Up until now, our themes have been rather broad topics. This week, we will be taking on something different. Literary forgeries themselves are not a difficult concept to grasp. An author writes a piece of work, claiming to be the work of another well known author, taking on this writer's style. This forger will sometimes go as far as attempting to recreate the original manuscript, to make the claim seem more authentic. Producing an unknown work by a well known author can bring money and fame to anyone who “finds” one. In class on Wednesday, we will discuss two of the more famous forgers during the 18th Century.
We gave you two readings from James MacPherson. He was a Scottish writer, poet, and politician . After traveling to Scottland, MacPherson claimed to have discovered ancient Gaelic poetry and went about translating them to English. He published Fingal, an Ancient Epic Poem in Six Books, together with Several Other Poems in 1761. Temora, an Ancient Epic Poem in Eight Books, together with Several Other Poems was later released in 1763. Even during MacPherson's life, it the authenticity of these works were put into question. MacPherson was never able to produce the original manuscripts to these works.
The second set of readings were taken from Thomas Chatterton. Chatterton was an English poet and forger of pseudo-medieval poetry.Even at a young age, Chatterton was intrigued by the medieval period and began writing works, pretending to be a medieval poet. Chatterton used the pseudonym Thomas Rowley to write his forgeries. He published many works under this guise, but we will only be discussing two of his works in class.
After reading through these forgeries, think about and reflect on the following questions:
Even though it is commonly accepted that Ossian was fabricated, why do you think it remained to be popular and considered important literary work? Why do you think people refused to believe the poems were inauthentic? On that, which parts of the poem seemed to be authentic (if any)? Which parts seem to help support the theory of forgery, and reflect concepts or styles from the 18th Century?
What aspects of Chatterton's work appear 15th century like? His works were nonetheless uncovered as forgeries though, so what aspects of 18th century literature can be found in his work that might have given this away?
10 comments:
I am not surprised that Ossian remained popular even though it was widely considered to be fabricated. There are many appealing aspects in Ossian. To begin, it is easy to read and its subject is very basic, almost primordial. The words are all very short (very Anglo-Saxon or Germanic) and I think readers would be interested in this language as opposed to the inflated, ornate language that was so common. Matching the language in form is the story’s topic which is the story of a poet wondering around the Gaelic countryside imaging the ghosts of past heroes and their glories. These past glories, however, do not signify present action. It is interesting to see how Malcom, the old warrior (I think) was the “hope of the isles” (16) is replaced by the bard’s voice as the voice of the nation: “My voice shall preserve the praise of him, the hope of the isles” (18). I believe that even though they knew the work was fabricated, readers would still be interested in the characters, the landscape, the simple language, and the epic tone of these stories. I also wonder if Gaelic readers would get a sense of nationalism from these stories, or if that nationalism would be undercut by their fabricated nature?
It is hard to tell which parts seem authentic and which seem inauthentic without reading any original Gaelic literature to compare to. However, I believe the simple language would have seemed to be from another, older time period that then 18th century. Sentences like “Their friendship was strong as their steel; and death walked between them to the field” (Page unnumbered) may have tricked the 18th century reader. One text you could possibly compare this to is Beowulf. I remember in Beowulf that when somebody addressed someone else, they would call him by their father’s name (like in Lord of the Rings: “Gimli, son of Gloin”). MacPherson uses that same form of address (“O son of Alpin” [Fragment VII]) so perhaps readers were tricked by that as well.
The story of Ossian is very similar to “The Bard” by Gray, where a bard is alone in the mountains contemplating about the history of his country. Perhaps this form of address is a more modern, 18th century technique leading to the Romantics like Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey.” So maybe this form of address is a giveaway that it is fabricated.
After reading the two fragments from Ossian, there are a few elements of the work that contribute to its popularity. The plot is simple, yet entertaining. Most of the sentences are very succinct, and don't force the reader to wade through syntax to figure out the story. I think another reason why the story remained popular despite the criticism against it was because the story is engaging and unique. The story can be appreciated regardless of class.
There are unnatural parts of the story that I believe also contribute to the success of the text. "Who rides on that meteor of fire! Green are his airy limbs. It is he! It is the ghost of Malcolm!" (17). The lines are entertaining and imaginative, which for people in the working class may offer an escape. I think believe refused to believe the poems were fraudulent because they seem authentic. Today, it is easy to see why Ossian is inauthentic, but to readers back then they had a much harder time discerning between texts.
I am going to stick with the previous comments and discuss a bit about Ossian, because I still am trying to figure out his poetry. Although, that may just be one reason why it is successful: The mystery appeals to the reader. It is a challenging bit, and gives a flavor of the past, so readers are intrigued.
However, the Ossian reading is not as complex, but mystical. I particularly liked the line "He is gone, like a dream of the night". The use of metaphors such as this one and adjectives (i.e. oozy rock) make this work something people could read before bedtime. I also noticed mixing in questions and exclamation made it more engaging for the reader. All of these qualities perhaps just surpassed the possibility it was forgery because readers back them were more concerned with appreciating a fine piece of work. Personally, I suppose I wouldn't care either if I enjoyed the work. The only hint I can see that might "suggest" forgery is the sentence on page 18: "My voice shall preserve the praise of him". Is this a subtle way of the author saying there's someone else that deserves credit? Is this the type of answer you are looking for?
I also did a paper on the "Written Extempore on the Sea Shore" by Elizabeth Carter (written in the 18th century) and the sea waves, clouds, and other aspects of nature immediately remind me of my paper. I think a characteristic, though maybe not always dominant in our class discussions, is the poet referring to nature/soaking in the environment. Poets use it as a tool to add sensory background to their work (think of Gray in the graveyard, or jumping off the cliff!). Maybe this can be evidence that Ossian has 18th century influence.
While reading Ossian I am able to see why it was so popular during its time, even thought it was “fabricated”. I find that it tells a story that would appeal to readers. It uses elements that we have previously discussed in class, such as Medieval and Gothic elements that draw on 18th Century literary techniques. When readers learn that Dermid and Oscur both love the daughter of Dargo, there are found to be very strong medieval elements. She has the beautiful, damsel in distress type of characteristic going on, while at the same time holding some mystery as well. Even though his writing was not authentically his own, MacPherson was able to draw the reader into his stories, creating a popular literature of his own.
It is easy to see why Ossian became and remained popular. The text itself is fairly simple and straightforward, yet contains certain timeless themes. The subject of fragment three, Carryl, is dealing with the loss of Malcolm. The death of someone close or important to another is a fairly universal theme, which increases the works appeal. Carryl's grieving in this fragment is accentuated by his morose surroundings. The simplistic description of the stark beauty of those surroundings lends the poem even more mass appeal. This selection reminded me of the scene in Homer's Iliad in which Achilles sits near the sea and laments his treatment at the hands of Agememnon.
While the fragment initially seems authentic, it contains hints at its forgery. Malcolm is referred to multiple times as "the hope of the isles." I understood "the isles" to mean the British isles, which would likely not have been regarded as a united group during the life time of a "medieval" poet.
The principal difference between Chatteron's two poems and Ossian's two is that of purpose. Whereas Ossian's poems offer clear emotional and romantic elements along with its alleged historical importance, Chatteron's poems have little left to offer other than the latter. Chatteron seems to have had arbitrarily translated particular words in the text. It could be that what lead to the discloser of his deceit was the seeming incongruity of his translations. The Middle-English words in the text just seem to stick out. This is a huge problem for Chatteron because his poems, devoid of strong emotions, and thought-provoking, ideas, rely on historical accuracy for their popularity. Most people probably read this on the grounds that it was supposed Medieval literature, not because it was intellectually stimulating. Ossian's poems, conversely, enact sentiments and engage the reader in a profound way. People read his poems because they were entertaining and whimsical. Their alleged Gaelic origin was a secondary aspect of intrigue.
I can see why Ossian was so popular during it's printing time due to the fact that it is seemingly very easy to read and understand. From Fragment 7 in particular, the work is about how many men are all falling in love with the same woman because of her beauty. This image can be understood no matter what time period you are in and reading. It also mentions the idea of war and death, again, something understood and seen in all time periods and places.
Although the question of 15th century aspects versus 18th century aspects was asked about Chatteron, I see it in the Ossian fragments as well. One aspect I notice that relates more strongly to the 15th century than the 18th century is page 34 of fragment 7 where the first line speaks of using a sword. In the 15th century, swords would have been used in battle regularly, but in the 18th century, newer and more advanced weapons would be in use. Another aspect I see that reminds me more of the 15th century than the 18th century is the way the names are said. Oscur is describes not simply as "oscur" but instead as "Oscur son of Oscian." In the more recent centuries, people are not generally known as name, son of name, but in the earlier centuries, this was how many people made known where they came from and their lineage.
In Chatterton, the striking aspect I find that shows a link to the 15th century is the spelling of the words and the use of language. Many of the words are in and Old English type of dialect and although we are able to understand many of them, the spellings very easily throw readers off balance. Other 18th century works may not make complete sense, but at least a majority of the words are the same as what is used currently.
Everyone has made very interesting points so far. Clearly, MacPherson had a good idea of what he was doing, to making such a convincing forgery. The names (and use of son of...) were the first thing that struck me as "old". After looking deeper the the text though, it begins falling apart (though that might only be because I knew they were forged to start). Had I not know the history of the texts, I would not have picked up on the inconsistencies. It is easy enough to pick up on 18C sentiment within the text when I know to look for it. Had I read the text before reading about MacPherson, I think I would have been fooled just as easily. The ease of access our generation has makes forgeries harder to pull off.
I feel that people still read the forged work even after it had been exposed because it was exciting to read, it stimulated the senses of the person reading it. Even though the works weren't genuine manuscripts they were still very well written and for that reason they were successful, and bear literary substance. As for why some people refused to accept they weren't authentic, I believe it probably had to do with the fact that if people felt cool thinking that they were engaging in history by reading the work, as soon as you take that from them, not only do they look foolish, you rob them of their investment in what they believe is a piece of history.
With regards to Chatterton, the big thing that makes it look old is the spelling, in particular the incredible of use of y instead of i. It's a little suspicious though because it appears everywhere.
in looking at the fragments it is easy for me to see why it remained popular after it was suspected to be a forgery. If I understand the period correctly I think that people were looking for ways to connect to their scottish roots and give those roots some validity. Since McPhearson alleged that he had found these works while traveling to Scotland, Britains would have latched on to them as a connection to their ancestral past. In addition to that fragment III in particular seems to be riddled with sentimentality. There is heightened emotion, and certainly a lean toward sensibility. If in the age of sentimentality ones sensibility was thought to be linked directly to their intelligence the Brits would have lached on to this aspect and would have found it appealing and even redeeming that their ancesters had been so enlightened so long ago. They had even been given a martyr for the cause of the poor to lament over. For a people who had little or no literary connection with there scottish roots this would have been a hard one to let go of.
As for Chatterton, I think that both his success and his uncovering are in the language he uses. He does quite a good job of mimicing Chaucer and that makes his forgery somewhat believable. Howevr for people like me who struggle qute a bit with Chaucer the laungage that Chatterton uses seems to be much more easily understood. I think this was the give away.
Post a Comment