Talk:Orphic Hymns

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 12:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in the Orphic Hymns the mythical Greek hero Heracles is described as a solar deity?

• Source: Rudhardt 2008, Chapter II, para. 9

• ALT1: ... that in the Orphic Hymns the mythical Greek hero Heracles is a sun god? Source: Rudhardt 2008, Chapter II, para. 9
• ALT2: ... that in the Orphic Hymns the mythical Greek hero Heracles is a sun god and a Titan? Source: Rudhardt 2008, Chapter II, para. 9
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Monica Smit

Improved to Good Article status by Michael Aurel (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Michael Aurel (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

• Really nice work on this article. New enough, well-written and sourced, and the hook is in the text. Hook is interesting (I think we can assume some prior knowledge of the Heracles myth). I prefer ALT1. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, Tenpop! For what it's worth, I also lean towards ALT1. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Audio file

@Michael Aurel, @UndercoverClassicist: Looking thru the article I noticed there weren't any audio files of a hymn being read. I found a recording of the hymn to Protogonos on YouTube, licensed freely.

Would this recording be suitable to be placed in the Hymn 6 box in the section "Structure and style"? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: That's certainly an interesting idea, and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to including audio in some way. I'm not sure that particular recording will work in that box, though, as the recording uses a different edition of the Greek to the one quoted in the article (meaning that some of the words are slightly different). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Sadly I cannot find a recording of that exact edition. If you are still interested, the same creator has made CC-BY recordings of plenty of the other hymns. They can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22Orphic+Hymn%22+%22Ancient+Literature+dude%22&sp=EgIwAQ%253D%253D ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Date-language disconnect

The article states that the hymns were composed in ancient Greek and that they date "most likely" from the second or third century of the common era. However, ancient Greek was spoken until the end of the Classical period, ca. 300 BCE (after which it was replaced by Koine Greek), meaning the hymns were written in a language from half a millennium earlier. Either there is a mistake here, or someone was going seriously retro. This should be explained. JingleJim (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Koine Greek is considered a dialect of ancient Greek, like British English is a dialect of modern English. Even then, the transition between the ancient Greek dialects didn't happen overnight, and many writers consciously used more archaic dialects which were no longer spoken as vernacular languages, particularly Attic, long into the Roman period. On a quick scan, I can't find any source explicitly calling the Hymns' dialect Koine, though this one does discuss a minor point of morphology in the context of Koine. Perhaps Michael Aurel would take a view? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@JingleJim: I don't think I've come across a source which describes the Hymns' dialect as Koine, and searching a few of the article's main sources I don't see anything on the matter. As the lead sentence is trying to give the reader a very general idea of the article's subject, I think using just "ancient Greek" there should be fine. There's a more detailed discussion of the language and style of the collection in the last paragraph of the "Structure and style" section. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The stance taken by our Ancient Greek article isn't universally shared; compare for example the first two works in the bibliography of the Oxford Classical Dictionary's article Greek Language, A History of Ancient Greek[1] and A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language,[2] both of which include Koine and other forms. It wouldn't be very strange to see some degree of archaising to reflect or claim authenticity, whether within that religious community or in the eyes of local communities and authorities engaged in the suppression of at least one NRM. As for being retro, compare Julia Balbilla's far more outré choice of Aeolic Greek for her second-century epigrammata in Egypt, for which she left no explanation either. NebY (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

(One suspects she had a certain literary inspiration in mind) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

One very reasonably might. :) NebY (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I can see archaising, even though 500 years seems a lot. My point is that this should be explained (or at least pointed out), so as not to leave the reader scratching his head. JingleJim (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

We can only include viewpoints that have already been expressed in scholarship. Do you have a particular source in mind that discusses the dialect of the Hymns in relation to Koine and others? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

First, even over several centuries, Greek didn't change that much; it's not like English in even the last 300 years, let alone 500. But second and more importantly, "ancient Greek" is a generic term that includes Greek written over many centuries: koine, Homeric, whatever. Saying that the hymns were written in ancient Greek does not imply archaising, it merely distinguishes it from modern Greek. NebY (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

A number of

What does this actually mean? It seems like waffle and padding to me. I trimmed a record crop of these from the article but they seem to have been restored. John (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"During the Renaissance, a number of scholars believed" -> "During the Renaissance, scholars believed": do you have a source that this was the universal belief among scholars at that time? NebY (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

No, but that's a red herring. That would only be necessary if we wanted to say "...all scholars believed". John (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"During the Renaissance, scholars believed ..." implies academic consensus, and so would require a source which states that such an academic consensus existed, per WP:RS/AC. This isn't a "red herring": if I tell you that "Scientists believe x", you aren't going to think my meaning is that "There exist individual scientists who believe x", but that scientific scholarship, as a whole, is of the view that x is true. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you think the best way to signal uncertainty is to say "a number of" every single time? I do not. We can say "some scientists believe" or "a minority of scientists believe", but we should not be hand-waving like this repeatedly. John (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

We aren't using it "every single time": see "some hymns", "some scholars", "some contexts", etc. "a minority of scientists believe" would require a source stating this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Some scholars believed? Most scholars believed? What do the sources say? That's the problem with "a number of". It could be any number, any percentage of scholars. It's the pompous, circumlocutary language of politicians or marketing experts. It doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article which should be crisp and factual. Yet there were eighteen instances of this in the article when it was TFA. And what, a dozen now? Better to state the number if known or just say "some". Or remove it entirely. John (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The sources go through the history of the collection's scholarship, discussing the views of individual scholars. We of course can't give an exact number of Renaissance scholars who held such a view, as no source is going to state this, and I'm not aware of a source which states that "most" scholars were of this view. We can't remove the phrase altogether (in this case), as explained above. Using "some" wouldn't be incorrect, but I fail to see how this is any more precise than "a number of", as lack of precision seems to be your objection to the phrase (any number, any percentage of scholars). You protest on your userpage that "Zero, pi and negative nine are perfectly respectable numbers", but I really don't see how anyone who reads this sentence will come to the conclusion that pi scholars were of this view. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Well exactly. If "some" carries the same meaning as "a number of", use the shorter word per the KISS principle. Less is more and uncertainty needs to be flagged thoughtfully and concisely. John (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is well within editor's discretion -- I don't see a particular benefit to a dozen uses of "some" over a dozen "a number of"s. Concision is a virtue, but so is readability and polish, particularly as the article is being held to the FA standards, which insist upon professional-grade prose. As Michael points out, "a number of" isn't particularly precise, but it's no worse than the available alternatives; it's also a very standard construction in professional writing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm learning, because the phrase "a number of" wasn't in the vocabulary I use. (I read the article but missed it.) Why would it (4 syllables) be preferred over "some" (1 syllable)? And if, why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt "Some" is often oppositional: "Some say the world will end in fire, / Some say in ice." (Frost); "Some have meat and cannot eat, / Some cannot eat that want it: / But we have meat and we can eat, / Sae let the Lord be thankit." (Burns); "Some companies have forecast carbon capture rates of 90% or more, 'in practice, that has never happened,' said Alexandra Shaykevich"; (Webber). "Some Renaissance scholars" is risky; a number of readers will infer that others disagreed, even if that isn't explicit, and indeed it's the last group in "some X ... [but]" to which superiority of some sort is often ascribed.

Meanwhile, a telegraphic style that minimises syllables doesn't necessarily make an article more readable. This one is dense with information, not all of it straightforward. Expressing it in dense English can give the reader more work, not less. NebY (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

So, with a straight face, you reckon that using the phrase "a number of" thirteen times (some close together in the text) where it could be replaced by a shorter word meaning the same (I enjoyed your allusions above but that aspect of "some" doesn't really apply here), or elided altogether without losing meaning, makes it more readable, a better article, and closer to criterion 1a? Really? John (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

You changed "During the Renaissance, a number of scholars believed" to "During the Renaissance, scholars believed"[3] and your response when asked if you had a source for that was that it was a red herring.[4] Do you have a source that justifies your excision, i.e. for your generalisation that that is what scholars believed then? NebY (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is the same question you asked at 21:25, 29 June 2025, to which I replied that it is a red herring; unless you can persuade me otherwise, I do not think that "a number of" adds any meaning at all, as a number could be zero, or a million, or anything in between. I think we agreed that "some" carries a very similar meaning more economically. I think that often we can just remove this padding completely and leave a better sentence. I put this example down as one of the second type; if you believe it would be better replaced with "some" to avoid an implication of unanimity, this would be all right with me. Again, what we are actually arguing about is word choice, prose quality, not meaning or sourcing. You would appear to be arguing that (to pick the two best examples) these are examples of our finest prose standards.

During the Renaissance, a number of scholars believed that the collection was a genuine work of Orpheus, while in the late 18th century a more sceptical wave of scholarship argued for a dating in late antiquity. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of inscriptions were discovered in Asia Minor, leading to the ritual function of the collection being established among classicists and historians of religion. and

A number of scholars have brought into question how "Orphic" the Hymns can be considered, partly because of the apparent absence of references to known Orphic myths, with Henri-Dominique Saffrey in 1994 characterising them as being "Orphic only in name". Recent scholars such as Morand and Jean Rudhardt, however, see the Hymns as markedly Orphic in nature, displaying characteristics that are typical of Orphic texts and borrowing from the Orphic literary tradition in a number of places. The Hymns contain a number of poetic formulae (recurring phrases used to express common ideas) which are known to been present in the Orphic Rhapsodies, and the order of the hymns in much of the collection appears to be a reflection of that theogony's narrative (though it is unclear whether these features were derived from the Rhapsodies themselves, or from earlier Orphic poems which the theogony drew upon). (my emphasis)

There are professional writers who love phrases like this, and there are those who will often tell you "It should be noted that..." but, without becoming unreadably telegraphic, the standard here is to try to distil down sources into simple and clear language, which is where good prose editing comes in. I do believe that this article could do with some. John (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I really don't see why this is a major issue. Can you cite any style guides which discourage the use of "a number of", or recommend using "some" in its place? The only reasons you've provided for "some" being preferable are that you personally dislike the phrase, and that it saves us 7 characters of space in a digital encyclopedia. In my experience, the phrase is perfectly common in academic writing; when checking a citation to Malamis while rewording, for example, I see he uses it 63 times. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not "personally dislike the phrase", please do not put words into my mouth. I point out that the phrase is meaningless and long-winded and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia article, even although some professional writers use it. Very much like "It should be noted that..." On grounds of readability we prefer shorter to longer, fewer words to more, even though we are not a paper resource. This is not a matter of style guides but of basic communication; less is more, and trim out the fat so the article can be read more easily, without losing an iota of meaning. John (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

the phrase is meaningless and long-winded and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia article -- Britannica disagrees strongly, and uses the term frequently; indeed a quick search on Google Books gives many hits that are other well-regarded encyclopaedias. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That's interesting, but we can aim to do better than Brittanica, who we overtook in quality about 2006. Do they also use "It should be noted that"? Still waiting for a response to my highlighted examples above. John (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you've had one; it looks to me like the consensus here is broadly sympathetic to the idea of variation to keep the prose style lucid, but not at the expense of changing the meaning (e.g. replacing "a number of scholars thought..." with "scholars thought...") or blanket replacing "a number of" with "some". I've changed one of them to "certain phrases" in a previous edit. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, something such as It's the pompous, circumlocutary language of politicians or marketing experts sounds like an expression of personal dislike to me. The word "big" is synonymous with "large", and happens to be shorter, but that doesn't mean that every editor is obligated to replace every instance of the word "large" with "big" because On grounds of readability we prefer shorter to longer. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Very true. I have no feelings about words, just an awareness of register. What works in a fanzine or a marketing piece does not work in a summary article on an online encyclopedia, at least not in terms of the best practice that the FAC (supposedly) demand. John (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

As your view is apparently that this phrase should never be used anywhere on Wikipedia, I think it's clear that others here don't share your view, and seeing as the phrase is used in a total of 370,000 articles [5] (including close to 2000 FAs), [6] there seem to be plenty of others who think its usage is fine. The phrase is common in academic writing as far as I can tell, and you've failed to provide any sort of evidence that style guides disapprove of it. At this point, you're simply arguing against standard English usage. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Re: "I think we agreed": we did not. Your deconstruction of "a number of" is your red herring, avoiding justifying your generalisation "During the Renaissance, scholars believed". This sets counting coup for a "record crop"[7] of your stylistic bete noir above Wikipedia:Verifiability. NebY (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Where does verifiability come into it? Surely this is just stylistics and prose quality! It's true that many of our articles are riddled with lazy, pompous, bad writing like this, but that isn't an argument for retaining it here. But I get that the two of you are deeply in love with retaining this language, without being able to explain why. Gerda and I are against it, on the ground of brevity and flow. What would you like to do next? RfC? FAR? Something else? John (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Might I recommend just sending it to WP:GOCE? But honestly, since it passed FAC in this condition I don't see what the fuss is about. It is still high-quality as is. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)