Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orphic Hymns/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2025 [1].

---

Orphic Hymns

Nominator(s): Michael Aurel (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a rather unique survival from antiquity. The Orphic Hymns are among only a handful of ancient Greek hymns unquestionably used in a cultic context, and are the oldest surviving text from a genre known as Orphic literature (which consists of the works attributed in antiquity to the mythical poet and musician Orpheus). The Hymns were composed in Asia Minor, and were seemingly used as part of a private mystery cult; this, in conjunction with the general consensus among recent scholars that they are rather more "Orphic" than some earlier scholars gave them credit, makes them a tantalising piece of evidence for both Orphism and ancient Greek religion more broadly.

Thanks goes to User:UndercoverClassicist, who gave the article a very thorough and all-around incredibly helpful GA review, and to User:DoctorWhoFan91 and User:Gerda Arendt for their helpful comments during the peer review. I created the article around a year and a half ago, expanding it to its current state in a few bursts since then, and it's certainly the most effort I've put into a single page before; topics with "Orphic" in the title are somewhat notorious for being knotted and inscrutable. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Support from Paleface Jack Emerging from my home of the interweb void to offer my full support. This article is impressively well researched and properly expanded to fit the subject. Keep up the good work. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Paleface Jack! – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from UC

I will pop in here, but as I've said my piece on the article relatively recently in a very enjoyable GA review, will wait to see if others wish to go first. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• They were composed in Asia Minor, most likely around the time of the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD: this is pleonastic, I think: just around the 2nd or 3rd... (we wouldn't say "around the time of 1066")

  Shortened as suggested. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• they are first mentioned by the Byzantine writer Ioannes Diakonos Galenos: I think it would help to put a date on this.

  Added a proposed date in brackets; it's a tad clunky, but it's probably a good idea to have it there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Suggest linking "codex".

  Linked first mention in body (though I assume you were referring to the lead, it's already linked there). – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  I was, and it is -- must have missed that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• in 1500 the first edition of the Hymns was published in Florence: first modern, printed edition vel sim?

  Certainly. I've gone for "first printed edition". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• in the late 18th century a more sceptical wave of scholarship argued for a late dating: how late are we talking: did they think they were medieval works, for example?

  Lobeck did, though he was writing in the early 19th century (and he was an outlier in this regard). I've used "late antiquity"; we do only explicitly mention one scholar as having this view, which complicates things a little, though the same conclusion is I think implied in the views of the two other scholars mentioned there, and I think the specificity is helpful. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Otto Kern postulated that the Hymns originated in particular from the city of Pergamon: any reason not to cut in particular? There are a few other examples where I think we could be slightly more concise: for example, Kern argued that this group existed in Pergamon at the sanctuary of Demeter itself; the city can in no waynot be definitively identified as the collection's place of provenance; The collection is written in the first-person voice of Orpheus

  Not really, no. (The only reason for it might be to avoid the reader thinking Pergamon was outside of Asia Minor, but we explicitly state this later in the sentence...) Second and third suggestions also taken. My only hesitation around the last point is that a reader might potentially misunderstand what's meant by the "voice of Orpheus"; the use of "first-person" might help to make it clear that we mean this in a simple, literary sense (rather than it being a claim as to authorship, or something along those lines). – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• The collection's attribution to the mythical poet Orpheus is found in its title, "Orpheus to Musaeus",: I wonder if the title would be better, since I gather it's not 100% certain that there wasn't originally a different now-lost title "above" it?

  Yes, definitely. I've just used "the title" for now, which solves the immediate issue, though I suspect most readers will assume that this means that "Orphic Hymns" was the title present in the manuscripts. This shouldn't be too difficult to fix though (a phrase explaining the general form of the titles would work I think). – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  I've hopefully sorted this now: The collection's attribution to the mythical poet Orpheus is found in the title (which varies across the surviving manuscripts). This title sits above the proem, an address to the legendary poet Musaeus of Athens (a kind of address found in other works), which marks the collection as a work of Orpheus. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Orphic Hymn 76 to the Muses mentions "mother Calliope", and Orphic Hymn 24 to the Nereids refers to "mother Calliope and lord Apollo", alluding to the parentage of Orpheus (whose father was sometimes said to be Apollo).: I think we should explicitly say that Calliope was his mother, as "mother" otherwise reads as a generic epithet (cf. "mother Earth").

  Assuming I've understood your suggestion correctly, this in the brackets hopefully works: (whose mother was said to Calliope, and his father, at times, Apollo). – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• "Orphic only in name" (n'ont d'orphique que le nom) -- honestly, I'm not sure what the French quote adds here, but happy to be convinced. It could be moved to the footnote, if showing your working is the consideration here?

  Probably not much at all. Faithfulness to the source, perhaps? The original language of the source is probably obvious from the reference, though. I'd say I'm happy either way here (there are a number of these through the article, though, so they should be cut throughout). – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'd have no problem with seeing them in the footnote, where it's common to quote the source as additional evidence, but I'm not sure they're WP:DUE in the body text. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  No problem at all. I've removed them throughout (the footnote approach might work, though the article's existing footnotes are already fairly full, and I'm not sure new ones would be justified). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• the order of a number of the hymns in the collection: two is a number. "Several"?

  I've gone for "the order of the hymns in much of the collection" (which at least excludes small numbers such as two). Judging by Malamis, we're talking about somewhere close to half of the hymns in the collection (perhaps a majority). – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Zeus's swallowing of the hermaphroditc deity Protogonos: typo.

  Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Orphic Rhapsodies" is italicised but "Hieronyman Theogony" is not. Is that intentional?

  Both were previously unitalicised, but one reviewer in the peer review felt that "Orphic Rhapsodies" was better in italics. In my experience, "Orphic Rhapsodies" is sometimes (though not usually) italicised, and "Hieronyman Theogony" isn't ever italicised (so I'd be happy having both – or one – without italics, but not both with italics). – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• the relatively little surviving evidence for this genre points to such works having been short hymns which contained strings of epithets, composed either for ritual use or using "cultic modes of address and performance": this quotation needs to be explicitly attributed -- equally, it could just as well be paraphrased.

  I've given paraphrasing a go, though the quality of the result might be questionable: such works having been short hymns which contained strings of epithets, and were created for ritual use (or were ritualistic in their manner of address). – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• In Malamis's view, the author of the collection of eighty-seven hymns: this seems to prejudge that there was a single author -- or do we mean editor, compiler vel sim?

  Good catch. One way of justifying this might be: since we note above that "most scholars agree that the Hymns were the product of a single author", we could judge that if "most" scholars hold a view then it's acceptable for us to speak in that language. In my experience, sources do generally feel comfortable referring to the "author" or "poet" of the collection. Not sure if this is convincing, but I do think it's probably necessary to use the word "author" in this sentence (as Malamis's statement is referring specifically to an individual choosing to give their creation in a certain style). It's worth noting that we also make a similar statement in the preceding paragraph (with which she believes the author of the Hymns was likely familiar). – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• The proem has fifty-four lines, including the final ten which make up the hymn to Hecate (which is attached without separation or a title). It opens: is that the proem or the hymn to Hecate?

  The proem. Rephrased to The opening two lines of the proem are a dedication in which .... – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• It opens with a two-line dedication in which Orpheus asks Musaeus to learn the rite (thuēpolíē, θυηπολίη) and prayer (eukhḗ, εὐχή), the latter of these referring to the address which follows on lines three to forty-four, in which around seventy different deities are called upon to attend the rite, as well as the libation (spondḗ, σπονδή) (referring to the ceremony in which the Hymns would have played a role): this is a very long sentence -- any chance of cutting it up a bit?

  Yes, good idea. Split with a semicolon, which hopefully helps: The opening two lines of the proem are a dedication in which Orpheus asks Musaeus to learn the rite (thuēpolíē, θυηπολίη) and prayer (eukhḗ, εὐχή); the latter of these refers to the address which follows on lines three to forty-four, in which around seventy different deities are called upon to attend the rite, as well as the libation (spondḗ, σπονδή) (referring to the ceremony in which the Hymns would have played a role). – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The general advice is, whenever considering any punctuation mark longer than a comma, to be sure that it couldn't instead be a full stop. Hardly a make-or-break matter for the article, but it strikes me that a full stop would probably be more readable and flow better in this case, and break up a very long sentence. Even more minor, but "the latter of these" is a tautology: "the latter" is fine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Both suggestions taken. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• M. L. West posits -- he did generally publish as M. L. West, but I think he's more generally known as Martin West. Generally speaking, I think we err on the side of names unless the initialism is massively better known (e.g. J. B. S. Haldane). Happy to be overruled here.

  No objections here – in my mind his name is always "M. L. West", so this was probably a subconscious choice. I've used "Martin Litchfield West" throughout (I must admit I don't see "Martin West" a whole lot). – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to the proem, the Orphic Hymns consist of eighty-seven very brief poems: I'm not really a fan of very in any case, but I'm not sure that thirty lines can really be considered very brief (it's more than twice the length of a sonnet, and we probably wouldn't call "Ozymandias" a "very brief poem").

  That's fair enough. It is technically justified by the source (Rudhardt calls them très courts), but this is easily changed; I've cited a different source, and used just "brief". – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note 54 (on the proem/prologue) reads For the former, see Morand 2015, p. 209; Herrero de Jáuregui 2015, p. 224. For the latter, see [54]. I think the last reference should be harvnb rather than sfn.

  Yes, fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ricciardelli argues that the hymn to Hecate was originally separate to both the proem and the rest of collection: separate from is more idiomatic.

  Agreed, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• hymns to Hecate, Hermes, and Hermes Chthonius, respectively (Hymns 1, 28, 57), all of whom are deities associated with boundaries: is there anything that can be done here to avoid the implication that Hermes and Hermes Chthonius are two completely different deities? I do take the point that epithets often make the worship/aspect of a god meaningfully different, but I don't think anyone would argue that Hermes Chthonios is not Hermes.

  Hmm, omitting the word "deities" perhaps? It at least avoids explicitly calling them separate deities, which isn't really correct. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think that would work -- you could do "Hecate and Hermes", perhaps with a footnote that 27 addresses him under his epithet Chthonius ('of the Earth') but that might be too far in the other direction. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think so, yes. (It might also be worth noting that this Hermes is given a different genealogy: the Hermes of OH 28 is the son of Zeus and Maia, while that of OH 57 is the child of Dionysus and Aphrodite.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• In some hymns, however, especially those shorter in length, these three parts can be difficult to distinguish, and may not occur in order: in the same order? I don't see any reason to assume that the sequence here was normative to the poet, as oppose to being a construct of modern scholars, so it seems odd to label deviations from it as "wrong".

  Hmm, I think that the standard three-part structure of prayers (with an invocatio, pars epica, and preces, in Ausfeld's labelling) essentially applies to the Hymns, though the second part is of course altered here. I wouldn't say that a different order is "wrong", though I think I'd argue it can be labelled as "out of order". What might help here is mentioning that the structure of individual hymns aligns with this common structure. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Each individual hymn in the collection...": very much a suggestion, but I wonder if there's a hymn short enough to include it in a quote box to illustrate this structure?

  Good idea! One complication is that shorter hymns tend to be more atypical in their structure. I also wonder how easily readers would be able to recognise the different parts of a hymn. The ideal solution here might be producing some kind of graphic which labels the sections of a hymn, and perhaps highlights other relevant features (eg. the prayer structure, or the request verb). (I'll leave this one to the end, but will see what I can do.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I've given this a go. I've stuck to something fairly simple, but it illustrates the structure of the hymns, and gives readers a bit of them to read. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• While in a few cases there is a recognisable link between a deity and their offering, as with poppies for Hypnos or grain for Earth,: it might be worth a footnote to explain the poppy–Hypnos collection: not all readers will know that a) Hypnos was a god of sleep and b) that poppies are/were associated with it.

  All sound points. It would be worth it, though it would probably be easier to choose a simpler example. I've used Nyx, including a short explanation in brackets which hopefully makes the connection clear: as with torches to Nyx (the goddess of the night). – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• According to Morand, the proem may have been a pántheios teletḗ.: how can a poem be a ceremony?

  Hmm, this is what Morand says: Il est possible que le prologue soit également une πάνθειος τελετή. Perhaps we shouldn't take her literally here, though? – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I wonder whether it's a metaphor (that is, imagining the series of poems as a metaphorical ritual or set of rituals?). In any case, it doesn't make sense under the definitions we've proposed, so either those definitions need to shift or our phrasing does. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  imagining the series of poems as a metaphorical ritual or set of rituals: Yes, something along these lines I would think (my suspicion is that she means the recitation of the proem might have constituted a sort of ritual). I've used a statement from Hunsucker instead; he's not as reliable as Morand, but she cites him here, so he's presumably reliable enough on this matter. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• the placement of a hekataion : should hekataion not be capitalised, like "Augusteum" or "Sebasteion"?

  Graf capitalises it, Malamis doesn't. Ngrams would suggest they're roughly equally common in recent works, so my instinct would be to have it without capitals (per MOS:CAPS). – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  A very reasonable approach. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• early on in the collection is an indication: on can be removed as superfluous; is an indication = indicates.

  Yes, agreed on both counts, and done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Graf also sees the epithet euántētos (εὐάντητος, 'good to meet'), which appears in five hymns (usually in the final request), as a reflection of the terror which initiates would have felt during the rite at the prospect of encountering a deity who was hostile, as such an experience was supposedly capable of driving one to madness: I think this needs a bit more explanation -- we need to know that Greeks were in the habit of giving euphemistic names to frightening things, like the Eumenides or the Pontos Euxeinos.

  I haven't quite done what you've suggested, but I've hopefully addressed the problem you've hit at here. I think the issue was that readers might not be able to see why the presence of a word meaning "good to meet" would necessarily be a "reflection of [...] terror". I've rephrased the sentence to: Graf also sees the request to be "good to meet", made of several deities in the collection, as a reflection of the terror which initiates would have felt during the rite at the prospect of encountering a deity who was hostile, as such an experience was supposedly capable of driving one to madness. The claim is now a slightly different one, but this hopefully makes the connection between the two parts clearer. I've relegated the bit giving the Greek term (and calling it an epithet) into the note. I've also used the word "several", as I'm not sure we can necessarily assume that every instance of the word is a request for the deity to be "good to meet" (especially seeing as the word isn't always found in the final request). – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ah -- so it's asking the god to be "good to meet" rather than saying that he is good to meet? If I read your last sentence correctly, at least some of them seem to be euphemistic naming rather than requests? If that's the case, I think we need to explain the practice: it won't be obvious to many readers why you would give a god an epithet that's opposite to your feelings about them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  An example of it being present in the final request is OH 41.10, which Malamis translates as "come to your sacred initiate, gracious". In contrast, he renders the term as "well-met" in OH 2.5, the one place it isn't part of the final request. OH 31.5 is given as "[come] to the boukolos kind, with a heart ever gracious", though I notice in OH 3.13 the word itself (while next to a request to "come kind") is translated again as "well-met". So it would seem to be a bit of both, or one of the two depending on the hymn.

  The main goal of the sentence is to suggest that during the rite initiates may have been afraid of a hostile encounter with a god, and I think using the "request" aspect in the prose links more clearly with this. As to the word as an epithet, it would seem to be a euphemistic name in at least some cases, though the cited sources don't refer to it as such (meaning I'm not necessarily sure we can connect its use to the tendency to give euphemistic names).

  I've added a quote from Graf 2009 which perhaps clarifies the meaning of the word to some degree, but given the somewhat muddy nature of the issue here the easiest solution might just be to remove the note (if you think the Graf quote doesn't quite do the job), as the information in the prose does stand on its own.

  A knotty issue! Let me know what you think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hm -- yes, this is a knotty one. It's fairly well established at FAC that we may need to give contextual information that would be considered obvious (and so would not be included) in a specialist publication. See for instance the recent discussion on the nomination of Battle of Mycale, where it was suggested that an article involving hoplites may (indeed should) draw on scholarly discussions of what hoplites were and how they fought, even if that discussion doesn't explicitly mention the hoplites who fought at Mycale. A good example of this in practice is at Battle of Preston (1648). In other words, it would be acceptable to say something like "it was a common practice in ancient Greek religion to give a euphemistic name to deities or things that inspired fear.[1] In the Orphic Hymns, Graf argues that the epithet euántētos reflects the terror...[2]" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Morand, however, points to the references to souls, and the roles played by memory and purity, as well as parallels between the Hymns and similar evidence such as gold tablets, ultimately concluding that this information is "reconcilable with Orphism" (conciliable avec l'orphisme): leftover French here. I think the whole sentence could do with being broken up and expanded a little: in particular, these aren't just any gold tablets, and it would be worth explaining what's so Orphic about them.

  I've split the sentence in two. As to "what's so Orphic about them", that's a very good question. ;) I see your point, though: it's not clear why "gold tablets" would necessarily be "similar evidence" to the Hymns (hymns and tablets don't sound as though they are similar). I've called them "gold tablets which have been considered "Orphic"", a bit clunky perhaps, but it makes the connection clearer and avoids directly calling them "Orphic" (most modern scholars tentatively call refer to them as the "so-called 'Orphic' gold tablets). – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• The Hymns also make no concrete prescriptions as to a certain way of life: this is true of just about any Greek hymns, isn't it?

  Well, yes, this is related to them being Orphic (or supposedly Orphic, at least). My hope is that the statement becomes clear when the whole sentence is taken together, as we refer to two elements of the collection which could suggest an Orphic way of life, this being the focus of the sentence (this phrase is just impressing upon the reader that these are very much hints of an Orphic doctrine in the collection). – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• which potentially indicates adherence to some form of "sexual ethics": consider dropping the quotes per MOS:QUOTEPOV: they read as scare quotes, and this phrase isn't original enough to be copyrightable or to need attribution.

  Good point, that hadn't occurred to me. Dropped. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• In contrast to the Homeric Hymns, in which the middle part of individual hymns often presents a narrative involving the god, in the Orphic Hymns the development section consists mostly of these concatenations of epithets; references to myths are never more than allusions, and these strings of epithets are themselves the typical means through which the collection refers to myths: another good candidate for a split, I think.

  From a writing perspective, I think I'd agree. The sentence has a couple of moving parts, and we're throwing a fair bit at the reader. My only concern is that splitting it might cause the connection I'm hoping the reader will make to be less obvious; in particular, the intention is that the reader will connect "typical means through which the collection refers to myths" back to "In contrast to the Homeric Hymns, in which the middle part of individual hymns often presents a narrative". – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• The purpose of these chains of epithets is to acquire the attention of the god and to summon their powers.: it strikes me that this is completely in tune with how "normal" ancient Greek prayers are thought to have worked, though I don't know if you'll have the sourcing to make an explicit connection here. It seems germane that getting a god's attention by listing their epithets and areas of power wasn't an originally Orphic idea.

  Yes, it might be worth noting something along those lines. My inclination is that if we wanted to add something like this, it would be best in the paragraph about the hymns' structure. While using epithets to flatter a god isn't unique to the collection (or Orphic literature) by any means, I think I'd consider the Hymns' use of epithets one of its quite unusual aspects, whereas the structure of the hymns is probably quite a bit less remarkable; as such, noting similarities might be more appropriate there (doing this also implies some degree of similarity in content). – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• others are neologisms: going by the title of the cited source, it might be worth explaining that they were never used again, as much as that they had never been used before?

  I would assume this is true, though in that part of the article she seems to only call them "neologisms" (Néologismes épithètes de divinités). – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• he is explicitly mentioned, under a myriad of epithets, in over twenty of the eight-seven hymns.: "over twenty" seems strangely vague when we're talking about explicit mentions: I can see a reason to be coy if we were talking about veiled allusions which might be a matter of debate.

  Rephrased to and he is explicitly mentioned in twenty-two of the eighty-seven hymns, often using an epithet.. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• both are described at times as possessing taurine features,: bull-like features, for clarity?

  Sure, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• The earliest definite reference to the Hymns comes from the Byzantine writer Ioannes Diakonos Galenos, who mentions the collection thrice in his commentary on Hesiod's Theogony, which has been dated to the 12th century AD: does the commentary or the Theogony date to the C12th?

  Good catch, reworked. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• (thumíois arṓmasi, θυμίοις ἀρώμασι): this should go next to "fragrances", not "the collection". My old teacher told me to put things into the nominative when I quoted them out of context, though I can see reasons to preserve the original case. However, I'm not totally sold on why we need the Greek (particularly θυμίοις) here at all: it's not a specialised or obscure bit of vocabulary. Happy to be disagreed with.

  I have to say I'm not entirely sure what compelled me to include the Greek here. Removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• denoted in scholarship by the siglum Ψ: I would be tempted to gloss "(psi)" to help readers subvocalise here.

  Good idea. I notice you've done this at Homeric Hymns. I've done the same (for psi and for letters below). – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• [orphéōs / orpheùs] pròs mousaîon ([ὀρφέως / ὀρφεὺς] πρὸς μουσαῖον).: capitals here, surely?

  The titles are all in lowercase I believe. Malamis, p. 205 gives some of the different titles (perhaps all of them?), and "[ὀρφέως / ὀρφεὺς] πρὸς μουσαῖον" is the phrase he gives there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Both Ὀρφεὺς and Μουσαῖον are proper nouns in Greek, which are universally given capital letters in modern editions. I'm hesitatant here because Malamis undoubtedly has his reasons, but I equally can't see what they might be. In any case, I think MOS:CONFORMTITLE probably applies (paraphrased, "if a title is formatted in an odd way that doesn't change the pronounciation, change it to fit with normal practice"). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I should have said "The titles are all in lowercase in the manuscripts, I believe". On p. 205, Malamis quotes a number of the titles from the manuscripts (without capitals), and you can see the lack of capitalisation in the title in, for example, Leidensis BPG 74C (pictured in the article), Parisinus gr. 1603, or Dresdensis Da 23 (whether or not this is the case in all of the manuscripts I'm unsure, though it is in all the ones I've seen). As to CONFORMTITLE, my inclination would be to leave it without capitals because we state that this is "the 'common element' among the preserved titles", which I think implies that these exact words appear in at least some of the titles. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, now I look more closely at the last manuscript I linked, the title does have capital letters (not sure how I missed that!). Looking at two others, the titles are both in all caps. Whatever the case, capitals now in fact seem better to me, as the guideline you've linked probably applies. Added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

(Still) more to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll get this rounded off as best I can -- I haven't systematically replied above, but please assume that I'm happy with a response/resolution unless otherwise noted:

• both of these manuscripts are among those which are now lost: cut as indicated?

  That works. All that's lost is the reader knowing that more than just these two are lost (but probably this would already be assumed). – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• all date roughly between 1450 and 1550: I think this is better phrased as between about...: it's not that the dating is rough, it's that we're smoothing the chronological range.

  Certainly, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Most (or perhaps all) of the extant codices descend from the archetype: suggest a single archetype as clearer, and to avoid the implication that this was the first ever manuscript of the Hymns.

  Good idea, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• "subarchetype" not "hyparchetype"? Seems odd to mix Latin and Greek here.

  I think "subarchetype" seemed more intuitive ("sub-" implies something below another thing, giving most readers a decent idea of what's meant without clicking the link), and the section is somewhat technical to begin with. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• and may or may not have derived its text from Ψ,: may implies may not.

  I guess the idea was to avoid implying one is more likely than the other, but there's probably no need. Shortened. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• with West suggesting that it takes at one point from a separate source.: I'm not sure I totally understand what this means. Are we saying that most people think it was copied entirely from Ψ, but West says that there's an additional source in the picture?

  Yes, probably with the exception of "most" people. Quandt thought that the h manuscripts descended just from Ψ, but Keydell soon after demonstrated they came from the autograph of Plethon mentioned in the next section of the article. The question then becomes whether or not Plethon himself was copying just from manuscripts descended from Ψ; West thinks that in one hymn he had an additional source. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• In the latter part of the 15th century, Marsilio Ficino, a Neoplatonist, translated the Orphic Hymns into Latin during his youth: the double time phrase doesn't read well: you could call him "a young Neoplatonist" if his age is felt to be very important.

  I've used "as a youth", which hopefully works. It's probably not essential, though I suppose the general point is that this wasn't an translation by an accomplished scholar, but one by a boy using it as an exercise. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• the first printing of a translation (in Latin): into Latin.

  Yup, fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Hermann proposed over 170 corrections to the text of the Hymns, and his edition was the first to contain a critical apparatus; he was also the first scholar to split the hymn to Hecate from the proem, presenting it as the first hymn in the collection, a choice which almost all subsequent editions have followed: suggest a split at the semicolon for readability and flow.

  Sure, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• A bit of a quirk: we don't seem to introduce most people, unless they're Neoplatonists -- then three of them get the epithet. See also the German scholar Paul Maas, when we haven't given anyone else's nationality. Suggest coming up with a consistent scheme and applying it.

  I've removed "German scholar", and one similar instance below (these shouldn't have been there). In general, my rule is that these sorts of introductions should only be included if the information they impart has meaningful bearing upon the statement being made (or a later statement made about the same person). Here, I think this holds only for the label "Neoplatonist" in reference to those three scholars, and, in the case of Plethon, I think it's worth noting he was from Greece. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• attributed the collection to the Athenian Onomacritus: I think it would be helpful to say roughly when Onomacritus is meant to have lived.

  Certainly, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• were produced (likely in the 3rd century AD) for use in the debate over Orphism and Orpheus in late antiquity between Christian and Neoplatonic apologists: might be clearer to move produced in late antiquity (likely in the 3rd century AD)...

  Sure, that works. Done, adding "at that time" to the later part of the sentence to put a time period on the debate itself. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• claimed they had belonged to the Eleusinian Mysteries.: most readers will need some indication of what those were.

  Added a brief description. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• The discovery of inscriptions containing the word boukólos (βουκόλος), around the time of Petersen's work, led Rudolf Schöll to postulate in 1879 that the Hymns had belonged to a Bacchic mystery group: we did talk about the role of this word in the Hmyns, but it was a while ago: suggest a reminder.

  Sure, added a short description. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think we could do a bit more on the relationship between the Hymns and Stoicism: the idea creeps into the reception section and seems fairly established by 1900. Perhaps a subsection further up would help to set out what Stoicism was, how the Hymns interact with it, and whether anyone nowadays thinks there is any meaningful connection here (if not, the whole thing could stay in the "Scholarship" section).

  There's probably a little more that could be said on how the two are related. I've added a little bit to the part about Petersen, and I've included Kern's later theory that the collection was redacted by a Stoic editor (this isn't mentioned by most sources, but it's relatively interesting, and I see no reason to exclude it).

  That a connection "seems fairly established by 1900" is perhaps one way of putting it, though I think I'd argue it was more that around this time scholarship began to lose interest in the idea. (I'd say it was most significant from the late 18th century to around the end of the 19th century, with Petersen being the main proponent of a connection; it's worth noting that the idea was rejected by Schöll in 1879 and Grüppe in 1902.) Several scholars (other than Petersen, Baudnik, and Meiners) did see Stoicism as being of relevance to the Hymns, though only really as part of a perceived general philosophical influence (and most of these scholars are omitted on the grounds that their contribution to the work's scholarship wasn't all that significant).

  As to adding a section (or paragraph) to the main part of the article, my feeling is that not much could be said there. Looking at our sources, Ricciardelli briefly discusses the matter in going over past datings of the work, while Morand and Rudhardt mention it very briefly (and don't really have anything to say on the matter). The main exception here is Malamis, who mentions it at points through his study, though I'm still not sure that anything here deserves mention (per WP:DUE). To give one example, the collection's use of etymologies on the names of deities (something noted in the article: forms of wordplay, such as etymologies on the names of gods) is similar to that in some Stoic works, but also to that in other Orphic works; as there is a paper discussing the latter in relation to the Hymns, it feels as though the latter should be discussed before the former. (All of this said, there's probably a quite good argument that modern scholarship should return to at least considering the relationship between the two.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Around the beginning of the 20th century, the discovery of inscriptions in western Asia Minor to deities featured in the Hymns: is this different from In the late 19th century, excavations in western Asia Minor brought to light epigraphic evidence?

  Yes, the inscriptions being referred to are different ones. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• This is nitpicky: the "Identity of Addressee" column varies between e.g. "a goddess..." and "goddess...". No objection to either, but a lane should be picked.

  Fair enough. I've removed such articles as much as possible, though in a few cases they feel as though they're needed; this hopefully removes the clear inconsistencies, but let me know if you think anything further should be cut. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Offering of Hypnos, with poppy: just checking that the with is intentional, as it's an outlier.

  Well spotted. Yes, it is. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a first read through -- really impressive throughout. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-review, UC! All really helpful suggestions, and all very much appreciated. I've been a bit slow to reply, but I think I've now addressed pretty much all of your suggestions (and I'll reply to the last few soon). – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be spending some time away shortly, so will put in my Support now -- it's a really impressive article. I would still like to see the Stoicism question worked out a little, and there are one or two other minor matters outstanding, but I have every faith that you'll get to those and sort them out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Choliamb

This article distills an enormous mass of information, and does so clearly and accurately at every point where I am able to judge. I'll be interested to hear the reactions of readers who are not already familiar with the topic, or with classical scholarship in general: I suspect the detailed discussion of the textual tradition and the long list of mostly obscure names in the section on Renaissance and modern reception may be exhausting for some. But no one will be forced to read it, and for those who want to know about the Orphic hymns, this is a meticulous and very reliable guide. It's also a nice companion to the recent FA on the Homeric Hymns. I don't know enough about FA culture to evaluate how well it satisfies specific requirements for style and presentation, but as far as the content goes, I see almost nothing to criticize. A few tiny suggestions follow, the first in the "Structure and style" section, the others in the sections on textual history and scholarship:

• The collection begins with a poem entitled "Orpheus to Musaeus". I don't think this is strictly accurate. Giving it a title in quotation marks implies that the proem is referred to in a stable and consistent way in the manuscripts, but it's clear from the apparatus in Malamis's edition that that is not the case. The wording of the heading found at the beginning of the hymns varies from manuscript to manuscript ("Orpheus to Musaeus", "the hymns of Orpheus to Musaeus", "the hymns of the poet Orpheus to Musaeus"). It's true that all of this boils down to Orpheus addressing Musaeus, but it doesn't support the idea that the proem had a fixed "title", in the modern sense of the word, and the last two versions show that, if anything, this was considered the "title" of the collection of hymns as a whole, not just of the proem. It's also a little awkward that the title given in the article (and in the box with the pull quote) is different from the title that actually appears in the photo of the Leiden manuscript used as an illustration in a later section of the article, where the heading is τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρὸς Μουσαῖον ("[the hymns of] the same [author] to Musaeus" -- the "same author" because in this manuscript the hymns follow after the Orphic Argonautica). All of these complications can be avoided in the article itself by writing "The collection begins with a proem addressed by Orpheus to Musaeus" (without claiming that this is its official title), and in the box with the pull quote by just calling it the proem and dropping the title altogether.

  Agreed on all points here. Claim removed from body (including the note), and removed from quote box. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• [Galenos] mentions the collection thrice in his scholium on Hesiod's Theogony. I'm not sure that 'scholium" is the best word to describe Galenos's work. West in his edition of the Theogony (pp. 70–71) describes it as "a continuous allegorical commentary" on Hesiod's poem, and in his 1968 article in Classical Quarterly (p. 288) he calls it an "allegorical exegesis". Flach in his edition of the Hesiodic scholia prints it in a separate section from the scholia proper, under the title "Allegories (Ἀλληγορίαι) on the Theogony of Hesiod", which is presumably what it is called in the manuscripts. He consistently treats it as something different from the scholia vetera: see the discussion in his introduction, pp. 145–154 ("Die jüngere allegorische Quelle und Diaconus"). I think Flach's title, or perhaps one of the alternative phrases used by West, would be a better choice here. (Incidentally, if Galenos is going to receive a red link, perhaps better to make it Ioannes Diakonos Galenos rather than just Ioannes Galenos. Again, that seems to be the form used in the manuscripts, and Flach and West both refer to him as Diaconus.)

  I've used just "commentary" (which I think is fine), and I've referred to him as "Ioannes Diakonos Galenos" throughout. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• It may be a little confusing to some that the first edition of Athanassakis's translation, published in 1977, is mentioned in the text as the first English translation since the 18th century, but the only work cited under his name in the list of references is Athanassakis and Wolkow 2013. The citation of the latter gives no indication that it is actually the lightly revised second edition of the 1977 translation.

  I've added a brief note beside the listing of the 2013 work in the "Editions and translations" section, explaining this. I think the hope would be that someone looking for translations of the work would head to the "Editions and translations" section (rather than the "References" section), and I think a similar comment in the "References" section might feel a bit out of place. Something which might help here would be moving the "Editions and translations" section above the "List of the Orphic Hymns" section, placing the list of translations next to the text which discusses them (and perhaps stopping the table from towering over the short section which follows it). – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  Oops, yes, my mistake. I overlooked the separate list of "Editions and translations". Kind of you to suggest that the towering table was responsible, but it was just carelessness on my part. The note you added there is fine; I agree that it's not needed in the list of references. Choliamb (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• I am sorry not to see Scaliger's name mentioned anywhere in the section on scholarship and reception. He was among the first to insist on the ritual character of the hymns and to emphasize the differences between these "concatenations of epithets" (as the article aptly describes them) and narrative hymns like the Homeric hymns and the hymns of Callimachus. Some of the views about the nature and purpose of the Orphic hymns that became the scholarly consensus in the late 19th and 20th centuries were already anticipated by Scaliger in his brief comments three hundred years earlier, only a few decades after the appearance of the first printed edition: see Malamis, pp. 153–154, for a good quote. (The passage from which the quotation is drawn can be read in full here.)

Again, excellent work. Choliamb (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Editing to add a couple of other notes. I've just looked more carefully at the table, which I only skimmed before, and I have some suggestions regarding hymns 19 and 20 (Zeus Keraun(i)os and Zeus Astrapeus):

• Keraunos is misspelled Keuranos a couple of times, once in the table itself and once in the accompanying footnote.
• I recommend translating keraunos as "thunderbolt" rather than "lightning", for reasons discussed below.
• If you are going to read Κεραυνοῦ rather than Κεραυνίου in the Greek text and interpret it as "thunderbolt of Zeus" rather than "Zeus the thunderer", you might want to preserve the Greek word order, Keraunos Zeus, rather than regularizing to Zeus Keraunos. That's because the word order is a big part of the argument for taking keraunos as a substantive rather then an adjective here. If all of the mss. write Διὸς Ἀστραπέως in 20 but Κεραυνοῦ/Κεραυνίου Διὸς in 19, presumably there's a reason.
• "Flashing Zeus", even with the Italian gloss, is not going to communicate the meaning of Zeus Astrapeus very clearly to ordinary readers. Astrapeus means "wielder of lightning", and that is also the meaning of Ricciardelli's Italian lampeggiante (= causing lightning, making lightning happen). Ideally in English one could simply say "Zeus the Lightener", in the same way that Zeus Keraunios is "Zeus the Thunderer", but unfortunately outside of a few poetic exceptions English doesn't use "lightener" in that sense and nobody would understand it. Hence the need for a periphrasis like "wielder of lightning". I don't see any point in quoting Ricciardelli's Italian; how is that going to help most readers of the English article? You don't need to cite a source for a straightforward literal translation of the Greek word.
• There is naturally a lot of overlap in Greek between ἀστραπή (lightning bolt) and κεραυνός (thunder bolt), but astrape normally denotes the brilliant flash of light, while keraunos usually emphasizes the noise and the destructive force of the blast. It's not as tidy a division as the English distinction between lightning and thunder, but it's a real one nevertheless. Hence my suggestion above that you use "thunderbolt" consistently in discussing hymn 19 and save "lightning" for hymn 20 instead.

  No objections to anything here, and I agree with your point on maintaining a distinction between astrape and keraunos. I think the use of the translation "The Lightning of Zeus" had more to do with the use of Malamis in the explanatory note than anything else. There are at least a few sources on the Hymns (eg. Athanassakis & Wolkow) which give a thunderbolt-related translation, and this would certainly appear to be more accurate, judging by LSJ. I've opted for "Zeus the Thunderer", following this source (though "Zeus of the Thunderbolt" might work as well); I generally favour sources specific to the subject matter, but for a simple translation I don't think this is any issue (my instinct is that translations from ancient languages should always be sourced, though, in contrast to those from modern languages). This translation aligns with Κεραυνίου Διὸς, so I've reworked things in order to favour that reading; I was following Quandt (and Malamis) in the choice of reading, but I notice that Ricciardelli, Morand, and West all favour Κεραυνίου, so I see no reason to avoid it. This also (hopefully) resolves the issue of the word order (and secondary sources do seem to give the ordering we use here). I'm also inclined to agree that "Flashing" Zeus is a bit subpar here as a translation; the meaning becomes clear with the "Content" column, but mentioning the word lightning somewhere would certainly be sensible. I've used "Zeus 'of the lightning'". – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Choliamb! (And for the very kind words.) Highly astute and sensible suggestions, which have been taken in all cases (except for one, which I'll think about). – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

I made suggestions in the peer review and am happy with the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again, Gerda! – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Support from Kusma

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Attribution to Orpheus: "an address to the legendary poet Musaeus of Athens (a kind of address found in other works)" the parenthesis does not quite work for me; are you saying that collections of poems often had prefaces addressing them to Musaeus?

  Yes (though not necessarily in the form of a preface, and not necessarily in collections). The content of the Orphic Argonautica, for example, is presented in the form of an address by Orpheus, and the addressee is Musaeus, as indicated by a handful of passages through the poem. Let me know if you think this bit needs rephrasing. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• "In antiquity, literary works were attributed to Orpheus ..." perhaps nicer to split this long sentence

  Sure, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Religious significance: I did not know the word "storax". Aren't storax and myrrh just examples of the aromatic/incense discussed just before them?

  Good catch. I think this was mostly a result of the way Morand translates the terms. I've reworked the passage using Malamis, hopefully making it a bit clearer; the sentence also now harmonises with the table, as Malamis was used for the titles there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• What is a "hekataion"? (Always good to explain a little per MOS:NOFORCELINK)

  Agreed, added a brief description. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Deities in the Hymns: it would be nice to illustrate this not just with depictions of the deities, but also with excerpts from the hymns. (Generally we seem to get only the proem, and that only in translation and a manuscript that isn't exactly easy to decipher for the uninitiated). Taylor's translation is out of copyright so you should be able to cite from it freely.

  I've sprinkled a few more quote boxes through the article, including one which illustrates how the Hymns use strings of epithets, and I've also included a box of sorts which quotes the full text of Hymn 6, giving the reader a bit more from the collection itself to read. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Textual history: "At some point between the 5th to 13th century AD, the Orphic Hymns were collected into a single codex" the lead says "perhaps as early as late antiquity"; is this really the same?

  The word "perhaps" is probably doing some legwork there. I've changed it to From perhaps as early as the 5th century AD, as there's no reason to be vague in the lead (some readers mightn't know when antiquity is supposed to have ended, nor do scholars agree on an end point, to my understanding). – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• List of the Orphic Hymns: the explanation of no title for the Hekate poem looks just like the citation footnotes; having them all mixed together makes it easy to miss that there are additional explanations in the footnotes. I think it is worth considering splitting into {{sfn}} and {{efn}} footnotes, but I certainly am not asking you to do that.

  It's something I've considered, and I think there are good arguments in both directions. I often like to add (sometimes quite short) notes behind citations, though, some of which relate to the citation there (eg. note 24), and I think the distinction between "notes" and "citations" ends up being somewhat blurry with my writing style. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Editions and translations: while these have been explained earlier, it would be nice to state more clearly here which are editions and which are translations (and into which languages). (It isn't obvious that Hermann is an edition in Greek with Latin apparatus, for example).

  Sure, good idea. Added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• The "External links" are basically just a repetition of some of the "Editions and translations"; do they really have to be separate here?

  Hmm, one of the editors during the peer review felt that it would be good to have a separate "External links" section. I wouldn't say I really have an opinion on whether including or excluding it would be better. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Overall I really enjoyed reading this and learning about the evolution of scholarship around it. It is quite well polished so I only had very minor comments about the prose above. I would personally like to read a little more of the actual poems, though; do you think you could add another quote box or two? And did anyone other than Ficino ever sing the hymns or set them to music? (Is there any influence of these poems outside of classical scholarship?) —Kusma (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Kusma! It's very nice to hear that the article is an enjoyable read (I've been a tad concerned that it might be too dense, or dull to readers without a background in Greek religion or Greek literature). The request for more quotes (from yourself and a reviewer above) has been heard, and I'll see what I can add in that regard. As to others having sung the hymns, chances are there were some around Ficino's time (though I'm not sure there's anything of note to say about this), and as to the broader question of the collection's cultural influence, my impression is that it hasn't ever really caught the eye (or ear) of any poets, artists, or composers. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

With the quote boxes including the Greek, it is great now. (Minor issue: the Hymn 6 box is a bit wide. Interesting that "orgiophant" is translated as hierophant here). Supporting. —Kusma (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Just on the wideness issue, I think this was the translation trying to wrap below the Greek text (rather than the two being level) on smaller screens, meaning the scrollbar didn't appear. Manually forcing the template to avoid wrapping should fix this, but do let me know if anything still looks a bit off. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Source and image review

ALT text, image use and licencing seem OK to me. Not an image question, but "hurricane" is an odd translation for a text in Ancient Greece. The source formatting is somewhat unique - it seems like we have things like #5 and #343 that seem to have footnotes within footnotes. #4 and #8 has two page numbers with a p. when it should be pp., there might be other such instances. With such a diverse sourcing body, it's hard to pick out inconsistencies or unreliable sources, but it seems like they are all reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Also asked a relative who works in archaeology for comment, they thought this article was fine but it's not their area of speciality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. Yes, my assumption would be that an archaeologist wouldn't have a whole lot to do with this sort of work, which is mostly interesting for what it tells us about Greek religion (as well as how it potentially adds to the debate around Orphism). – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. The sfn citations inside other citations was something I first noticed here, though I've used it more extensively. I think it makes the notes a little more readable, though I also wouldn't have an issue with placing the citations inside brackets instead. I've also carefully looked over the notes, and have hopefully fixed any typos of the kind found in notes 4 and 8.

On the translation of πρηστῆρα, Ricciardelli (whose Italian translation is generally considered the most reliable, I believe) gives the word as "uragano", similarly to Malamis (whose translation is quoted in the article). Athanassakis & Wolkow seem to render it as "gale", though their translation tends to be a bit looser. I think the general idea is to convey an idea of the blowing which would have accompanied the thunderbolt. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Afternoon Jo-Jo Eumerus, are these up to scratch? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Mostly. I wonder if "lightning storm" might be a better translation. Yes, I know, WP:OR, but "hurricane" has a specific meaning that (probably) does not apply here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure that particular translation would be ideal, as we're referring here to the thunderbolt (not necessarily to lightning, which is covered by Hymn 20 to Zeus Astrapeus). My general feeling is that, as this an ancient work of religious poetry, readers probably won't think we mean the word in the modern, scientific sense (a bit the same as how we refer to "infinite roaring" in the previous line, but we of course don't mean "infinite" in the mathematical sense).

Because πρηστῆρα is an epithet here, we're not referring to "a hurricane", but we're saying that the thunderbolt (and to some extent Zeus, as the two are perhaps not meaningfully different here) is "thunderbolt the hurricane" (this doesn't render nicely in English, but we mean it in the same way that the hymn's subject is translated as "Zeus the Thunderer" in English). Also, while I can't find a source which remarks on this in reference to this specific line, I suspect that the translators are using the word "hurricane" to invoke a sense of circular motion, as the idea of moving in a circular or "whirling" manner is given a somewhat significant place in the collection. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Cplakidas

Not really my area of expertise, but an interesting, well-written and AFAICT comprehensive article. Some minor quibbles only:

• Some addition as to where Asia Minor is might be useful (e.g. 'in modern Turkey') for the average reader.

  Seems sensible, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• scholarship argued for a dating in late antiquity is 'late antiquity' a juxtaposition with the mythical antiquity of Orphic authorship, or the historiographic period of late antiquity? In the latter case, a dating of 2n3/3rd century AD would fall outside this period. Perhaps 'in later antiquity' or 'early centuries AD' instead?

  My assumption is that our sources here are using it in the latter sense. The two most relevant scholars to this statement are Schneider and Meiners, whose datings Malamis collectively describes as being to "late antiquity". With regard to each individual scholar, Malamis states that Schneider believed they were produced during the late antique debate between Neoplatonist and Christian apologists, "probably in the third century CE" in particular, while for Meiners he isn't any more specific than "a late date". My understanding is that late antiquity is thought to roughly stretch from the 3rd cent. AD to the 6th or 7th cent. AD. I don't think any of the Göttingen scholars argued for a date as early as the 2nd century AD (the 2nd–3rd cent. AD dating is the modern one). It's also worth noting that it was only 40 or 50 years later that Lobeck argued they were produced they produced during the Byzantine period, so it seems possible that Meiners might have had the latter part of late antiquity in mind, which wouldn't really be covered by "early centuries AD". – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• the metre of Homeric poetry some link would be appropriate here to explain what this is, possibly Homer#Style and language?

  Sure, added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• and the Anatolian god Men here 'Anatolia' probably refers to pre-Greek Anatolian civilizations? Then a different link should be used.

  Hmm, I'm possibly not entirely understanding the suggestion. Our page on Anatolia is about the geographic region, so I wouldn't think it necessarily implies a specific time period or group of people. Perhaps I'm not quite cottoning on to your suggestion here, though? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

My point is, we have 'Asia Minor' throughout, but 'Anatolia' here; and Men is a non-Greek god, whereas most of the deities discussed in the article are part of the Greek pantheon. So I understood "Anatolian" here not just as a geographic reference, but also as a cultural one, i.e. of the non-Greek, native Anatolian civilizations. Perhaps the solution would be simply to replace 'Anatolian' here with 'Phrygian'? Constantine ✍ 07:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, understood. Yes, that's a result of there not being an adjectival form of "Asia Minor" more than anything else. As to the sense in which we're using "Anatolian", we essentially mean that most of the evidence for his worship (particularly around the time of the Hymns' composition) comes from Asia Minor. (I believe the earliest significant evidence for him actually comes from Attica, though he was presumably non-Greek in origin of course; where exactly he originated is unclear, though I think the current scholarly leaning may be a Persian origin?). In any case, "worshipped in Asia Minor" resolves the issue, and is probably clearer. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• the Byzantine writer Ioannes Diakonos Galenos 'Diakonos' is the office of deacon, not part of his name. And Wikipedia along with most Byzantinist scholarship tends to use the half-anglicization of the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium for names, so John Galenos would be the form if we ever have an article on him.

  Ah, I see. I included "Diakonos" on the suggestion of a reviewer above, but given what you've said here I'll change the link to John Galenos. How we refer to him has changed a few times, upon different suggestions. The one solid article on him I've found calls him "Ioannes Diakonos Galenos", while sources on the hymns call him "Ioannes Diakonos Galenos" or "Joannes Diaconus Galenus" through to just "Diaconus". Given this, maybe Malamis's "John Diaconus Galenus" would be best? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  He wouldn't be the first or last person to be known partly by something that wasn't technically his name, particularly from the ancient-ish world: see John the Baptist, Dionysius the Areopagite and Justin Martyr. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  True enough, and it is a matter of detail either way. Byzantinist sources generally use the simple "John Galenos" form, but he is not so prominent a figure that there is a true common name. Constantine ✍ 07:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  As the the one who originally suggested adding Diakonos to Ioannes Galenos in my comments above, I'll chime in here to say that (1) my suggestion was based entirely on the way he is referred to in sources that discuss the Orphic Hymns, almost all of which, rightly or wrongly, include the title Diakonos/Diaconus; and (2) I have no objection to latinization, when done consistently. The form that now appears in the article, "John Diaconus Galenus", with its mixture of anglicized and latinized forms, make me wince a little, but it's a passing twinge, and if this hybrid style is good enough for the ODB, who am I to complain? Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Constantine ✍ 18:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Constantine! All points have been replied to, and most suggestions have been taken. Let me know what you think on the few points that are outstanding. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

SC Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC) As all the heavy lifting has been done by others, there is not much for me to comment on, but the following caught my eye:

Deities in the Hymns

• "were utilised in certain geographical locations": anything wrong with the plainer and far more superior "used"?

  Nothing at all. Used "used". – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Ericepaios, Phanes, Priapus and Antauges": you use the serial comma in several places, but omit it here. It may be worth going through to ensure it is consistently used or not used

  Good catch, added there. And skimming the rest of the article, I think this was the only place it was missing. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Textual history

• "with West suggesting that in one hymn it takes from a separate source": something awry with this

  Assuming it was the "with West suggesting" part that felt a bit off to you, I've used a semicolon, which hopefully resolves this: Another extant manuscript, h, is of less clear origin, and may not have derived its text from Ψ; West suggests that in one hymn it takes from a separate source. Though perhaps your concern was more with the "takes from" part? – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  It was a little of both. It's better now, but I'm still struggling with "in one hymn it takes what from a separate source"? - 10:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  To be specific, the words Βράγχιε, δέδορκας, κιρνάς, and ἐπωνυμίην in place of the words βάκχιε, δέδωκας, κρίνας, and ἐπωνυμίαις. For our purposes, what was (theoretically) taken is less important than the fact that something was. That it was similar (or similar-looking) words which were taken was in some sense implied by the context (manuscript traditions are about small changes which were introduced as manuscripts were copied), though I can see that this might be entirely opaque to the uninitiated reader.

  As to our wording, the phrase "takes text" is a possibility, though in my mind it would imply sentences or paragraphs of text were used (and "takes words", while true in a literal sense, misses the point slightly, as these aren't necessarily entirely different words). Properly, we would say that it contains "readings" from the independent source, though I'm not sure this wording would necessarily help here, as your average reader probably doesn't know what a "reading" is. I've written West suggests that in one hymn it makes use of a separate source, though there's perhaps an argument that this has similar problems (how was it making use of the source?). – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  "I can see that this might be entirely opaque to the uninitiated reader": that will be 99 per cent of your readers if this becomes an FA and becomes TFA. It may be wroth rephrasing this slightly to bring a shade more clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, that comment was in reference to what West thought the h manuscript took, which should hopefully be avoided with the new phrasing. If it's worth clarifying, we mean "makes use of" in the simplest sense; all the reader needs to know is that West thinks a separate source was involved, and I would argue that as long as the reader understands this without being confused, we should try to reduce technicality as much as possible. But do let me know if you think further rephrasing is needed. (My original comment probably didn't make it obvious, but, to clarify, the quoted comment was essentially a way of saying "I can understand why the current wording could seem confusing to someone without a background in the subject, so here's a phrasing which hopefully avoids that issue".) – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  OK, that new wording makes it much clearer, thank you.

- SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thankyou for the suggestions, SchroCat! – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

This is a long article and I'll need more than one go at commenting on it. First batch of comments:

• "congruent with the preceding Orphic literary tradition." – even after recourse to the Chambers dictionary I have no idea what this means. Can it be phrased in plainer English?

  In the simplest terms: scholars look at the Hymns, they look at what we know of other Orphic works, and they conclude that things essentially "add up". I have to say that I'm not much of a fan of the current wording, though. I've changed it to "recent scholars have viewed the collection as being Orphic in nature" (reworking the corresponding part in the body as well). I'd been avoiding this wording because we mean "Orphic" here in a literary sense (not in a religious sense), but I suppose the more simplistic wording is preferable so long as the reader infers the literary nature of the statement from context. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "and a number are assimilated to one another." – strange choice of preposition, Does one assimilate to something?

  "assimilated to" is semi-common in the context of Greek religion, but "assimilated with" works as well. Changed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "and likely held Dionysus as their central god" – the article seems to be in BrE, and if so I commend the wise words of The Guardian's style guide: In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as “they will likely win the game” sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.

  Hmmm. I have to admit that using "likely" in this way seems fine to me, but it would appear that sources are in disagreement. I might have pointed to Fowler's statement that the use of "likely" as a lone adverb is a tendency which is also spreading in BrE (citing examples from 1971, 1993, and 2001), but one Anna Wierzbicka says the following relating to its use in my specific dialect (Australian English): According to the OED, likely is frequently used as an adverb in American English and only rarely in British English ... (In Australian English it is hardly used as an adverb at all, .... Changed to "probably" in the relevant locations. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• "taken place at nighttime" – the OED and Chambers both hyphenate "night-time"

  Sure, changed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Most hymns … the performance of the hymn … doctrines in the Hymns" – I think you might want to look again at your capitalisation of the word throughout the text: at present I can see no consistency.

  The collection is commonly referred as the "Hymns" (a proper noun), whereas "hymns" is just the regular English noun. So when we refer to "the Hymns" we are talking about the collection as a whole, whereas when we discuss "hymns" we are referring to individual hymns within that collection. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "the Hymns were likely composed " – as above.
• "somewhere relatively close to the coast of Asia Minor" – this is Gowers on your chosen adverb: unduly, relatively and comparatively: These adverbs can only properly be used when something has been mentioned or implied which gives a standard of comparison. But we have all seen them used on innumerable occasions when there is no standard of comparison. They are then meaningless.

  Our source's wording is "not too far from the sea", but I suppose dropping "relatively" is fine enough. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "the city can not be definitively identified" – rather than the usual "cannot"?

  Changed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "criticised … organized " – The Oxford University Press, pretty much alone, clings to the archaic "—ize" form, and who am I to complain if you choose to? But if you do, you should, I think, do so consistently.

  The latter word is part of a quote. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "On the basis of stylistic differences to the rest of the collection, however, some scholars" – this is the first of ten "howevers" in your text, and in my view all ten could and should be removed. They add nothing and inflate the prose.

  I've removed around around half of the offending "however"s; in the remaining instances the sentence feels to me a tad more natural with its inclusion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "stylistic differences to the rest of the collection" – differences to? Looks odd. Things are different from, surely?

  Agreed, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "the mythical poet Orpheus ... the legendary poet Musaeus " – showing my ignorance, but what is the difference between a mythical poet and a legendary one?

  Not a whole lot, though I think I'd argue there's a degree of distinction there. Orpheus plays a role in Greek myths, whereas Musaeus doesn't, so in my view the "mythical" label feels appropriate only for the former. That said, I think Orpheus could quite easily be called a "legendary" poet, though he's probably better known as a mythological figure. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "partly due to the apparent absence of references" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

  Used "because of". – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me for now. I feel an after-lunch nap coming on. More soonest. I hope these first points are of some use. Tim riley talk 13:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Second batch

Down to the end of "Religious significance"

• "the Rhapsodies themselves ... the theogony itself drew upon" – a bit of "self" overload. Do you need the second?

  Dropped "itself", as suggested. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "the author of the Hymns was likely familiar" – as above.
• "and the relatively little surviving evidence" – relative to what?

  Used "limited". – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "was likely familiar " – as above.
• "devote a hymn to all of the gods" – is the "of" wanted here?

  Dropped. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "though it addresses numerous deities ... though Morand has recently ... " – there are 32 "thoughs" in the text and I suggest changing a few of them to "although" to add a welcome bit of variety.

  I suspect some of those may have been "thought"s, but no objections: a few "although"s have been sprinkled in. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "while the last is dedicated ... while later gods are found further on" – I'm not sure what "while" has got that "and" hasn't. (With the latter you are also in no danger of temporal improbabilities of the "Miss Smith sang Mozart while Mr Jones played Beethoven" sort, though that isn't a problem here.)

  Hmm, I've changed two "while"s to "and"s, though in most cases I do feel as though they're helping to link contrasting points (or "and" is already used later in the sentence). – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "who are linked though their marriage. – through their marriage, presumably?

  Yes, fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "with there being a number of parallels – bit wordy: do we need "there being"?

  Probably not. Cut. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• "such as in the case of the astronomical divinities – similarly, does "in the case of" add anything?

  Nope, dropped. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "the hymns in the collection are relatively unified – relative to what?

  "relatively" dropped. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "concatenations of epithets, which comprise a large part of their content – I think perhaps you mean "constitute" rather than "comprise".

  "comprise" can also be synonymous with "constitute", though "constitute" works fine here as well. Changed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "etymologies on the names – "on" seems a strange preposition here.

  Used "etymologies of". – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "its specified offering would likely have been burned" – as above.
• "an initiation rite to all of the gods" – does the "of" add anything useful here?

  Dropped. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "This rite appears to have occurred at nighttime" – as above.

  Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "may reflect the placement of a hekataion (a representation of a triple-shaped Hecate)" – I think you are sensible to give this brief explanation rather than obliging the reader to click away from your article, and I wonder if you might consider doing the same for "asyndeton", earlier, and "metempsychosis", later.

  Certainly, added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "participants would have walked past before its commencement" – could be tauter: "before it started"? "before it began?"

  Used "before it began". – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "a forbiddenness around eating beans – convoluted wording. Not that I can come up with anything much crisper. Perhaps "a ban on eating beans"?

  I think I was trying to be tiptoe-ish in my wording here, as claims around the existence of Orphic doctrines are rather controversial in modern scholarship. That said, your wording is technically justified by the source, so I suppose it works fine enough. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "the strings of epithets which comprise a significant portion of their content– "comprise" again? And what is the significance?

  Same response on "comprise", though I'll change it to "constitute". Used "substantial portion". – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• "unknown outside of the collection – is the "of" needed?

  Dropped. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

More to come. Tim riley talk 09:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Last lot

Not much else from me as regards the rest of the text:

• "Marsilio Ficino, a Neoplatonist, translated the Orphic Hymns into Latin as a youth" – impressive and commendable, but is his youth relevant here? (I see our article on Neoplatonism doesn't capitalise the n (except at the start of sentences), but as the OED and Chambers both capitalise it I'm sure you're right to do so.)

  It's not especially crucial information, though it arguably has some bearing upon how the sentence reads. The general point is that this was a translation by a boy using it as an exercise, rather than by an established scholar. (The reader would probably assume the latter upon glancing at Ficino's page). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• "put foward by 18th-century scholars" – typo

  Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Paul Maas contributed significantly" – I have delighted you enough about that adverb and will say no more here.

  Aha, yes. Removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• "This attention around the work" – another slightly unexpected preposition (particularly conspicuous because there's another "around" later in the same sentence)

  Agreed, "attention to" works better I think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• "claimed they had belonged to the Eleusinian Mysteries" – I'd be a bit cautious with "claim", which carries a faint suggestion that it is not necessarily justified.

  Arguably we should present Taylor's view in the same way we do others (with more neutral language), though I do think we can justifiably consider his theory to be fairly "out there". In particular, I think his reasoning for this theory had much less to do with a critical evaluation of evidence, and much more to do with his slightly nonsensical views on the work's mystical nature. (To give an example of his views, he – in Malamis's words – stated that the Hymns "reflect 'symbolically' the doctrine of the One and the intelligible triad, standing at the head of the 'golden chain' that runs back through Proclus, Porphyry, Plato and Pythagoras to Orpheus, its fountainhead.") – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• "His view that the Hymns originated in Asia Minor received unanimous acceptance" – "unanimous" is a strong term. Even if nobody voiced dissent can we be sure the acceptance was unanimous?

  Well, yes, by "acceptance" we're referring only to scholars who voiced an opinion on the matter. I do think this is indicated by the word "received" (can you really "receive" unexpressed thoughts?), but there's no real need to use "unanimous" when "widespread" works just as well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me. You have done a marvellous job at presenting a highly technical and specialist subject so clearly and interestingly, and I look forward to joining the chorus of support, above, when you've had time to deal with my few outstanding quibbles. – Tim riley talk 08:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou, Tim! All very eagle-eyed points, picking up in particular on my style-related slouchings. All suggestions have hopefully been satisfactorily addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support. This is an outstanding article, in my view, and it more than meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 19:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "The Hymns are among the few extant works of Orphic literature (the tradition of texts attributed to Orpheus in antiquity), and recent scholars have viewed the collection as being Orphic in nature." reads oddly. Perhaps swap the scholarly view to the start of the sentence?

  Hmm, I must concede that I'm not overly thrilled with the current wording, even though the sentence has been rephrased once or twice (in particular, see above on "congruent with the preceding Orphic literary tradition"). I'm not sure swapping the order of the phrases would work, because the first part is the more basic and essential piece of information, and it (hopefully) gives the reader some notion of what we mean by "Orphic" ("fitting in" to the genre of Orphic literature). It's also worth noting that we mean "Orphic" here specifically in a literary sense, which we're hoping the reader will infer from the first part of the sentence. I can see how the sentence might sound odd (if something is a work of Orphic literature, how can it be "more" or "less" Orphic?), though I'm not entirely sure how that would be solved; I'm certainly open to suggestions. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Currently you are telling a reader that the hymns are Orphic and then that scholars have recently decided this. It is confusing. Maybe 'Recent scholarship has viewed the collection as being Orphic in nature, meaning that the Hymns are among the few extant works of Orphic literature – the tradition of texts attributed to Orpheus in antiquity.' or similar?

I see the oddness of this on its face, but the trouble is that a work of Orphic literature is not necessarily Orphic in nature. A work that would fit into this category is the Orphic Lithica; up until recently, scholars would have said the Hymns also fit this bill. The Hymns contain an explicit attribution to Orpheus, meaning that (by definition) they are a work of Orphic literature. But (to oversimplify things) there are certain themes, religious ideas, myths, gods, and the like which scholars (rightly or wrongly) have tended to expect to find in works that are Orphic, and the degree to which these sorts of things are present will lead scholars to consider a work (or other piece of evidence) more "Orphic" or less "Orphic". So, to put it another way, the claim that the Hymns are a work of Orphic literature and the claim that they are Orphic in nature are separate (though not unrelated), with the former being the more rudimentary and essential piece of information. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If they are different things, it may help to put them in separate sentences. Or drop "recent scholars have viewed the collection as being Orphic in nature". Or give a little more detail on the difference between being a work of Orphic literature and being Orphic in nature. Or something else.

I've changed this to "recent scholars have observed parallels between the collection and other Orphic works". It's not really the statement we want to be making here, but it at least hints at the same conclusion, and is well reflected in the article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• The article starts with "The Orphic Hymns are a collection of eighty-seven ancient Greek hymns" and the first sentence of the second paragraph starts with "The collection of eighty-seven hymns is ..." which is not ideal. Perhaps replace the second with 'The hymns are ...' and trust the reader to recall that there are 87 and form a collection?

  I believe this wording came from the GA review. I think there are two ways the reader could potentially misunderstand this sentence: thinking that there is a proem before each of the hymns in the collection, and thinking that the proem is the first of the 87 hymns in the collection. I think the phrasing "The hymns are preceded by a proem" could lead to the former misunderstanding, and I think "The collection is preceded by a proem" (for example) could lead to the latter. In essence, we're just being extra careful in our wording to make sure the reader can't be confused. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? I am concerned about the near repetition of "collection of eighty-seven hymns" in the opening sentence of each of the first two sentences of the lead.

Hopefully: I'm talking about the sentence "The collection of eighty-seven hymns is preceded by a proem (or prologue), ...". Happy to clarify what I've written above if I haven't made sense. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Well you need to lose the near repetition. I am indifferent as to which sentence is amended.

Hmm, ok. I've changed it to "The collection is preceded by a proem"; as I said above, I think this wording may cause confusion for some readers, and I would prioritise avoiding potential confusion over repetition between paragraphs, but since you've reaffirmed the point the change has been made. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• "is preceded by a proem". Re "proem", see MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Similarly "epithet".

  Certainly, added "(or prologue)" and "(titles or adjectives applied to gods)". – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Ta.

• "the collection was the genuine work of Orpheus himself". I am puzzled by the use of "genuine". What is it communicating, and would the phrase suffer if it were deleted? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  We could probably get away with deleting it, though I think it's arguably of value. The work is in some sense a "work of Orpheus" because it's a work of Orphic literature, so using the word "genuine" makes clear that these scholars believed there was a literal fellow called Orpheus who wrote the work, while perhaps also reinforcing that Orpheus definitely wasn't a real person (while these are Renaissance scholars we're talking about, it's worth making it clear that their view was about as "scholarly" as claiming Zeus wrote the collection). That said, I've removed "himself", as it was essentially doing the same job here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

That works.

Just comebacks on two points. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Great, thankyou for that. Responded in turn. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.