The part of the article that describes the new (old?) twist is all the way at the end:
The team found that the account differed from other versions of the story in several key ways. A sexual encounter between Merlin and Viviane, also known as the Lady of the Lake, is “slightly toned-down,” Tether tells the Guardian.
She adds:
> In most manuscripts of the better known [version], Viviane casts a spell whereby three names are written on her groin that prevent Merlin from sleeping with her. In several manuscripts of the lesser-known version, these names are written on a ring instead. In our fragments, this is taken one step further: the names are written on a ring, but they also prevent anyone speaking to her. So the Bristol Merlin gets rid of unchaste connotations by removing reference to both Viviane’s groin and the idea of Merlin sleeping with her.
Merlin’s image has changed dramatically over the centuries. In more modern versions of the King Arthur legends, he is a wise advisor to the king. In the earliest iterations of the story, however, Campbell says he was a “morally dubious” magical seer or even a “creepy little boy [whose] father is a devil.”
there are plenty of folk-tale rewrites that cast "magic" people as morally dubious, creepy and yes, servants of the Devil.. who wrote those? any agenda detectable?
> In nearly every documented society, people believe that some misfortunes are caused by malicious group mates using magic or supernatural powers. Here I report cross-cultural patterns in these beliefs and propose a theory to explain them. Using the newly created Mystical Harm Survey, I show that several conceptions of malicious mystical practitioners, including sorcerers (who use learned spells), possessors of the evil eye (who transmit injury through their stares and words), and witches (who possess superpowers, pose existential threats, and engage in morally abhorrent acts), recur around the world. I argue that these beliefs develop
from three cultural selective processes: a selection for intuitive magic, a selection for plausible explanations of impactful misfortune, and a selection for demonizing myths that justify mistreatment. Separately, these selective schemes produce traditions as diverse as shamanism, conspiracy theories, and campaigns against heretics — but around the world, they jointly give rise to the odious and
feared witch. I use the tripartite theory to explain the forms of beliefs in mystical harm and outline 10 predictions for how shifting conditions should affect those conceptions. Societally corrosive beliefs can persist when they are intuitively appealing or they serve some believers' agendas.
Of course, "creepy" is relative and contextual. The way we interpret the morality of the ancient Greek gods and other such beings is not necessarily the way their native cultures would have seen them. Zeus being a profligate shapeshifting rapist was not a big deal in a society where women were granted the same degree of consent as cattle.
The Norse (and especially Icelandic) sagas also demonstrate this pretty starkly, and are from a related tradition to the Arthurian legends. In those, people with magical powers very clearly tend to be portrayed as creepy weirdos--and also, for whatever reason, tend to be from the Hebrides.
That's syncretism - what happened almost every time Christianity began to take over a pagan culture. The former gods/spirits, etc. become recast as demonic or malevolent, and of course any "occult" practices (which were, formerly, simply religious practices) are viewed as Satanic practice and witchcraft. This is partly due to attempts by Christian authorities to de-legitimize the former religion, but also attempts to preserve the former culture and its religious practices in a new context.
Norse mythology is a particularly interesting example, because all we have of it is post-Christian retellings, and many parts of it (like Baldr's death and resurrection) seem an awful lot like Christianity with the serial numbers filed off.
Yes. It's a pro-manipulative-psychopath agenda. People with great social influence - priests, politicians/nobles, pillars of the community - by definition rely on soft power and social status. People with inherent power of their own - wizards, superheroes, or more mundanely scientists or hackers - are able to ignore or at least resist social power, and are consequently a threat. To the extent that that threat is seen as credible (and magic users were historically seen as credible), social power will be deployed to vilify and discredit them. (Of course, in practice a lot of it is just cultural inertia/established narrative tropes from previous cases.)
The team found that the account differed from other versions of the story in several key ways. A sexual encounter between Merlin and Viviane, also known as the Lady of the Lake, is “slightly toned-down,” Tether tells the Guardian.
She adds:
> In most manuscripts of the better known [version], Viviane casts a spell whereby three names are written on her groin that prevent Merlin from sleeping with her. In several manuscripts of the lesser-known version, these names are written on a ring instead. In our fragments, this is taken one step further: the names are written on a ring, but they also prevent anyone speaking to her. So the Bristol Merlin gets rid of unchaste connotations by removing reference to both Viviane’s groin and the idea of Merlin sleeping with her.
Merlin’s image has changed dramatically over the centuries. In more modern versions of the King Arthur legends, he is a wise advisor to the king. In the earliest iterations of the story, however, Campbell says he was a “morally dubious” magical seer or even a “creepy little boy [whose] father is a devil.”