γόης
(Moer. γ 15, Poll. 4.47–9, Poll. 6.122–3, Poll. 9.135, Phryn. PS 56.8)

D. General commentary

The basic meaning of γόης (first attested in Phoronis fr. 2.1 Bernabé = C.1) is ‘magician’, ‘sorcerer’. The term must have originally been connected with the cult of the dead (see GEW s.v. γοάω; Johnston 1999, 111–8). In particular, as Burkert (1962) has pointed out, a γόης is one who is expert in ἐπωδαί 'enchantments’ (see e.g. C.2 and C.3) and ψυχαγωγία ‘evocation of souls’ (cf. Johnston 1999, 111–8); he can also practise metamorphosis (Hdt. 4.105; cf. Pl. R. 380d and 383a; see Burkert 1962, 41–2; Asheri, Lloyd, Corcella 2007, 656). Nevertheless, γόης rarely retains this basic meaning and instead acquires a negative overtone (see Burkert 1962, 50 n. 71; Tsagalis 2017, 414 on C.1; in Aesch. Ch. 822 the reading of cod. M, γοήτων, is dubious, cf. Garvie 1986, 269). Attic authors normally use the word to mean ‘trickster’, ‘charlatan’ (see Burkert 1962, 50; Beta 2004, 217); according to Wankel (1976 vol. 2, 1194), γόης is usually nothing more than an abusing wordAbuse (terms of). It is with this derogatory connotation that γόης is most often used by Atticist authors and lexica, as well as in Byzantine literature (see E. and F.1). It is well attested in various registers of Modern Greek, where it is mostly used in the metaphoric sense of ‘fascinating’, viz. ‘one whose beauty and manners are enchanting’ (cf. ILNE s.v. γόης).

The interest shown by Atticist lexica for γόης likely lies in a matter of word-choice (but see F.1 for further assessment). Since it is well attested in reference authors such as the tragic poets and Demosthenes, it must have been perceived as a better synonym than words such as κόλαξ and μάγος, which were felt to be ‘less Attic’ (see Phryn. PS 56.8 = A.5) or ‘more common’, i.e., ‘of lesser value’ (so in Moer. γ 15 = A.1, according to Maidhof 1912, 327). Beyond this general scenario, particular issues warrant further scrutiny.

First, Moer. γ 15 (A.1) is somewhat isolated in the context of erudite literature. It is not immediately clear why κόλαξ should be an Ἑλληνικὸν καὶ κοινόν (i.e., ‘Greek and common’) competitor of γόης – suffice it to recall that Kolakes is the title of a famous play by the Old Comedy playwright Eupolis (see Olson 2016, 33–40, with further bibliography). Atticist authors frequently use κόλαξ, and Phrynichus considers it as good Attic: see Phryn. Ecl. 109Phryn. Ecl. 109: παρασίτους οὐκ ἔλεγον οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπ’ ὀνείδους, ὡς νῦν, ἀλλὰ κόλακας· καὶ δρᾶμα ἔστι Κόλακες τοιούτων ἀνθρώπων (‘The ancients did not use the term παράσιτοι in reproach, as [we do] now, but κόλακες; and there is a play called Kolakes that involves people of this sort’, transl. Olson 2016, 32; cf. Rutherford 1881, 214–5). In A.2 and A.3, γόης and κόλαξ are presented as equivalent synonyms (cf. too B.3, B.4; in A.3 παράσιτος is considered to be a ‘late’ synonym of κόλαξ).

The equivalence that many erudite sources draw between γόης and κόλαξ can be explained on the basis of two facts. Firstly, in some texts, the two words are virtually synonymsSynonyms and share the same pragmatic goal (the list in A.2 is aimed at insulting a sophist: see below and cf. F.1). Secondly, they might have occurred together in a classical text that ancient scholars regarded as a locus classicus. This possibility can be argued based on some later texts:

• Ph. Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 302.4–5: οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ γόητες, οἱ κόλακες, οἱ πιθανῶν σοφισμάτων εὑρεταί (‘These are the γόητες, the κόλακες, the inventors of persuasive sophistries’);

• D.Chr. 32.11: ἐν τοσαύτῃ […] ἀφθονίᾳ δὲ κολάκων καὶ γοήτων καὶ σοφιστῶν (‘In such […] abundance of κόλακες, γόητες and sophists’);

• D.Chr. 78.34: κόλαξ καὶ γόης ἀντὶ γενναίου καὶ ἀληθοῦς (‘κόλαξ and γόης instead of noble and honest’);

• Demad. fr. 89* De Falco: καὶ πάλιν· ‘κόλαξ’ πού φησι ‘καὶ ἄνθρωπος δὲ γόης’ (‘And again, he [i.e., Demades] somewhere says ‘[Demosthenes is] a κόλαξ and a γόης as well’’). Note that this is nothing but a cento of words and phrases by ancient orators. Therefore, the expression ‘κόλαξ καὶ ἄνθρωπος δὲ γόης’ could also be a quotation.

In light of these parallels, it could be that Moeris’ lemma reshaped an onomastic source similar to that of A.2 and A.3 in order to adapt its ‘horizontal’ structure to the usual Attic speakers vs. Greek speakers-schema. Such source likely relied on a now lost locus classicus where γόης and κόλαξ occurred together. For what concerns A.2 in particular, here, γόης is part of a long list of terms that share the same pragmatic goal – κακίζειν σοφιστήν ‘to abuse a sophist’: ‘comparison of the power of oratory with magic and conjuring is at least as early as Gorgias’ (Usher 1993, 265; cf. de Romilly 1975; Wankel 1976 vol. 2, 1194–5; Costantini 2019, 27–40). A.2 partially overlaps with other lists in Pollux (A.3 and A.4). This is also true for Tim. Lex. γ 9 (B.1), where ἀπατεῶνες (interpretamentum of γόητες) corresponds to one of the synonyms used by Pollux in A.2, A.3 and A.4 (on the connections between Pollux and Timaeus the Sophist, see Valente 2012, 53, 65–7). The same also applies to B.4, B.5, B.6, B.7, B.8, B.9, B.10, on which see F.1.

The second issue worthy of attention is the comparison between γόης and μάγος drawn in Phryn. PS 56.8 (A.5; but see also B.2 and B.5). The two terms (and their cognates) are occasionally associated in classical texts: see Gorg. Hel. 10 and particularly Aeschin. 3.137 (C.5, referred to Demosthenes; cf. C.6 and Koster 1980, 78–90). Aeschines’ passage could be Phrynichus’ starting point, given that the same happens in [Ammon.] 312[Ammon.] 312: μάγον τόν τε φαρμακόν, ὡς Αἰσχίνης ἐν τῷ Κατὰ Κτησιφῶντος, καὶ τὸν περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς ἱερουργόν, ὡς Ἡρόδοτος (‘μάγον [means] both sorcerer, as in Aeschines’ Against Ctesiphon [137], and one who performs sacred rituals regarding the gods, as in Herodotus’). Phrynichus’ preference for γόης over μάγος likely depends on the great number of attestations of γόης in Attic authors compared to the relative rarity of μάγος in the sense ‘impostor, charlatan’ (see LSJ, s.v. μάγος 3; see Paley 1880, 323, who thinks that Eur. Or. 1497 could be the first use of μάγος as a derogatory word; Bremmer 1999, 9; cf. also Finglass 2018, 294–5, ad Soph. OT 387–9). Etymological issues, i.e. the foreign origin of μάγος (from Old Persian maguš), are not of consequence here. Rather, Phrynichus is probably interested in setting an ‘eligibility scale’ for those who want to speak Attic well: cf. PS 73.4–5Phryn. PS 73.4–5, PS 77.14–5Phryn. PS 77.14–5, PS 114.14–5Phryn. PS 114.14–5, where ἈττικώτερονἈττικώτερος introduces a comparison between two forms of which one is felt ‘more Attic’ than another.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

γόης frequently occurs in Byzantine literature (according to TLG statistics, it is over-represented in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries CE) with the meaning ‘cheat’, ‘impostor’. It is often used against infidels and heretics, according to the example of the New Testament (cf. C.9) and patristic literature (cf. G. Delling in Kittel 1933, 737–8 s.v. γόης), see e.g. Phot. Contra Manichaeos 127.16 Wolska-Conus, where Paulicians are referred to as πλάνοι καὶ γόητες (cf. B.4 and see F.1). The word normally occurs in prose, but is sometimes found in poetry as well: see F.1.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Poll. 4.47–9, Poll. 6.122–3, Poll. 9.135 (A.2, A.3, A.4)

Conceivably, the long lists of insulting words in Pollux could serve as a useful repertoire for the oratorical practice of ψόγοςψόγος, i.e., invective. This important piece of rhetoric was part of the preliminary exercises of would-be rhetoricians known as progymnasmataProgymnasmata: see Süss (1910, 245–67) and cf. Nisbet (1961, 193), according to whom at Onomasticon 4.35 ‘Pollux supplies a convenient catalogue of rude names […], apparently derived from some textbook’ (see also Koster 1980).

Another interesting parallel occurs in Ph. De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 32.1–33.1, where a φιλήδονος (‘fond of pleasure’) is referred to by many derogatory words, among which we find γόης, ἀπατεών and κόλαξ. To be sure, for imperial and Byzantine authors, γόης and ἀπατεών, γόης and πλάνος etc. are frequently used together: see E. and cf. e.g. Plu. De Pythiae oraculis 407c.7: ἀπατεῶσι καὶ γόησιν ἀνθρώποις; Gal. 1.20.6 Kühn: ἀπατεὼν καὶ γόης; Eus. PE 6.11.82: γόητάς τινας καὶ πλάνους καὶ ἀπατεῶνας; Chrys. De Sancta Droside martyre MPG 50.686: μάγοι καὶ γόητες καὶ πλάνοι. Such combinations of words frequently occur in prose; for the rare poetic occurrences, see also John Mauropus Epigrammata 91.38 de Lagarde: ψεῦσται, πλάνοι, γόητες; Rom.Mel. (?) 69.26.2: ὁ πλάνος ὁ γόης.