Feel free to respond to either of the following questions:
(1) What reflections or observations do you have on the excerpts (handed out in class today, and available over there in the sidebar) recording the reactions of Samuel Johnson and Thomas Jefferson to the works of Ossian?
(2) Next week, our topic for discussion will be "The Sublime." "Sublime" is a word that got applied a lot to the works of Ossian/MacPherson. Why? What do you understand "sublime" to mean, and how does it apply to Ossian's "Fragments""
Deadline: Monday (4/11), 1 pm. Posts before Saturday (4/9) midnight count towards week 11; posts after that count toward Week 12.
11 comments:
In my English 255 class, we discussed the sublime as something grandeur, vast and awe- inspiring or overwhelming, almost inconceivable, a"headache". I read a work by Jefferson- "Notes about the State of Virginia" and he refers to the natural bridge (a nature construct, not man made) that caused him to have a headache and become dizzy. I don't necessarily get this kind of approach with Ossian; other than getting dizzy due to confusion? I also view the sublime as a concept of something elevated and more simply, fancy stuff!
"Fragments" needed to be unpacked, but I sense that after the class figured out the love triangle that was occurring and specified each character's role, we could actually enjoy this poem. The beat is quirky, the format unique, and it's a scandalous plot (if not too much of a soap opera!). This is also a piece of work that most likely matched, if not challenged, intellectual readers' understanding. So, this poem becomes more lofty. Another thing to take in consideration is elements of nature (stream, mossy stones). The sublime in literature has been known to be associated with nature and overpowering the senses of the author and/or reader. Ossian stimulates our imagination with his wording/metaphors such as "he fell as the moon in a storm" or "Blood tinged the silvery stream, and rudled round the mossy stones". Typically, when I'm reading things about nature (i.e. Wordsworth) I find it absolutely dull. I beg to differ after reading Ossian. I'm not sure what the appropriate word for it is...perhaps there;s more drama to painting an image of what's happening here? I'm imagining the moon falling in a storm almost literally, and a silvery/bloody river. It's mystical/fantastical yet creepy. My answer can serve as evidence I've just read something of the "sublime" because it's affected me. I am attempting to explain his work, and how I feel about it, but it's not an easy task.
Thomas Jefferson seems to enjoy the Ossian poems and does not question their authenticity in his letter. Rather, Jefferson enjoys the poems because of their beauty, saying, “These pieces have been and will, I think, during my life, continue to be to me sources of daily pleasure.” I thought it was interesting that Jefferson wanted to learn the Celtic language so he could read the poems in their original form. To me, this says more about Jefferson's interest in aesthetics. He wants to hear the sound of the words and experience the poem’s imagery; Jefferson is not so much interested in the history of the people from which these poems ostensibly came.
Samuel Johnson reacts more personally to the poem because Boswell suggets that he might have original copies. Unlike Jefferson, Johnson doesn’t like that Macpherson made forgeries. Johnson’s language in his letter to Macpherson indicates his anger: “I hope I shall never be deterred from detecting what I think a cheat, by the menaces of a ruffian.” For Johnson, the poems lose their meaning because of their inauthenticity.
I remember learning about the "sublime" extensively in 255. The idea applied to a variety of things that produce feelings of grandeur, something that cannot be fully realized or appreciated. We studied a variety of texts and art that depicted the sublime. I also remember reading Thomas Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" and his description of nature and the bridge. I find the descriptions in "Ossian" parallel Jefferson's emotional response to this natural wonder. Jefferson says, "It is impossible for the emotions, arising from the sublime, to be felt beyond what they are here: so beautiful an arch, so elevated, so light, and springing, as it were, up to heaven, the rapture of the Spectator is really indescribable!" (110). In Fragment 3, the descriptions of nature create these same emotions Jefferson describes. The speaker of the poem reflects on the death of a love one set amidst the descriptions of the "wavy ocean" and "roaring winds." Nature essentially assumes the subject matter. The chaotic world fits perfectly with the speaker's attempts to preserve the lost love.
The "sublime" is a concept I've discussed in many of my classes. In general, I tend to think of it in the same way as the people above me (as something that produces images of grandeur). The scenery within Fragment 3 are certainly that of the Sublime. "Ye rocks! hang over my head. Hear my voice, ye trees! as ye bend on the shaggy hill". Not only is he personifying nature around him, he is speaking as if he can interact with it as well.
Even though Fragment 7 did not portray nature in the same way, the concept of the "sublime" still can be found. The plot line is so extensive, so complex, the "sublime" seems a perfect fit. Each person seems to be connected to the rest, their lives weaving together in many different ways. Not only were they all connected, by the ways in which they were could be seen as quite intense. The love, hatred and death found within the text cannot be taken lightly.
Jefferson's letter, written in February 1773, gives Macpherson the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the authenticity of his works. Jefferson, though, is still interested in obtaining the original manuscript (or, at least, a transcription of it) -- he assumes Macpherson is legitimate, but he still wants proof.
Two years later, Johnson is enraged at the idea that the works are illegitimate. Obviously, this source of information is more than a little biased -- I'm reluctant to lend much credence to Boswell's telling of Johnson's life when he writes things such as "for no man was ever more remarkable for personal courage" than Johnson) -- but it's easily inferred that Johnson doesn't remotely care about the inherent beauty of the works or finds any value in them if they are forgeries.
The difference in the opinions of Jefferson and Johnson can be attributed to any number of things (including Jefferson's love of the esoteric over the practical), but to me the easiest explanation is the two-year difference. We don't have the benefit of seeing how Jefferson felt about this issue in 1775, but perhaps two years of waiting to see these manuscripts and not getting anything made him just as jaded as Johnson seems to be -- likewise, in 1773, it's entirely possible that Johnson was willing to be more patient.
1. Personally, it was sort of refreshing to see Samuel Johnson's relentless attitude towards exposing MacPherson as a "cheat". Not that I'm at all invested in whether or not MacPherson gets credit for his forgery, I just think it's important for credit to be given where it's due. On an artistic or academic level, creativity and originality are among the most highly prized qualities in works--at least nowadays. I also say this because throughout this week, as we looked at various literary forgeries, it seemed as if authors were able to lie about their works and get away with it. What were the consequences of being found out? Were there any for people like MacPherson because it sounded as if their texts were subsequently being circulated all the more.
Also, just as a couple of sidenotes: I think it's very interesting how MacPherson (according to Johnson) became violently defensive of his works. And I also thought it was interesting how MacPherson believed he could get away with lying about a language that was barely written down... sort of dropped the ball on that one.
2. In tandem with my classmates' experiences, I also thought the sublime was a literary theme, almost obsession, about the littleness of man against the backdrop of nature's ubiquity. I always thought there were two camps of reactions when it came to the sublime. One camp saw nature as this massive force to be reckoned with. As a literary example, I think of Moby Dick and the whale's destructive power. This sort of view on nature would evoke feelings of fearful reverence or incredible respect. And even though this sounds scary, there was also a maintained beauty in nature. The other camp was the "headache" reaction, which was already mentioned by another classmate. I imagine one text by Jefferson talking about the landscape of Virgina (I think?) looking over a cliff. Jefferson recounts that he had a sickening experience, a headache that knocked him to his feet. It seems as though Ossian's fragments would follow the first camp. MacPherson uses such powerful language when he talks about nature, language that owes to the power of nature (e.g., "meteor of fire," "roaring winds," "blustering waves,"). I understood this description of nature to coincide with the supernatural fearfulness of Malcolm's ghost. Both are set apart from man, and both are frightening. Basically, you don't mess with ghosts and you don't mess with nature's storm.
In our class discussions about James MacPherson’s Ossian the argument came up many times that it didn’t matter whether these were forged or didn’t have manuscripts to validate the translations. While this may be the case, the topic wouldn’t be present if it didn’t matter. Two people on both sides of the argument are Samuel Johnson and Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Charles MacPherson is sufficient evidence for the “doesn’t matter” side of the debate. Most of the letter isn’t about the text itself, but focused more-so on how Jefferson felt after reading the poems. He felt a sense of “sublime” and even goes as far as to claim it will be forever a part of his life. This shows that while the text was created under false pretenses, it created a strong emotion within people. It made them think, it entertained them, it made them feel. What’s more important then; creating a text that affects people that is a lie or creating a text that doesn’t affect people and is the truth? Furthermore, the text encourages Jefferson to learn the Celtic language, a desire that might not have emerged without the help of Ossian. It shows that this text, false or not, aided in the betterment of individuals—whether that was to create hidden emotions or push them towards knowledge.
It isn’t to say that Samuel Johnson’s adamancy to out MacPherson’s lie is wrong. As someone said before it isn’t right to take credit for something you are lying about. Johnson takes more of a moral stance against these readings. From them he wants them to better people morally. However, if the entire text is based on a lie, how are people supposed to gain moral knowledge from it?
It’s interesting to see such drastically different views on the same work. Jefferson is enamored by McPherson, whereas Johnson finds him deplorable. Jefferson refers to Macpherson’s work as “sources of daily pleasure” and credits it for bringing out sublime emotions. (746) It is unclear to me however, if Jefferson is asking for the original non-translated works or if he is asking for McPherson’s original translated copy. This makes a difference because if he is asking for the translated original copy than he has accepted the fact that the works are not authentic, but if he is asking for the original non-translated text than he still believes the works are authentic. I also find it interesting that Jefferson ends this letter with “your friend, and humble servant;” he did not end his booklist letter to Robert Skipwith this way. I feel like “humble servant” is commonly used when referring to one’s relationship to a king or a God, not to a friend. His use of the phrase shows just how highly he thinks of McPherson. On the other hand, Johnson refers to McPherson as “foolish” and “impudent,” he specifically calls his book an “imposture.” He even insults his writing abilities by saying they are “not so formidable.” With all these personal insults towards McPherson I wonder if Johnson didn’t approve of his works because he felt duped or because he actually thought his actions to be unethical and immoral.
Being the 9th comment down, everyone ahead of me has commented on all the topics I wanted to reference about the sublime. THe first work that came to mind when I thought of sublime was "God's Grandeur" by Gerard Manley Hopkins. Sublime is all about the serene, whimsical nature-embracing man in his element. I can picture a man standing on top of a green, lavish mountain with his arms opena nd the wind blowing in his face. Man comes together with the Earth to appreciate nature and the sublime is this surreal emotion that connects the two together. The Fragments had a lot of elements of nature in them with the picturesque landscape of the mountains and emotions provoked.
While I agree with everyone who connected "The Sublime" to the idea of vastness, I think that the true emotion it invokes is more specifically the insignificance one feels in contrast to this immeasurable perception of reality. The realization of one's own insignificance in contrast to the vast, while frightening in its alienating effect, is awe inspiring when we consider the complexity it necessitates. In connection to the two authors we read, the sublime experience their works elicited may have come from the enormity of history itself. For their forgeries to chronicle such a rich history and still supposedly be lost until the 18th century beckons one to consider what else may have been overlooked. Perhaps history as they knew it was being redefined as an entity so expansive that it may never be fully tapped. The insignificance this bestows upon the reader and the period in which they lived would have been radical to consider, but the magnificence of life through the ages seems all the more elaborate and intriguing for it.
My understanding of "the sublime" is that it refers to a beautiful, almost infinite sense of something which is recognized as being greater than oneself. It appears frequently in the works of the Romantic writers who grew in popularity and number in the early nineteenth century. As such, my personal notion of the sublime is heavily associated with Romantic topics such as nature etc. As referenced above, Hopkin's poem "God's Grandeur" is a prime example of this feeling. In that instance, nature is seen as an expression of the power of God. In other cases, any powerful inspirational force can be the source of feelings of the sublime in that something can be recognized as being beyond the potential power of the individual, and is appreciated for that characteristic.
Post a Comment