![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to leave it open as to whether or not Ossian was actually based on an ancient Gaelic manuscript, as opposed to a creation of MacPherson. While I'm not an expert on 3rd century Irish primary sources, I was under the impression that there was a fairly strong consensus that the work was MacPherson's own creation.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't believe that this is considered a matter of debate these days; and as such the current article risks being misleading. Could someone with more background knowledge give an opinion?
I am also under the impression that Ossian was a relatively modern creation, but I get the sense it took some time for a consensus to evolve. An 1879 American source is convinced that an antique Ossian was the real author:
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)The lead gives the impression that from the start there was a consensus among critical readers that it was a fake, and I find this doubtful. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have given a reference for an "OR" tag, and removed said tag as per further research on the subject, to wit; the authenticity and inter-related influence, through Romantic Literary fervour, of James Macpherson's claim of merely "translating" bardic poetry from a supposed legendary figure of Gaelic Oral History. That aside, it must be kept in mind,that the original statement of authenticity concerning,"Fingal, an Ancient Epic Poem in Six Books, together with Several Other Poems composed by Ossian, the Son of Fingal, translated from the Gaelic Language", was from the outset,misleading if not wholly mendacious. Macpherson, must have known, for himself, the boggy and bottomless ground on which he erected his 'translation' would never bear the weight of judicious opprobrium,both literary and philological, bearing down upon it. No less than the British Library, an institution not given to a rashness of judgment, deems the work "a pastiche" at present (Oct.2016). And yes, the criticism started immediately after publication and has continued ever more forcefully since. Sometimes the Romantic yearning for a connection to a Golden Age,which never existed, is stronger than the brightest of minds, even those of our contemporaries, may withstand. Bjhodge8 ( talk) 06:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe this page should be left alone or merged with the James Macpherson page.
Discussion of the Gaelic sagas should be on the Oisín and Finn Mac Cumhail pages. This page should discuss the James MacPherson adaptation of those sagas in English. [Anonymous comments]
These poems had a huge effect on early nineteenth century Hungarian poetry. János Arany, one of the Hungarian classics (and a great translator of Shakespeare) has a poem, entitled Homer and Ossian. Would that be too particular a set of facts to include here? varbal 00:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The first external link no longer works. That's it.
The Ossian poems where a major influence on Romantic paintings. This should be addressed.-- Kworkpratt 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the addition of a short reference to issues about creativity in translation. As an example of what I am talking about: the renowned "Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam" translated by Edward Fitzgerald is sometimes referred to as "The Rubaiyat of FitzOmar", not out of petty criticism, but out of positive recognition for the creativity he displayed in his translation. It is sometimes difficult to track some of Fitz's passsages in the original (i.e. he seems to have invented some). One of the themes of Argentinian Jorge Luis Borges' writing was whether a translator could actually improve a piece, and how much could be added. Yet Fitzgerald's creative and free translation is regarded as a classic, but some still regard Mac Pherson's compilation as somehow tainted.
I think this has relevance to the article, firstly, as it does seem as though Mac Pherson's name was smeared out of a rather petty and narrow view of what literature and translation should be about (perhaps politically/culturally motivated?), and secondly, this is touches upon broader issues in literature everywhere (and everywhen).
Any thoughts or comments?
Oisinoc 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
the stub Fragments of Ancient Poetry collected in the Highlands of Scotland should be combined with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.208.61 ( talk) 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a piece of contemporary art here that is by an artist for whom notability has not been established. Perhaps it should be removed? Leoniceno ( talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Why have they been referred to as poems for almost 300 years? They're not poetry. They're prose. And not even good prose. The article should mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.55.166 ( talk) 05:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe the term used often is 'prose poetry'. The reason they continue to be called poetry is that they were ostensibly translated from material that was definitely poetry. But you're right, they're not very good, even if they were massively popular. Sort of like X-factor contestents will be viewed in years to come... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.71.145 ( talk) 15:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is terrible !! Unbelievably bad !! It's merely a collection of criticisms about a set of prose-poems; it's an argument about something THAT IS NEVER PRESENTED !!! What is the basic plot of the poems?! (Not presented !) Where are there samples of the poems?! (Not presented !)
This is like an argument about, say, Plato's Republic without telling the reader who Plato was or what the Republic was about, and without presenting the reader with any of the text from the Republic.
This article should be deleted. It's just awful.
Cwkmail ( talk) 21:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is clear from the present article whether Macpherson ever published a Gaelic text of the purported original poems, or whether his English 'translation' of the poems is the sole basis for his claims. I guess the latter, but it is a rather basic point that ought to be clearly stated one way or the other. 109.149.185.233 ( talk) 15:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ossian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The article states ". Ossian is based on Oisín, son of Finn or Fionn mac Cumhaill, anglicised to Finn McCool," which is entirely false. Firstly "Oisín" is an Irish form and the form "oisean" going back at least 500 years in Scotland. Then it seems to just go on to explain that all legends of Ossian in Scotland were just stolen from Ireland which is incredibly rude and ignores common sense since even just by MacPherson we know that he could not read Irish so then how could he steal from an Irish source? This just needs removed.
The article claims that the Roman Emperors "Caros" in these 18th-century poems is a reference to Carausius. The name seems more similar to the emperor Carus than Carausius. Where is the identification with Carausius based on? Dimadick ( talk) 23:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to leave it open as to whether or not Ossian was actually based on an ancient Gaelic manuscript, as opposed to a creation of MacPherson. While I'm not an expert on 3rd century Irish primary sources, I was under the impression that there was a fairly strong consensus that the work was MacPherson's own creation.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't believe that this is considered a matter of debate these days; and as such the current article risks being misleading. Could someone with more background knowledge give an opinion?
I am also under the impression that Ossian was a relatively modern creation, but I get the sense it took some time for a consensus to evolve. An 1879 American source is convinced that an antique Ossian was the real author:
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)The lead gives the impression that from the start there was a consensus among critical readers that it was a fake, and I find this doubtful. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have given a reference for an "OR" tag, and removed said tag as per further research on the subject, to wit; the authenticity and inter-related influence, through Romantic Literary fervour, of James Macpherson's claim of merely "translating" bardic poetry from a supposed legendary figure of Gaelic Oral History. That aside, it must be kept in mind,that the original statement of authenticity concerning,"Fingal, an Ancient Epic Poem in Six Books, together with Several Other Poems composed by Ossian, the Son of Fingal, translated from the Gaelic Language", was from the outset,misleading if not wholly mendacious. Macpherson, must have known, for himself, the boggy and bottomless ground on which he erected his 'translation' would never bear the weight of judicious opprobrium,both literary and philological, bearing down upon it. No less than the British Library, an institution not given to a rashness of judgment, deems the work "a pastiche" at present (Oct.2016). And yes, the criticism started immediately after publication and has continued ever more forcefully since. Sometimes the Romantic yearning for a connection to a Golden Age,which never existed, is stronger than the brightest of minds, even those of our contemporaries, may withstand. Bjhodge8 ( talk) 06:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe this page should be left alone or merged with the James Macpherson page.
Discussion of the Gaelic sagas should be on the Oisín and Finn Mac Cumhail pages. This page should discuss the James MacPherson adaptation of those sagas in English. [Anonymous comments]
These poems had a huge effect on early nineteenth century Hungarian poetry. János Arany, one of the Hungarian classics (and a great translator of Shakespeare) has a poem, entitled Homer and Ossian. Would that be too particular a set of facts to include here? varbal 00:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The first external link no longer works. That's it.
The Ossian poems where a major influence on Romantic paintings. This should be addressed.-- Kworkpratt 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the addition of a short reference to issues about creativity in translation. As an example of what I am talking about: the renowned "Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam" translated by Edward Fitzgerald is sometimes referred to as "The Rubaiyat of FitzOmar", not out of petty criticism, but out of positive recognition for the creativity he displayed in his translation. It is sometimes difficult to track some of Fitz's passsages in the original (i.e. he seems to have invented some). One of the themes of Argentinian Jorge Luis Borges' writing was whether a translator could actually improve a piece, and how much could be added. Yet Fitzgerald's creative and free translation is regarded as a classic, but some still regard Mac Pherson's compilation as somehow tainted.
I think this has relevance to the article, firstly, as it does seem as though Mac Pherson's name was smeared out of a rather petty and narrow view of what literature and translation should be about (perhaps politically/culturally motivated?), and secondly, this is touches upon broader issues in literature everywhere (and everywhen).
Any thoughts or comments?
Oisinoc 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
the stub Fragments of Ancient Poetry collected in the Highlands of Scotland should be combined with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.208.61 ( talk) 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a piece of contemporary art here that is by an artist for whom notability has not been established. Perhaps it should be removed? Leoniceno ( talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Why have they been referred to as poems for almost 300 years? They're not poetry. They're prose. And not even good prose. The article should mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.55.166 ( talk) 05:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe the term used often is 'prose poetry'. The reason they continue to be called poetry is that they were ostensibly translated from material that was definitely poetry. But you're right, they're not very good, even if they were massively popular. Sort of like X-factor contestents will be viewed in years to come... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.71.145 ( talk) 15:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is terrible !! Unbelievably bad !! It's merely a collection of criticisms about a set of prose-poems; it's an argument about something THAT IS NEVER PRESENTED !!! What is the basic plot of the poems?! (Not presented !) Where are there samples of the poems?! (Not presented !)
This is like an argument about, say, Plato's Republic without telling the reader who Plato was or what the Republic was about, and without presenting the reader with any of the text from the Republic.
This article should be deleted. It's just awful.
Cwkmail ( talk) 21:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is clear from the present article whether Macpherson ever published a Gaelic text of the purported original poems, or whether his English 'translation' of the poems is the sole basis for his claims. I guess the latter, but it is a rather basic point that ought to be clearly stated one way or the other. 109.149.185.233 ( talk) 15:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ossian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The article states ". Ossian is based on Oisín, son of Finn or Fionn mac Cumhaill, anglicised to Finn McCool," which is entirely false. Firstly "Oisín" is an Irish form and the form "oisean" going back at least 500 years in Scotland. Then it seems to just go on to explain that all legends of Ossian in Scotland were just stolen from Ireland which is incredibly rude and ignores common sense since even just by MacPherson we know that he could not read Irish so then how could he steal from an Irish source? This just needs removed.
The article claims that the Roman Emperors "Caros" in these 18th-century poems is a reference to Carausius. The name seems more similar to the emperor Carus than Carausius. Where is the identification with Carausius based on? Dimadick ( talk) 23:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)