of exifting circumflances 
would allow, the Highland 'Society of Scotland, fome 
time previous to the year 1797, appointed a committee 
of their body to inquire into the nature and authenticity 
of the poems of Oflian. In the time of nominating this 
committee, the fociety were peculiarly fortunate : Dr. 
Blair, Profefl'or Ferguflbn, Dr. Carlyle, and Mr. John 
Home, the principal advifers and promoters of the origi¬ 
nal publication of Macpherfon, and many other gentle¬ 
men of refpedlabiiity, who had been intimately acquainted 
with 
