Talk:Goetia

Removing Kabalah reference
While the Ars Goetia contains 72 spirits and the name of extension contains 72 letters, I don't think most would consider goetia to be part of "Jewish Kaballah". If one wishes to note the comparisons it is probably more appropriate on Ars Goetia rather than this page. This page I think would be better served to deal with the word goetia's meaning rather than the grimoire of the Lesser Key. --Chaoscrowley 09:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ups. Two things. First, Ars Goetia redirects to this article. Check it by clicking on the internal link you put. And second, the meaning of the word goetia doesn't belong here, as this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The meanings and etimology should go in goetia. --Legion fi 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology
I'm getting ready to change the etymology of Goetia. I'm removing the association of witchcraft, b/c I have found it doesnt specifically state its withccraft.

http://users.california.com/~rathbone/greek.htm

Plus, Goetia is a misspelling. goes - wizard goeteia - sorcery, jugglery

I'll wait for a bit before I change this, for anyone to provide evidence of it being "witchcraft".

Zos 19:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "goeteia" is the transiliteration, while "goetia" is the Latinized spelling, both are ok. "witchcraft" is a meaning given by LSJ dab (&#5839;) 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look more into it, there shouldnt be conflict amoung two greek dictionaries. This LSJ looks a bit biased in my opinion, akmost as if someone purposely wants it to look like witchcraft. But as I say,its my opinion. I could be wrong.

Zos 01:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * LSJ is a real dictionary. If you compare it with an online glossary, the glossary is bound to have less detail. dab (&#5839;) 06:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, heres the thing. LSJ doesnt "look" like a real dictionary (in the sense of it actually displaying where the term comes from, and what it means in a variety of concepts). It "appears" to be biased, in more than one sense of the word. For instance, the dictionary you are using is based off of greek prose and texts, and nothing else. This is however, not a definition or concrete sourse. Plus, the frequency is very, very low. As well as the fact that your source is about the same as my source in the way of having "less detail" it may cite where the term is used, but it does nothing in the way of actually clarifying why its witchcraft, according to these texts, in which the frequecy rates are either .03 and .04. Now all this is fine and good, this is just why i disagree with it for my self. But this is a disagreement of etymology, not accurence from prose and texts (which technically fall under different interpretations of the word, not its orign). It is for these reason I am calling for a third source, as well as...

As for an unbiased approach, it shouldnt be included because this is an archiac sense of the word, and does not reflect current knowledge and usage of the term in question. We might need to find an actual dictionary we both agree is unbiased, and is not, as you put it, a "glossary". Even though I believe that my source is in keeping with a current view on the subject; a sorcerer is much different from just any ol "witch".

You might gain this perspective by reading the book from which it comes, and the poeple who actually use and translate the book. The terminology relates closely to witchcraft via magic, although LSJ also refers to the practice as "the magic of nature"(which can also be looked at in favor as witchcraft, since witchcraft can be seen as nature magic or magic which includes nature). Yet the term in question (goetia) is part of a title of a book ( Ars Goetia), in which the practice is outlined as Ceremonial magic, and Theurgy, in the book itself. While I do realize this is a matter of debate for the ars goetia page, it needs to be addressed here for greater clarification. It should be taken into account that goetia is not a form of witchcraft in the modern sense, and a current dictionary should be used.

Generally, the whole etymology of this article is misleaing and should be rewrote with accurate sources and anything relating to witchcraft can be used in a section or subsection of or relating to interpretations, based on sources, holding to wikipedia standards and formatting.

Zos 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. LSJ is just a standard Greek dictionary, they don't have an opinion, they probably didn't even care enough about possible sensitivities concerning the term "witch" to be biased in the first place. You seem to have ideas concerning "witchcraft", I don't know; of course it is used here merely in its most generic sense. The dictionary is just the basic bare bones, of course a discussion drawing on other sources should be added. So by all means go ahead and cite more literature dealing with the term (you have yet to cite a source; a web glossary, probably even based on LSJ, obviously doesn't qualify). dab (&#5839;) 22:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking for a source all day, and I don't think I'll find one online. Plus I believe you just said anything related to your source is invalid: "a web glossary, probably even based on LSJ, obviously doesn't qualify". I however, have not yet seen a greek dictionary (as in held in my hands), but this doesnt look like what a dictionary is, or should be (my opinion). LSJ is a program that runs a selected word into a database of books/texts, poetry and prose, and deterines how its used in those specific areas. This might be how some greek dictionaries work, but I'd like to see another source that contributes to this.

Now, to my understanding, a dictionary is a book, in which things are "defined", through the use of etylmology and accepted usages and authorities on the matter. I don't however see it as a search program defining words on a wimb of preordained texts.

"they probably didn't even care enough about possible sensitivities concerning the term "witch" to be biased in the first place"

This was my point entirely. If whoever made this "dictionary", didn't bother to take such things into account, its biased and is therefore a biased source. The fact of the matter here, is that the terminology has changed, and its being overlooked. A witch, is more commonly used for those who "practice" witch-craft. And the book in question, as I've stated before, is a book not specifically for witchcraft (althouth anyone being a "witch" can practice it).

I am again calling for a third source here, that we can agree upon. I've given a source already, whether or not its a glossary or not, the web-site in fact calls it a dictionary project, and contradicts your source.

Zos 00:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, please see the Ars Goetia discussion page for alterations and other sources that clearly contradict your source, as well as express a more modern sense of the word.

Zos 00:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked on your link, here and that doesn't explain what Goëtia means. It's not an actual page for Goëtia, I linked the next link on there, which shows where the word is used which led me to [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?lookup=gohtei%2Fa&advanced=1&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0001&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0017&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0019&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0021&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0045&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0047&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0049&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0051&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0053&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0055&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0057&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0059&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0061&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0065&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0067&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0069&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0071&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0073&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0075&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0077&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0079&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0081&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0083&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0085&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0125&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0139&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0141&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0143&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0145&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0147&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0149&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0151&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0153&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0155&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0157&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0159&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0163&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0165&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0167&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0169&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0171&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0173&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0175&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0177&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0179&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0181&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0199&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0201&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0203&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0205&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0207&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0209&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0211&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0213&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0215&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0225&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0197&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0229&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0231&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0233&doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0235&lang=greek&group=bilevel here], which had the word we're looking for and I linked to that here.  The word is goêteia.  It is defined as "juggling, cheatery" and nothing else.  So witchcraft is not a definition of the word according to LSJ.


 * KV 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that LSJ web site was kinda weird. It has two definitions for the same word. I found that clicking on the sources for the word, like KV did, brings you to a page that specifies the wrong word (this word being "gohtei/a", which, is not the word I was looking to define).

I'd also like to state that, if the LSJ can define a word as being "witchcraft", it should be able to define that word as well. To clarify, if a greek dictionary can provide a definition of a word, that word needs to be defined in that very same dictionary, or at the very least, stat the source for their english language definitions.

When I did a search in LSJ for witchcraft, it gave me "Nothing found for ôitchxrapht".

Zos 01:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, we discovered it together, I'm wiking from his house.


 * KV 04:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

FFS. "LSJ" is a book, a classic dictionary, the Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek, by Henry Liddell and Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones, the Greek-English Lexicon which even has its own Wikipedia article. If you don't even care enough to look that up, that's not my fault. It is conveniently digitized at perseus, but you are free to consult the paper version at your nearest library. Nor is it not my fault if you cannot use the interface. You have clearly no idea what you are talking about, and I am not interested in having a discussion on this level: go to a library, find works of reference, and come back with citations. dab (&#5839;) 06:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that the LSJ is a wiki article unto itself. I am however disagreeing with the source, and where it draws its basis from. I'm looking for the root here, not trying to make an argument with you. I've found a third source, and I hope you can agree with it. Its said to be "The definitive record of the English language". And the description can be found here. http://www.arcane-archive.org/occultism/magic/ceremonial/solomonic/goeteia-goetia-geotia-geoty-1.php

I am now going to edit the page, to a more fair view on the subject. This can also be cleared up by reading the book I might point out. It clearly shows it to be seperate from what we call "witchcraft".

Zos 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a random collection of USENET texts that may or may not be valid, may or may not be faked. I would not consider that a valid source at all.  The strongest stance is that the LSJ does not give the definition of Witchcraft for Goetia.


 * KV 05:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm concidering it more of a source for the english language, and is an attempt to provide a more agreed upon etymology, as well as to properly format the article, and get it out of a stub category. I visited the main web site, and typed witchcraft into the search and got this http://search.oed.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl Although their search engine doesnt have goes, goet, goety, in it, i'm sure its in the OED desk reference, as has been specified by other who have it.

Zos 07:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes
Ok. I've changed things around a bit. I've left parts that are seen to be witchcraft in, as to not present it in a bias manner. Please review the evidence and sources before there a revert! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ars_Goetia http://www.arcane-archive.org/occultism/magic/ceremonial/solomonic/goeteia-goetia-geotia-geoty-1.php

Zos 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you consult a printed book instead of magick discussion fora. Before you do that, we are not even having a dispute. This is also not the place to discuss the semantic fields of "sorcery" vs. "magic". I have no idea what you think you are doing, but it certaily doesn't concern etymology or philology. dab (&#5839;) 18:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources This was before I was made aware of the usage of usenet pages. I'm concerned with the etymology on this page, because it doesnt do the article justice in noting its origins. A clear distinction can be made between "witchcraft" and the material on this article (the books from which it comes). You say you don't know what I'm doing, but I've stated in full why I feel it needs to be changed. Ask any witch, or consult as many books as you need, to understand why witches dont invoke, evoke, or even envoke goetic demons.

"but it certaily doesn't concern etymology or philology."

In the academic traditions of several nations, a wide sense of the term "philology" describes the study of a language together with its literature and the historical and cultural contexts which are indispensable for an understanding of the literary works and other culturally significant texts. Philology thus comprises the study of the grammar, rhetoric, history, interpretation of authors, and critical traditions associated with a given language. This is actually what i am doing. The LSJ is not taking some factors into account. This whole article for example Goetia.

By the way, nice work on the merge Frater5! Zos 18:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not going to "ask any witch", because I will get idiosyncratic and uninformed answer, in violation of Verifiability. What interests us are opinion of mainstream scholarship, in the case of etymology of mainstream linguistic scolarship. If you have strong opinions on the term "witchcraft", do a section "in Neopaganism" or "in Wicca" or something, over at witchcraft, and cite your sources there. It seems to transpire that you are concerned that according to some modern conception of "witch",  "witchcraft" and "goetia" are incompatible.  Of course LSJ, or mainstream scholarship in general, do not take into account "Wicca" or recent American neopagan notions. You are free to discuss these matters in suitably titled "in Wicca" sections, but don't attempt to impose notions of internet paganry on more general terminology. dab (&#5839;) 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actaully, when I said to ask anyone, I meant confirm from a source that this is in fact witchcraft. The majority of usage, is from Ceremonial magic. This is where I feel it is biased. Theres an actual distinction in the way of witchcraft and ceremonial magic. I don't have strong opinion, rather I am aware of the difference. Basically, I'm asking for a published source that says its witchcraft, aside from the primary source you cite (looking for secondary source). The current etymology does nothing in the way of providing a logical account of how its used now.

"but don't attempt to impose notions of internet paganry on more general terminology."

Where did i do this? Zos 19:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've editted the etymology. I gave an actual citation to the LSJ to the actual page where it says what Goetia means, where it says something else.  You cannot decide that it means something else, when your source says otherwise.  I'll give some time for you to find where I added  before it is deleted.  Verifiability WP:V.  Prove that it is true.


 * KV 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion
It doesn't really make sense to have Goetia and Ars Goetia as seperate articles. They are fundamentally the same topic. My suggestion is to have it merge into Goetia, with a section on the book, but also including a section on it's modern use. Thughts? –Frater5 (talk/con) 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although, that could get rather large. As long as the merge is done with respect to current disputes on the etymology, I'm in favour of it.

Zos 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, because the largest section of Goetia is the one on Ars Goetia. It just makes sense. Plus, I don't think size should be an issue as long as the information is presented correctly. — zorkmid  EA 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good idea, I agree it should be merged. - Solar 11:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. merge. Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Either merge or make the two existing articles more separate by removing identical text from one and having a disambiguation page. Thiebes

Titles don't match
Some of the titles of the demons (Prince, Count, etc) don't match the title given on that individual demon's page. The ones that don't match are: Barbas, Botis, Morax, Ipos, Glasya-Labolas, Ronove, Furfur, Malthus, Raum, Vine, Bifrons, Murmur, and Andromalius. The vast majority of these are names which are marked as Count on this page, but are listed as Earl on the page linked to. I'm no expert, I have no idea which is correct, does anyone have a copy of the book to check?

Uvall also seems to have a name problem, his name links to a page called Vual, with no explanation for the incongruity.Yipely 04:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Added Citation, Fixed Name
This article is pretty scrappy considering the amount of work that's been done on Goetia of late. For now, I've fixed Mathers name, and added a citation that was missing. There's still a lot that could be added... --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Abramelin the Mage
Right now the article claims Abramelin the Mage to tell how to summon demons "solely for the purpose of excommunicating them from the life of the Magus", when the text in question and the cited source contain nothing of the sort. Same for the part telling "This Oath (after gaining the power of the supernal realm), would grant the Adept power over the Infernal Realm and aid the Adept in discovering his True Will". Abramelin actually simply guides how to evoke these demons to help performing the magic, while the purpose isn't to discover the True Will (rather to act according to the Will of God) but to gain access to the "True and Sacred Wisdom". Siipiniekka (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Should the section simply be deleted completely and the link added to the "See also" list instead? Siipiniekka (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I stumbled upon the actual article on The Book of Abramelin, containing the correct facts. It also states: ""Because the work involves evocation of demons, the Abramelin operation has been compared to Goetic magic, especially by European scholars. However, the text's primary focus is upon the invocation of the guardian angel, and modern works on the subject tend to focus upon this aspect as well.""
 * I checked the main article on Abramelin as also the original text. The section is now in consensus with the main article, with added reference for the part on "excommunicating demons from the life of the Magus". My personal intepretation of the text isn't 100% in line with this, but I assume it's somewhere in the books refered to in the article. If someone has more info on the subject, feel free to correct both this section and the main article. Siipiniekka (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Remember you are writing an encyclopedic article.
Thus, everything you claim as truth is actually alleged in this case. Esp. with drug addeled crowley. Come on people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.50.30 (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, which article were you reading? The article at no point implies that the practices work or that any of the beings supposedly summoned exist.  The article describes what the subject claims to be, and it's assumed the reader has the common sense to determine the reality of it.  To write the article with "claims," "purportedly," and "but this is not upheld by science" in every single sentence would not only be an unnecessary burden to read and write, it would also be insulting to the reader.
 * Please be sure to actually have evidence of bias in the article (such as a quote) instead of reading bias into it. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum
Two alternative online sources for Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum:. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)