Talk:Merlin

My rewrite of this article was prompted by this passage in the original:

Stories of his origins include his birth as the intended Antichrist, being the offspring of a demon fathered on a virgin; but his expectant mother, realising what was amiss, had him baptized at birth to foil this Satanic plot. However, being half-demon, he still had tremendous magical powers.

Now my memory is not as good as I think it was (e.g., I probably never could keep my facts in my head), but having read widely in the Arthurian mythos, I have never seen any suggestion that Merlin was wholy, partly, or when in costume on Hollowe'en, a demon! The people who told the stories of Arthur and Merlin before the 20th century would never lightly suggest that someone was kin to the Antichrist, not only because that personage was the ultimate evil made human, but his presence would be a harbinger of the Apocalypse. Merlin was always portrayed as a positive individual, an asset to the people of Britain, although in the later stories his desire for Nimue brought on his downfall.

I have to assume that this story of Merlin was written by someone who not only knew of the later legends of Merlin better than the earlier, but for whom "Antichrist" has the same connotation as any monster encountered in a Dungeon and Dragons game. In other words, someone from the last quarter of the 20th century.

If this is the creation of a published author, proper attribution would allow us to add this bizarre tale to this article. There are certainly enough bizarre tales about well-known personages -- for example the story of "The Great God Pan is dead" told in Plutarch. However, I suspect that this tale is just an imaginative creation of someone eager to add to the Wikipedia, and had never existed beyond this one article. But until we see more evidence either way, I'm placing this snippet of a story here in Talk. -- llywrch 02:11 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)

Miguel de Cervantes's Don Quixote (17th century) mocks books about chivalry. Chapter XXIII of the second part. My translation:

This is my friend Durandarte, cream and mirror of inamoured and brave knights of his time. He is held here under a charm, as I and many others are, by Merlin, that charmer Frenchman that is said to be son of the devil; and what I believe is that he was not son of the devil, but that he knew, as they day, one nottch over the devil.

-- Error

I've seen other references to Merlin as the son of a demon and a mortal woman, some of which attribute the idea to the Geoffrey of Monmouth version. I have to admit, though, the bit about the Antichrist is a new one on me, and I agree with Llywrch that it sounds like a 20th century tack-on.

--Paul A 04:05 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Just for the record, I got the Merddyn / merde explanation from this web page. It seems credible, but I admit that it's weak evidence. -- Heron

That's actually the interpretation I've seen in the secondary literature. If further citations are needed (e.g., people with letters after their names, with a job at an educational institution, with papers published in peer-reviewed journals), I'll provide them. -- llywrch 21:00, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have to disagree that "most modern popular interpretations ...depict Merlin as a wizard of ultimate power." Many of the most popular modern works (e.g. Mary Stewart's trilogy) focus on the human side of Merlin. Some (e.g. MZB's Mists of Avalon) actually go to great lengths to point out his shortcomings. -- Meara

Fiction

Was Historia Regum Britanniae intended as fiction?--Error 04:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well that depends, in part, on whether Geoffrey & his contemporaries believed that there was a genre known as fiction. I say this because I suspect few in the audience of a storyteller honestly thought everything they heard was the unvarnished, actual truth; they expected the truth stretched a little to fit the tale -- but at the same time, they expected their story tellers to tell a story accurately, & not to take liberties like change the ending.

So I guess the question then becomes, "Is the Historia Regum Britanniae a serious history or a tale told to entertain?" From what is known of the response of his contemporaries, few of them accepted his work as sober history comparible to, say Bede. William of Newburgh wrote that Geoffrey "disguised under the honourable name of history, thanks to his Latinity, the fables about Arthur which he took from the ancient fictions of the Britons and increased out of his own head." Having read Historia Regum Britanniae, I would say that it is clearly a low-brow account of its material: every person in the work is a stereotype, battles are fought between armies of enormous size, & provinces that are devestated one year are apparently fertile & bountiful the next.

However, the same could be said of several justly-forgotten medieval historians. Unlike theirworks, however the quality of the traditions shine through Geoffrey's mediocre ability, & I would say this is what captivated his audience.

So, in summary, I'd expect his readers were attracted to him for the story, not for the history. Some also uncritically assumed that what Geoffrey wrote was reliable history -- but their number were never large, & ceased to matter with the 17th century. -- llywrch 00:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit, I didn't know any of this when placing it under fiction. Feel free to change the heading to "Related Literature" or whatever you feel is most accurate. In any case, I think this fact-vs-fiction discussion of Historia Regum Britanniae should be part of the main article or an article of its own, not buried in this talk page. It's good stuff! --68.85.27.88 01:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've put back, in slightly changed form, the Antichrist passage. See also the links I've provided in the bibliography to three different web sites which provide English versions of this planned Antichrist version as written by Robert de Boron. --User:jallan 23:04, 10 April 2004 (UTC)

That the medievals believed Merlin was part demon is believeable; for them to believe he was the Antichrist simply isn't. The Antichrist has so many eschatological associations (e.g., the end of the world) that it would not be lightly added to any story. If you think killing a dragon is difficult, how can a mortal physically battle the true Prince of Darkness? -- llywrch 19:01, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)