Fun fact: the Iliad in its current form exists because Pisistratus, Tyrant of Athens, in the 6th century BC decided it had to be written down - as he noticed their oral versions (ancient even back then, we estimate today they were about a millennium old at the time) were slowly drifting. Who knows how they may have started off?
The crux of the problem, as I see it, is that the notion of Mythic Europe being a world where reality is defined by what medieval folks thought was true is a very fuzzy definition, as those beliefs are often contradictory across time, space, and social strata. I think there are three possible ways to resolve this, each with their pros and cos.
Anchor point. Choose one medieval point of view - maybe that of a small group of people, or that presented in a book (which may not necessarily coincide with that of an author). Then stuff happens according to this point of view, which might be very distant in space and time from where the saga takes place. Pendragon rpg (that had a very strong influence on Ars Magica) takes this approach: stuff in 6th century Britain happens according to the anachronistic point of view in Malory's Le Mort d'Arthur of the 15th century.
The problem is that such points of view are typically limited in scope: they define only a small area, stretch of time, and/or aspect of the world. Hence the Anchor Point approach is best used in very localized games, with each saga living in a different reality and history. Pendragon, at least its original version, did this right: only Britain, only 80 years or so, only the "knightly" perspective.
Medley. Choose individual facts and myths from many different medieval sources, and glue them together along the seams with some made-up stuff to avoid major inconsistencies. This is the approach taken by Ars Magica, particularly the later editions that paint a much broader and more detailed picture of Mythic Europe. Of course, the result would probably have been seen by all medieval folks as partially false (with different falsehoods depending on the time, location, and social stratum of each individual).
Multiple realities. This is more or less the World of Darkness approach (but see Torg and Unknown Armies too, and of course Glorantha). There are many parallel universes that locally crystallize around the view of an individual or group with sufficient "importance". As someone moves across different realities, the entire world - local and non-local - changes accordingly.
For example, if some sorcereress lives over many centuries, the consensus around her changes, and what was once the Welsh bard Myrrdin becomes the famous wizard Merlin, son of the devil. The sorcereress may have been Myrrdin's beloved daughter when Myrrdin was alive, but as the centuries pass, her past changes too, and she remembers being instead Merlin's apprentice and lover. Remembers, not misremembers, because by 1220 what happened in 550 has really changed.
This can very hard to play as the world shatters into a vast multitude of subworlds: there is not one Constantinople, 1096, but thousands, and each individual PC might experience many as he moves through space and time and Mystery Cults ... but at any given time, only one exists for him, and his entire recollected past is based on that one Constantinople 1096 alone. This might feel too "meta" for many players, unless they really immerse themselves in the here-and-now of their PC.
Merlin also wouldn't have taught any apprentices or left his mark on any British magical traditions if he was just a 12th Century literary invention. This would also explain why he didn't leave any mark on the earlier stories and poems about Arthur either.
I think that's up to each storyguide to decide. I see little to support the idea that Merlin actually existed in Mythic Europe beyond what it says in a single sourcebook about some locations associated with him, and they weren't even necessarily associated with him until later than the early 13th Century.
Now you are just being silly. A few mentions in a single sourcebook would be quite enough to prove Merlin existed in Mythic Europe, and there are actually several mentions of both him and Arthur in several sourcebooks.
If either exists in your game is entirely up to you, of course.
Exactly. If your saga want to deviate from canon, it's a perfect use of artistic license.
Need I remind you this whole thread started because canonical events from Heir of Merlin were added to the Mythic chronology, making it somehow "wrong". Someone worked very hard to collate the data from various sources and offer us that list. It only took 10 messages to get the definitive answer from OriginalMadman and that should have been the end of it.
Is it because Mythic Europe is in an uncanny valley too close from reality that it cannot have its own canon like, for example Middle Earth?
While I really do not want to add fuel to the flames, nothing in the 4th edition Heirs to Merlin Stonehenge Tribunal book (if that's what you are referring to) is per se canonical in 5th edition - unless it's in some 5th edition book too.
5th edition took a sharp, explicit, conscious break with previous edition's canon. I guess the line editor worried (correctly) about forcing new authors to read tons of old material just to avoid inconsistencies. That said, in my view some authors decided to depart from the old stuff on purpose just to assert their own vision, which irked me to no end. But that's how things stand.
Hmm. This is interesting. Are they all mentions as in "Merlin did X"? Or more like "This Hermetic lineage still survives as the "Heirs to Merlin", for many claim that Ambrosius’s father was descended from the great wizard of old." (HoH:MC p.100)? Because in the latter case, I'd say Aurelius is right, nothing specifically makes Merlin canon - only the myth of Merlin.
Hmm. The closest I can find to a canon reference to Merlin is in TCI, p.72 "Many of the stones that form Stonehenge were stolen from the [Hill of Usnacht] by the druid Merlin". This seems lifted from Geoffrey of Monmouth's tale of how Merlin (that Merlin) took the stones from Ireland to build Stonehenge, so the author seems to have that legend in mind. At the same time, Merlin is not a druid in Geoffrey's works so ... this could easily be another Merlin, never referenced outside of this passage.
Hmm. I stand corrected. tLatL, pp.37-38, has clear references to the wizard Merlin, and to his lover Viviane, the Lady of the Lake, doing several things clearly in line with the Matter of Britain. I think this, combined with the above, is reasonable evidence that one should assume Arthur and Merlin existed in Mythic Europe; even though most details about them (there are many inconsistencies between the various tales) would be left for the SG of each individual saga to decide.
I find condescension extremely tedious and endears me to whatever position is diametrically opposite to yours. I find it silly that references to these characters in the sourcebooks did not all come with obvious disclaimers, and I find it silly to suppose a character might be real in Mythic Europe when it would be obvious to anyone who knew much about myths and legends at the time, as Hermetic magi probably would, that he was a literary invention. They might wonder about Beowulf, Odysseus, or the characters in the pre-12th Century Arthurian lore, but I think a Magus who had lived for the best part of a century or more would know what to make of a 'legendary' wizard that no one had ever heard of before Geoffrey of Monmouth started writing about him. I think it would have been better for the writers of the sourcebooks to just present the facts as they're known and let troupes decide what they want to do with them, rather than give the impression of dressing up medieval fiction as fact in the game setting. I don't have any other "silly" things to say on the matter.
Silly or not - it is very clear and obvious from the books that people (including magi) in Mythic Europe in 1220 believe that Merlin and Arthur and the rest existed. They don't think Merlin was just a literary invention. The evidence for this belief is even stronger and clearer than that for the actual existence of Merlin in Mythic Europe.
The writers of the sourcebooks chose what historical "facts" they choose to present as actual facts of Mythic Europe. Merlin and Arthur is just one of many, many examples of legends presented as facts in the source books.
That you find the authors' decisions on this to be silly, well that is your problem.
You may have wanted them to write the books (all of them!) in an entirely different way, but neither you or I got a say in how Mythic Europe was presented in the official books.
If you want another presentation of Mythic Europe - go write one yourself. With the recent open licensing you can actually do that legally.
Well, Mythic Europe is not exactly like medieval Europe. According to (multiple) sourcebooks, Merlin apparently was around, and it's only natural to assume that - unlike what happened in medieval Europe - there were plenty of legends (and real facts) floating around about him well before the turn of the millennium.
Well, but isn't that the whole idea about Mythic Europe? Medieval fiction is hard truth. The only question is - given the contradictions within the vast body of medieval fiction - which fiction is truth. I think the matter of Britain is a great treasure trove of ideas for fantasy roleplaying, so it's a good, or at least defensible, choice to have included it in the "truth".
I can't say I agree when there are magi who are old enough to remember a time before the Matter of Britain had started to appear. Even scholars of the time accused Geoffrey of Monmouth of making it all up, so older magi might know it was fictional. Some of them might even have helped to concoct the fictions, perhaps to protect the Order's secrets by circulating misleading pseudo-legends.
What you don't seem to grasp is that in Mythic Europe Geoffrey of Monmouth wasn't writing fiction. He was writing history, because most of the stuff he wrote had actually happened and there were older stories and writings about it.
In our world there were no stories about a "Merlin" before Geoffrey made them up. In Mythtic Europe there was.
So, there are no "magi who are old enough to remember a time before the Matter of Britain had started to appear", because that time would have been 5th century or earlier - before Arthur was born.
In Mythic Europe nobody thinks Geoffrey wrote fiction. They might doubt some of the details, but Arthur and the knights of the round table were just as real and historical as Charlemagne and his Twelve Peers.
@Aurelius
I think this "discussion" has no where to go from here. You won't budge from your position, which is fine for any game you run, and you won't budge those of us who think that having Merlin and King Arthur exist in Mythic Europe to be acceptable.
So it's best to just agree to disagree, and that's it.
I haven't been presented with any good reasons to budge from my position. From a more practical point of view, it's very likely that players are just as familiar with all the Arthurian stuff as the storygude is, so it really needs a bit of work to do something new and interesting with it. Another risk is that as soon as certain players start thinking something Arthurian is going on they break out all the Monty Python and the Holy Grail references, and it all goes downhill from there. Have King Arthur and Merlin as they were portrayed in the Middle Ages exist in your version of Mythic Europe by all means, I just don't see why anyone would want to. It seems to me that in Ars Magica Merlin is supplanted by the Founders of the Order of Hermes.
Merlin's role in the Matter of Britain is literally in opposition to the role of the Hermetic Founders. Merlin meddles in the affairs of mundanes with dramatic effect and isn't portrayed as establishing any sort of magical lineage. The Founders establish magical lineages that explicitly reject meddling in mundane affairs. Merlin therefore makes an excellent example to contrast with the Founders.
And his legend is an excellent source of Stories that players will likely be interested in. Which is the entire reason he pops up in Ars Magica books.
Similar to @Hyalus I don't see Merlin being supplanted by the Founders. The Founders are comparatively grounded. We, the players, know more about them and their legacy. More importantly the magi should know much more about them and their legacy. Merlin, on the other hand, comes from before the Order and outside of the traditions that most of the Founders were from. He's mentioned a few times in canon sources but he's not defined so even saying "Merlin is canon" leaves the storyguide/troupe free to do all sorts of things picking and choosing what is real in world history versus what is in world myth or legand.
I don't think canon for an RPG setting can be seen in the same way as canon for a series of novels, films, comics or TV shows anyway. For any of those it's reasonable to assume that people who like them will read or watch the whole series, and everyone will know pretty much what the canon is, whereas for an RPG it's more likely that some players and GMs/storyguides will only get the books they need or can afford, so they just won't know what's in particular sourcebooks that they don't have. Furthermore, with the canon for, say, The Lord of the Rings, there aren't several editions that may contradict each other, as is the case with Ars Magica after five editions. As far as I'm concerned, for example, Durenmar is a huge fortress on top of a massive rock that rises out of the Black Forest because that's how it's described in The Order of Hermes for ArM:2, and if I had no idea what it said in Guardians of the Forest I would assume that was still canonical for the current edition. I also think that after five editions and decades of playing the game a lot of troupes will be using things from previous editions that they just don't want to change, e.g. Tremere vampires, although I don't personally feel they're much of a loss, or magi being able to join Houses Bonisagus, Guernicus, Mercere or Tremere from other houses. So for an RPG I don't think canon is necessarily something that everyone is going to accept or agree on.
Yet Merlin also disappears from any sort of story, legend or historical account until Geoffrey of Monmouth starts writing about him.[quote="Hyalus, post:135, topic:173801, full:true"]
Merlin's role in the Matter of Britain is literally in opposition to the role of the Hermetic Founders. Merlin meddles in the affairs of mundanes with dramatic effect and isn't portrayed as establishing any sort of magical lineage. The Founders establish magical lineages that explicitly reject meddling in mundane affairs. Merlin therefore makes an excellent example to contrast with the Founders.[/quote]
Yet Merlin also disappears and never gets a mention in any story, legend or historical account until Geoffrey of Monmouth starts writing about him.
[quote]And his legend is an excellent source of Stories that players will likely be interested in. Which is the entire reason he pops up in Ars Magica books.
[/quote]
I'm not saying it's impossible to do something with it, but I start with the premise that it's fiction and go from there. When I need to decide what's real or not real in Mythic Europe, I go with what I believe was actually real in historical Europe. For instance, I think there was definitely something going on with someone like King Arthur in the 5th or 6th Century and he does feature in a lot of early medieval literature, whereas Merlin just doesn't.
Just for your information, there are multiple editions of Lord of the Rings, with some differences between them.
As far as Ars Magica is concerned, none of the information from earlier editions is considered canonical. Much of it has been carried over and preserved, but some has not.
For your own game you of course don't have to worry about what is canonical or not - but for those who write the sourcebooks it is very useful to know what the canon is so they don't unkowingly contradict it.
Why do you assume that Merlin disappears from stories in Mythic Europe?
That he didn't show up in stories in the real world proves nothing about Mythic Europe.
What was actually real in historical Europe was that there were no real wizards, no dragons, no faeries, and definitely no Order of Hermes. Luckily, all of that exists in Mythic Europe.