I always thought the famous Merlin engine that powered the Spitfire, Hurricane, Mosquito, Lancaster, and Mustang during WWII was named after the Arthurian wizard.
Imagine my surprise upon hearing on Discovery World that it was named after a bird of prey, like Rolls-Royce’s earlier Eagle, Falcon, Kestrel, and Peregrine engines.
I never even knew there was a raptor called the merlin.
As my dad was fond of saying, you learn something new every day!
If you’d read The Sword In The Stone you’d know there was a raptor called “merlin” - one of the several things the Wart gets turned into is a hawk, so he can socialise with the castle falcons and so on, and he chooses to be a merlin (which the dear old wizard finds a little flattering).
I did not know until half a minute ago that the Vulture engine (used in the Manchester) was essentially two Peregrines grafted together. Makes it more understandable that they were both unsuccessful.
As you might expect from a Disney cartoon adaptation of a famous book, the book is better (though the film is agreeable). IIRC Wart gets turned into a bird once, and Archimedes teaches him to fly - in the book, there’s the episode I mention above, and another time when he gets turned into an owl and is taken to meet Athena.
TSITS is, however, a much more faithful adaptation (even though not very) than The Jungle Book, which you don’t want to get me started on.
It’s surprising, btw, that considering what a great engine the Merlin was, the Peregrine should have been such a turkey. Even Rolls-Royce louse up once in a while.
[QUOTE=terentii]
…named after a bird of prey, like Rolls-Royce’s earlier Eagle, Falcon, Kestrel, and Peregrine engines.
[/QUOTE]
And the follow up was the Griffon, which is a bit of a depature (from reality).
Naming aero-engines after birds of prey (or mythical wotsits) sort of makes sense.
They named their jet engines after rivers of all things, who though of that?
The one and only time I saw the movie was when it first came out; I was in fifth or sixth grade at the time (I think it was a Christmas release).
I hate to admit this … but until I read your post, I didn’t know it was an adaptation of a famous book.
Ignorance fought again!
I do know from a little booklet I bought in England that the whole “sword in the stone” thing resulted from a mistranslation: The real Arthur received a sword as a token of surrender from a Saxon, and (if memory serves) the chronicler wrote down “saxo” (from a stone) instead of “saxono” (from a Saxon).
Mind you, I had that booklet almost 40 years ago (it was from HM Printing Office) and my Latin ain’t all that great, but that’s the gist of the story.
You’ve got a few years on me then - I was just about first grade US style, or possibly a year younger. And (on checking) I see that was already two or three years after the film was released.
What I haven’t read is the longer work The Once and Future King, comprising a revised edition of TSITS plus a good deal more covering Arthur’s later life.
Indeed he did. The Sword in the Stone is not Excalibur (though they are sometimes conflated). What I can’t find at the moment is what the stone-sword was called (in those versions of the legend where some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at him).