Merlin belongs to no party. Yet the same legendary figure can serve opposing political projects. That is the premise of a radio archive from 1984 made available again by France Culture: reading Edgar Quinet against Julius Evola to understand how the Arthurian imagination becomes a language of emancipation or hierarchy.
A 1984 archive made accessible again
The seventh episode of the series “The Matter of Britain” was made available again on 27 October 2026. The programme, first broadcast on 26 May 1984, lasts a little over an hour. Jean-Pierre Le Dantec was joined by the historian Daniel Lindenberg.
The introductory page sums up the contrast: Quinet makes Merlin a figure of freedom and emancipation; Evola gives precedence to tradition, heroism and aristocratic order. In the absence of evidence that the programme has been listened to in full, it would be artificial to judge the pace, editing or force of their exchange. The documented interest lies elsewhere: this opposition offers a way to read a myth politically without attributing a single ideology to it.
With Quinet, Merlin leaves the medieval world behind
The catalogue of the National Library of France dates *Merlin l’enchanteur* to 1860 and attributes it to Edgar Quinet, published by Michel Lévy frères. The digitised edition is divided into two volumes and twelve books. Its contents take Merlin from Paris to the Round Table, then to the Alps and Italy: Quinet does not simply reproduce a medieval narrative closed in on itself.
In Lindenberg’s interpretation, this journey allows Merlin to be transformed into a figure of humanity on the march towards freedom. The myth becomes a reservoir of forms with which to think about the present of the nineteenth century. This is the historian’s interpretation in the programme; it does not replace a full analysis of Quinet’s long poem.
Evola shifts the Grail towards Tradition
With Julius Evola, the Arthurian material changes direction. The word “tradition” no longer refers simply to an inheritance passed down. It becomes the principle of a spiritual and political order opposed to democratic modernity. A university chapter published by Oxford University Press places this thought within the radical right and describes Evola’s political writings as elitist and anti-democratic.
Heroism, chivalry and the Grail can then be invoked to legitimise a hierarchy rather than to offer the promise of emancipation. The contrast with Quinet is not about the presence or absence of Celtic legends: both use them. It is about the direction in which they make them move — towards emancipation on one side, towards a higher order on the other.
A myth does not carry its programme by itself
The comparison avoids two simplifications. The first would be to believe that Arthurian tales are naturally progressive because they speak of quests and freedom. The second would confine them to a reactionary tradition simply because they feature kings, knights and lineages.
A myth provides characters, trials and symbols; the political programme comes from the person who selects and arranges them. That is why the useful question is not only “what does Merlin mean?”, but “who makes Merlin speak, in what context and in defence of what world order?”.
The 1984 archive thus retains its intellectual relevance without becoming an artificial novelty. It does not reveal a hidden Merlin. More precisely, it shows that the political battle often begins with the choice of which traits to retain from a shared story.
