Talk:Orphic Hymns/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Michael Aurel (talk · contribs) 06:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 11:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. It's clearly an outstanding piece of work, and the scholarship shines through throughout. I'm afraid I've gone above the strict standards of GA in a few (many?) cases -- please feel free to push back, but I hope the comments are reasonable and helpful.UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks for reviewing this! Feel free to be harsher than the GA standards require if you'd like; the article will only be the better for it (and I'll have you to thank if I choose to take this article further). – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Hymns were in antiquity attributed to the mythical poet Orpheus, and modern scholarship has mostly continued to see the collection as being situated in the Orphic tradition.: most readers will, I think, interpret this as saying that modern scholars generally believe the hymns to have been written by Orpheus. I think a very brief mention of what Orphism was is needed here.

  I've rephrased the lead a bit, so this may not be an issue anymore. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• previously known only though the collection, have since been discovered in inscriptions in Asia Minor: I think we need a sense of some dates here.

  Rephrased to "previously known only though the collection, were in the early 20th century discovered in inscriptions from Asia Minor". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• There are no references to the Orphic Hymns in antiquity: not sure about the tense or the confidence here. Suggest "No references to the Orphic Hymns are attested in surviving ancient sources, apart from the Hymns themselves" or similar. After all, the overwhelming majority of ancient literature is lost, so we cannot know that no reference was ever made to them. Might benefit from the term "secondary references", or some other way of indicating we mean "other texts taking about the Hymns".

  The tense does seem a bit off. I do think the confidence is largely justified (by the sources), but clarifying that we mean surviving ancient sources would be good. I've pondered your suggestion to say something to the effect of "apart from the Hymns themselves", and have gone with "No references to the Orphic Hymns survive in other ancient sources from antiquity", as I wouldn't necessary say that the Hymns refer to themselves, and I'm a little attached to "antiquity", because I think Galenos could possibly be considered "ancient". – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• In the Middle Ages, the Orphic Hymns were preserved in a codex which also included the Orphic Argonautica: as I know it, the earliest possible date of this codex is the C4th, which is before the "Middle Ages" to most people: see the "Textual history" section in Homeric Hymns

  Rephrased to "From perhaps as early as late antiquity" for now, per below, though I'll make sure to have a look at what you've written there, as if you've found a source with more specific dating estimates, it would be great to incorporate it here (West only says "Sometime in late antiquity, or more likely in the early Middle Ages"). – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• with Gabriella Ricciardelli pointing to the prominence of Dionysism at that time in Asia Minor: we've mentioned Dionysus in the lead, but have yet to connect the hymns to his worship in the body. Nor have we said there that they were composed in Asia Minor, or given any indication of why this is believed to be so. This gets explained in the next paragraph, so a minor restructure might be helpful.

  I've switched the order of the first two paras in the section, which solves this (and is better, because most recent opinions as to dating require knowing where the collection was composed). – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• In the Hymns themselves, there are several traces of Orpheus as their composer: Orphic Hymn 76 to the Muses mentions "mother Calliope": this seems a bit tenuous. The Iliad quite regularly mentions "Father Zeus", but nobody has suggested that Heracles composed it.

  Oh dear! Yes, we definitely should *not* be saying this. The idea in this sentence is to justify the claim that the 87 hymns (not just the proem) are "written in the voice of Orpheus" – I've reworked things a little, in this sentence and the previous one, to make sure we're not suggesting Orpheus (or someone called "Orpheus") was the actual author, though I've tried to dodge using the word "author", because I don't think all scholars agree on the idea that there was a single author. Let me know if you have any thoughts on this change. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Reading this section of the body text, I would reaffirm my suggestion from the lead that we need a discussion of exactly what Orphism was.

  I've had a try at something along these lines, though I wouldn't say I'm entirely satisfied with the results. I've briefly explained "Orphic literature" in the lead where we mention it, and I've explained it a little more in the body. I've also tried to give the reader some idea of what we mean by Orphic "doctrines" (lower down, in the "Religious significance" section), but I've avoided trying to define or discuss the term "Orphism", as I think the word has, by the 21st century, almost lost all meaning. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Ivan Linforth, however, contests that it is equally likely that the name of Orpheus was simply stamped upon the work for its "prestige: It's probably germane here that Linforth didn't believe that "Orphism" really existed. This could be brought into the discussion of what/if Orphism was.

  Good point – we shouldn't treat him as a neutral commentator here. There are a few different things being mixed up in this part of the paragraph (some bits need to be moved elsewhere, or removed), but, for now, I've written "Ivan Linforth, however, whose approach to Orphism has been noted for its scepticism". I'll hopefully provide some thoughts on a "discussion of what/if Orphism was" soon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• and ends in the word γῆρας ("old age"): pedantry: lang template but no italics for Greek, use the gloss template for a gloss, which gives single rather than double quotes.

  Done, here and elsewhere. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• in which Orpheus speaks to Musaeus (who is usually described as his student or son in Greek literature).: this bracket would be better with the first body mention of Musaeus in the section above.

  Sort of done. I've added this information into the note at the first mention of Musaeus, but haven't included it in the prose, as I feel as though it might confuse the reader somewhat at that point in the text (it would seem out of place I think). I think "usually" was an overstatement, and I've altered this to "often". At the second mention of Musaeus, this information helps I think to give the reader an idea of the sort of address the proem is (one from a teacher figure to the prototypical initiate, which is discussed in the note). Do let me know if you have an disagreements here, though. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Personal taste, perhaps, but I would transliterate Greek where quoting it, in addition to the original alphabet if you like. In general, I try not to use untransliterated Greek in the main flow of a sentence (rather than in brackets), because most readers can't sound it out.

  Definitely a good idea – done (hopefully correctly), keeping the original Greek in most cases. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• (a title listed among the works of Orpheus in the Suda): the Suda needs a bit of an introduction: this isn't a source we can just throw around as if it is authoritative on matters of classical literary biography.

  I've moved this into the note (as what West thought the title was is less significant than the fact that he thought it was separate, and the sentence was overly long), and have hopefully treated the mention a little more appropriately there ("listed by the 10th-century AD Suda among the works it attributes to Orpheus"). – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• It names the deity (sometimes using an epiclesis),: needs an explanation.

  Linked, and briefly explained. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• They are written in dactylic hexameter, and also display a consistency in metrical composition: I think it would help to be explicit (we imply it in the next sentence) that dactylic hexameter was a metre of prestigious poetry, particularly of Homeric/Hesiodic epic).

  Added "dactylic hexameter, the metre of Homeric poetry" per Edmonds, who also contains some discussion of the role of dactylic hexameter in works attributed to Orpheus. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• contain a number of words and forms from later literature, spanning up to the imperial period: many readers will not intuitively know the dates for that.

  Edited for greater precision with respect to dates: "spanning from the 5th-century BC to the first centuries AD". – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• They also contain a number of language devices, such as anaphora, alliteration, assonance, and repetition, as well as forms of wordplay, such as etymologies on the names of gods: I need some convincing that at least the first four of these are notable or unusual. I can't think of a work of ancient literature that doesn't include all of those!

  I've changed this to "make extensive use of phonic repetition", which is potentially a little less unremarkable. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• A number of the gods featured in the Hymns are identified with one another. On the basis of shared attributes or associations, two deities in the collection may be brought closer together to the point of coalescing, partially or fully; these linkings of pairs of gods are not complete assimilations, however, as each deity, while adopting features of the other god, still retains their own individual characteristics: well above par for GA, but I found this bit tricky to parse, and that's with a reasonable background in Greek religion and the idea of syncretism. Might be worth a thought about how to make it a bit clearer.

  I've given this a whirl, in particular avoiding the (vague) phrase "partially or fully". – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Though earlier scholars such as Jane Ellen Harrison saw this identifying tendency as conferring upon the collection an "atmosphere of mystical monotheism", this idea of a monotheistic bent to the Hymns has been rejected by more recent scholars.: another beat on my drum about putting dates on scholars: Harrison is later than most of the "early scholars" we have so far named.

  All very fair points around dates – added "Though Jane Ellen Harrison, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, saw this". – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• the latter of whom is referred to under several names of the former: a bit mealy-mouthed: could we just have "Dionysus is called by several names normally used for Protogonos-Phanes"?

  I've cut the mention of Eubuleus (even though it's very significant), as it's a bit complex to explain here. I've reworked this sentence entirely: "A significant instance of identification in the collection is that of Dionysus with the Orphic god Protogonos: both are described at times as possessing taurine features, or as being "dual" or "double" in nature, and Dionysus, in his own hymn, is at one point directly addressed as "Protogonos"." – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Anticipating FAC, I can hear one of our frequent reviewers now: "significant, eh? So what does it signify?" Any reason not to cut, per WP:PUFFERY, and just go for "For example, Dionysus is identified with..."? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Aha – that forewarning is definitely good to have. Probably omitting "significant" is best, as while this identification is significant (very much so), it's significant for reasons we're not really mentioning here. Would changing it to "Two deities who are prominently identified in the collection are Dionysus and the Orphic god Protogonos:" possibly solve this? – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think that particular phrasing might not make totally clear that the Hymns say that Dionysus is Protogonos ("identified" can mean "recognised by readers"), but the basic concept sounds solid to me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good point on can mean "recognised by readers" – how about "Two deities who are prominently identified with each other in the collection are Dionysus and the Orphic god Protogonos"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think that works. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Great, added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• the Mother of the gods: is this Cybele, as the "Great Mother"? If so, capitalise "Gods" as part of her name/title.

  Probably it is, given the Anatolian context. Rudhardt doesn't seem to capitalise the last word (most of the time), but Athanassakis and Wolkow do, and we write it with a capital "G" in the list of hymns at the end of the article – so capitalised here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Hymns also mention various personifications whose names are common words, such as the Sea, the Sun, Sleep, and Death: this may be slightly misleading to those without a lot of grounding in Greek religion. At least the last three of these are commonly invoked as regular gods in Greek religion; we imply that the Orphics have taken natural phenomena and turned them into gods, which isn't quite what was going on here. Pretty much every abstract noun can be deified in conventional Greek religion (see also Victory, Moon, Peace, any river or mountain you like...)

  I've removed this for the moment, because, as you say, there's nothing significant simply in the idea that these concepts are personified in the collection, as all four are commonly personified in one or multiple forms in the regular Greek tradition; as such, this sentence wasn't really adding anything valuable. What I think might be significant here is how these notions are identified with different deities, but I would need to do some substantial rereading of both Rudhardt works to consider what, on this topic, would be worth talking about – so omitted for now. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "Transmission and scholarship" is very technical. I don't think we should lose the detail or precision, but it would be worth thinking about how to help non-specialists navigate all the terminology (see apographs, stemmata, degeneration, descendant, hyparchetypes...)

  I've tried to improve the situation here a bit ("stemmata" and "degeneration" removed, "hyparchetypes" and "apographs" wiktionary-linked), but do let me know if further simplification is needed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• In the section "List of the Orphic Hymns", any chance of some elucidation as to what these hymns are about, how long they are, or their dates? (edit: does anyone believe that different hymns were composed at different times?) Very much above and beyond for GA, but I did something similar in Homeric Hymns using a table.

  I do know that some scholars have argued that some hymns weren't part of the original collection (this is mentioned briefly in the last paragraph of the "Structure and style" section, but should probably be discussed in the first section), but scholars usually talk only about the date of the collection as a whole, I believe. Stealing the basic table structure from Homeric Hymns, I've gone for "Identity of Addressee" (which, for instance, helps explain when hymns are addressing a god under an epithet, and shows the kinds of gods cited in different parts of the collection) and "Content" columns, in addition to the basics. I've had a go at the first few rows – how about somthing similar to this? – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  That looks excellent. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Great! – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the text: I'll give the notes and bibliography a good look, then do the images and spot checks. Really impressive work. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! And for all of these thoroughly helpful suggestions, which have done much to sharpen and improve the article. I've now responded to most of them, with the main outstanding point being the lack of a discussion/explanation of "Orphism" (and Orphic literature), which I'll think about how to address. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's where we are, too. I need to do the spot checks, which hopefully I'll be able to get round to one evening this week, and then we're going to be pretty close to where we need to be as a GA nomination. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Great. Feel free to push back on any of the above points, if you're at all dissatisfied with any of my solutions. I'm having a few misgivings around the table, as mapping out the full thing reveals just how long it will end up being (about twice the size of that at Homeric Hymns), though perhaps this isn't cause for concern? And thanks for the encouragement around taking this to FAC, and the added points aimed in that direction – there's some rewriting needed (especially of the "Date and composition" section), but I certainly hope to see you there at some point in the near future! – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

For the moment, this is very much at your discretion. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about a long table: I'd say that the benefits of seeing the poems laid out outweigh the costs. If you felt differently, however, one approach would be to start List of the Orphic Hymns, set out the full table there, and then write a much more abbreviated summary of the content of the hymns where we currently have a bare list. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Great, if you're unfazed by the length, then I'm very much happy with including the table. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Usual practice is to use the ISBNs printed on the books themselves, which means that 13-digit ISBNs should only really appear for sources published post 2007. This is very much an FAC point rather than a GA one, but I'll flag it now as I think that destination should certainly be on the itinerary for this article.

  Done, I think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• If you're so inclined, many of the cited sources have DOIs accessible via TWL: some FAC reviewers are quite keen on adding links to online sources where they exist.

  Seems sensible. DOIs or OCLCs added for all sources without online links or ISBNs (except for Morand 2010b, for which I can't seem to find anything). – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)