Some thoughts on Goeteia, the Magoi and Etic definitions of magic
Aug 24, 2023I've been thinking a lot about how to study magic recently. Naturally, there are countless challenges and issues for the field, the least of which is the debate that has long haunted the field of religious studies more generally; Etic and Emic terminology. The language we use inherently skews our perception of reality, but more properly, it actually effects how we study, recognise and delineate certain aspects of a tradition.
Magic is one of those things. Everyone seems to know what it "is" until you ask them to define it. You'll then generally get some variant answer of "well of course I know what magic is, it's.....uh", and then people will usually list of examples or practices of this thing we call "magic", and we'll all be none the wiser. The term itself is notoriously tricky to define, largely because we try to make the word accomplish something that it is ill equipped to do. Magic is an aggregating term -to quote Medieval Studies scholar Richard Kieckhefer.
As a concept, it encompasses diverse elements that may or may not be combined with each other. Constitutive terms of magic (that is, terminology of constituting elements of expression, NOT types) may not share any common defining feature that brings them under the umbrella of the wider field, however they can all overlap. Magic is largely a term of convince. You can try and find characteristics typical of "magical" acts, but they are often indistinguishable from religious ones, hence why Hannegraff has argued for the term being a subset of religion rather than a separate genus in his recent book on Hermetic Spirituality.
An Etymological Approach?
Perhaps then, it is best to start with linguistics? Our word "magic" derives from the Latin "magus", which in turn is derived from the Greek "mageia". To comment on mageia specifically, let's look at the 5th century. This is really the first time that we get a series of words applied to -predominantly male, practitioners of what we would likely identify today as magic. Note here that Mantis (diviner) is distinct from this category, and doesn't seem to carry any moral or ethical qualms with it.
The Greeks notoriously had many words for different kinds of magic, practitioners and actions, ritual or otherwise. Some of these are far too general to really be useful in constructing a working definition of magic. Something like Aoidos is another good example, it means singer more generally but when used in certain contexts can have the meaning of someone who sings specifically enchantments.
We have two terms which mean something a bit more expansive, Magos and Goés (which translates literally as juggler, but colloquially means binder or sorcerer, c.f Plato's Laws to see how the practice of katadesmoi were linked as a staple of the goetes.). Originally Goés was distinct from psychogogos (lit. soul attractor/drawer), however that changed towards the end of the century.
To complicate matters further, mageia does not appear in the Odyssey for example, and Homer, nor his audience would have any idea of it. Neither Odysseus nor Circe are ever called witches or magicians, Circe is identified foremost as πολυφαρμακος (knower of herbs). It's a prime example of people confusing their etics and emics.
Strictly speaking, magos/maguš is not a Persian word, despite what people tell you online. Old Persian texts that predate the Hellenistic Period identify them as Zurvanic priests. Zurvanism was a fatalistic movement within Zorastrianism that arose in Median communities from Darius onwards (cf. The Behistun Inscription). It was a movement in which the divinity Zurvan is the first principle (i.e a primordial creator deity) who engendered equal-but-opposite twins, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.
We don't know a lot about this niche branch of Zoroastrianism, but it is generally accepted that Zurvanism was a branch of greater Zoroastrianism that likely emerged as a sacerdotal response to resolve a perceived inconsistency in the sacred texts and was probably introduced during the second half of the Achaemenid era. In fact, Non-Zoroastrian accounts of typically Zurvanic beliefs were the first traces of Zoroastrianism to reach the west, leading European scholars to conclude that Zoroastrianism was a monist religion, an issue of controversy among both scholars and contemporary practitioners of the faith.
The earliest evidence of the Cult of Zurvan is found in the History of Theology, attributed to Eudemus of Rhodes (c. 370–300 BCE). As cited in Damascius's Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles (6th century CE), Eudemus describes a sect of the Medes that considered Space/Time to be the primordial "father" of the rivals Oromasdes "of light" and Arimanius "of darkness.
So, to bring this back to the Greeks for a moment, not only are the magoi "Persian" to the Greeks (with whom they already had hostility), but they are also members of the ethnicity that was absorbed under the Persian Empire, making them fringe/marginal figures even in Persian society. It's never really clear whether Greeks are referring to actual Persians or Meades in their dialect about Magoi, although Heracletus implies the magoi are actually Median.
What this means is, if we take sources like Aeschylus's Persians, its not entirely clear whether Greeks are referring to any of the following when they reference mageia:
Practices that are Persian/Median
Practices that are Persian/Median Inspired
Original Greek Practices that are being described using exotic terminology
Goés is different altogether, and derives etymologically from the same Homeric root as grief/lamentation. From some of its early attestations, goés is associated with ghosts, but also later on with the alteration of Forms. What seems to be happening is that goés refers to a specific mode of religious/cultic activity in which a practioner controls spirits of the dead through their noises, screams or wails. There is decent evidence to connect the origins of the practice to funerary procedures performed as part of the Prothesis, usually by the women of the family.
Ogden has made an argument that the term psychogogos later was introduced to recover the original concept of the practice of a goés after its use became diffuse and used interchangeably with other terms mentioned, although neither term ever replaced others. Goés is attested earlier than Magos, around the late 6th c. It becomes confusing even in the 5th century with Gorgias, who uses the terms interchangeably and as a pair in his dig at Sophists. However, Heracletus draws more of a distinction by claiming the magoi's Practices are largely initiatic (usually of the unsanctioned mystery variety) whereas the goés is clearly still associated with ghosts and spirits of the dead.
Shamanism itself also suffers this problem, it was already a Second Order term in Mongolic, likely being a transliteration of the Chinese Buddhist term xio mān, which referred to Buddhist missionaries in Siberia and Mongolia.
Ironically, I'm reading Origen's Contra Celsus right now, and he doesn't seem to draw that same connection. Celsus apparently considers Jesus' miracles akin to the activity of the goés:
Chapter 68:
"[Celsus] immediately compares [the miracles of jesus and the disciples] to jugglers (lit. translation of goetes), who profess to do wonderful things, and to the feats performed by those who have been taught by the egyptians.
In the middle of the marketplace, in return for a few obols, they will impart knowledge of the most venerated arts, and will expel demons from men, and dispel diseases. They will invoke the souls of heroes (I.e dead ones), and exhibit expensive banquets, with tables and dishes. They will put in motion, as if alive, what are not really living animals, but which have only the appearance of life.
...
While there is a resemblance between the miracles, "there is not a single [goetes] who, by means of his proceedings, invites his spectators to reform their manners, or trains those to fear God, nor tries to persuade them to live as justified men. [Goetes] do none of these things because they have neither the power nor the will, nor any desire to busy themselves with the reformation of men, inasmuch as their own lives are full of the grossest and most notorious sins".
Origen depicts the Goés in classical antiquated necromantic fashion, but he doesn't seen to draw a parallel with the mourners, interesting. He almost seems to imply a closer link with ventriloquism which is typical of the psychagogoi. Linguistically, goés is intrinsically tied to classical psuchagoge/ia. Proclus associates the two metaphorically, Synesius claims to have been attacked by psuchopompoi (spirit sending) goētes.
As per Johnson, noted above, the term is derived from goós, "mourning song"/goaō "to sing a mourning song". The key part is that a goós is improvised and sung by the deceased person's family (mainly women) as part of the Prothesis procedures. The chief mourner (usually the wife or mother) is at the head of the burial, and the other women often wore dark coloured robes and engaged in a practice of tearing hair and clothing and beating their torso. All of this leads up to the libation (choai), which was usually milk, honey, wine, perfumes etc.
It's a familial/personal practice, in contrast to Thrēnos, which is the formal mourning lament sung by professionals. Cosmas in 6th C AD even explicitly states "Goēteia is calling upon evil demons that dwell around tombs...it derives its name from the gooi and thrēnoi of those around tombs".
From what I can tell, Goetes seems to have acquired that reputation for charlatanry pretty early on, even as early as the latter 5th century. I’m quoting from memory, so I don’t have the exact reference until I get home but Gorgias (485-380BC) is the first to link the term μαγεία and γοητεία as synonymous terms (which I don’t agree with).
Origen seems to use terms somewhat interchangeably too, it’s unclear whether he is referring to Jesus or his disciples precisely in some discussions, at one point he argues that Jesus’ miracles are similar to acts of magic (μάγοι) that are “similar” to those performed by γόητες, but I don’t think he explicitly states Jesus is a Goés. He does for Moses, definitely. Only that Celsus has that example in mind to draw from as a reference point.
In Chapter 56 he explains that Celsus is under the impression that Jesus doesn’t really die on the cross, but that he performed “something like a juggler’s (I.E goés’) trick to make it seem like he’s dead so he can slip away. It’s pretty consistent with tricks and charlatan behaviour again, at least to me.
Either way, when μάγος enters Greek vocabulary in the 5th century with Heraclitus, it’s inherently a disdainful word, even before it’s paired with γοηες. It seems to have denoted someone who was a beggar or street wandering magician who was performing unsanctioned mystery rites and exorcisms.
It’s Gorgias that makes it clear γοητεία is a kind of trickery though, he argues that it makes people believe they’re effected by incarnations, katadesmoi or enchantments. Later in the De Morbo Sacro, by which point the terms are often used synonymously the μάγοι are inherently described as fraudsters, beggars and “filled with false knowledge”.
Don't miss a post!
Sign up to get notified of when I upload as well as any new classes delivered to your inbox.
I hate SPAM. I will never sell your information, for any reason.
