THE CELTIC MAGAZINE.
No. IV.FEBRUARY 1876.
THE STATE OF THE OSSIANIC CONTROVERSY.
[Concluded.]
In prosecuting the geological and geographical confirmation of Ossian onwhich we have lately been engaged, the most convincing proofs and thegreatest difficulties alike are to be found in the Frith of Clyde. Thelevels of the water in that frith penetrating far inland, by Paisley,Rutherglen, and Kilsyth, assumed unconsciously as matter of fact in thetext of Ossian, are in such obvious harmony with every word of thepoems which relate to that region, that the poems in question cannototherwise be understood; and we therefore cannot help believing notonly that the poems themselves are genuine, but that they represent ageological phenomenon hitherto unsuspected in the world—are, in fact, arevelation in science. On the other hand, the levels thus assumed are sovery far beyond anything admitted by geologists within the era assigned,as to seem not only extravagant but incredible; and if they cannot bemaintained, their assumption as a fact will destroy the credibility of thepoems in which the assumption is made. As regards the authenticityof these poems, however, the assumption itself is conclusive; for thetranslator did not see it, and could therefore never have fabricated thepoems in which it appears. Such poems must have been written by someeye-witness of the fact, who did not require to exaggerate; and the onlyquestion as regards reliability now to be settled, is whether he didexaggerate or no? Was the Clyde a sea to Rutherglen, as he seems toaffirm? Was the Kelvin a fiord to Kilsyth, or nearly so, as he implies?Was the Leven an estuary to Loch Lomond, as we are bound to conclude?Was the Black Cart a marine canal to Ardrossan in the days of Agricola?If so, the Clyde must have been from 60 to 80 feet above its present levelat the date supposed—and then, where was the Roman Wall? Traces ofthat wall upon the Clyde at a much lower level, it is said, still exist; andthe old fortifications between Dunglass and Kilpatrick only 50 feet orthereby above the present level, put an end to the reliability, if not tothe authenticity of Ossian. This is the difficulty now to be disposed of;and of which, in passing, we need only say, that if Macpherson had seenit he would certainly have avoided it; and therefore, that whoever wasthe author of the poems in which it occurs, Macpherson was not.
[Pg 100]But it is with the difficulty itself we are now concerned, and not withthe authorship. I. First then, suppose any statement, direct or indirect,had occurred in any Greek or Roman writer of the time—Cæsar, Tacitus,Dion Cassius, or Ptolemy—affirming, or even implying, such a level inthe Clyde at the date in question, notwithstanding the Roman Wall,would the testimony of such authors have been rejected? If not, howwould our geologists have disposed of it? or how would they have reconciledit with existing matters of fact? One can imagine the jealousywith which such texts would have been criticised; the assiduity withwhich every crevice on the coast would have been surveyed, not to contradictbut to confirm them; and the fertility of invention with whichtheories would have been multiplied to harmonise them. Strange as itmay appear, however, facts and statements amounting very nearly to thisdo occur, and have hitherto been overlooked, or purposely omitted insilence. The Roman Wall, for example, stops short with a town atBalmulzie on one side of the Kelvin, and begins again with another town