Talk:Orphic Hymns

Deities featuring in the Hymns

I will point out that while we have an article on Melinoe, we are missing articles on Mise and Hipta. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

A couple of quick comments in advance of the GA review

First, good job with the article. When I saw the nomination, I clicked on the link with some misgivings. Because this is Wikipedia, I more than half expected to find a farrago of obsolete 19th-century sources mixed with 21st-century New Age mysticism. Instead I found a solid summary of recent scholarship, a wide-ranging bibliography, and even a section on the manuscript tradition. Nicely done. I've made a couple of trivial corrections to the list of references, and I have two other suggestions that you might want to consider before the GA review:

• The treatment of publication dates in the list of references is very inconsistent: some citations have the year of publication in parentheses after the author's name, some have it without parentheses at the end of the citation, some have it in both places, and a few have no date at all (e.g., Hopman-Govers, Vian, Blumenthal's review of Quandt). I don't spend much time on Wikipedia, but my impression is that good article reviewers tend to want a consistent citation format, so you may want to go back through these and impose some kind of order.
• The final sentence of the first paragraph in the "Religious significance" section currently reads Within the collection itself, Morand sees a number of different members of the group's religious hierarchy as being mentioned: the μύσται, the regular members of the cult (and the group mentioned most frequently); the νεομύστης, the "new initiates"; the μυστιπόλος, who were likely members involved in initiations and ritual activity; and the ὀργιοφάντης, who seem to have been members involved in initiation rites (similarly to the μυστιπόλος), and who may also have been responsible for displaying holy objects. There's a problem here with singulars and plurals in the Greek vs. English terms. μύσται is plural, so glossing it with "the regular members of the cult" is fine; but all of the following Greek words (νεομύστης, μυστιπόλος, ὀργιοφάντης) are singular, even though the English text treats them as plurals. In other words, νεομύστης means not "new initiates" but "a new initiate"; the μυστιπόλος was not "members involved in initiations and ritual activities" but "a member who was involved in initiations and ritual activities"; and so on. The problem is easily fixed, either by rephrasing the English or to changing the Greek terms to the corresponding plural forms (νεομύσται, μυστιπόλοι, ὀργιοφάνται), whichever you prefer.

— Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! And thanks for these suggestions, which I've hopefully addressed satisfactorily.

• I'm not quite sure what was going on with the dates. The idea was to provide the date at the front of the bibliographic entry in cases where the author had multiple works listed, so as to match the citation style (eg. "Veyne, pp. 12–3" vs "Morand 2001, p. 209"), but all of the works listed should have had dates at the end, and there of course shouldn't have been dates missing entirely. I've added in the missing dates, and hopefully things are now consistent.
• I've opted for the plural forms of the Greek, for now at least, as the words are in the plural in the collection (as quoted by Morand). Morand herself does use the singular forms though, treating these terms more as religious "titles" if my memory serves me correctly, so perhaps the GA reviewer could opine as to whether the English sentence ought to be reworked instead. Ideally, I would be able to get my hands on a copy of Fayant's 2014 study, and see what she thinks of Morand's view that these terms reflect ritual reality, which we're currently presenting without opposition.

Best, Michael Aurel (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Orphic Hymns/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

Resolved

The Orphic Hymns open with a proem: this took me a minute to parse. I think you mean that the collection known as the Orphic Hymns consists of a proem, followed by eighty-seven short poems, each addressed to a deity or a group of deities. As written, it's possible to read that every one of those hymns opens with a proem. Yes, that's the intended meaning. I've rephrased to "The collection of eighty-seven hymns is preceded by a proem". – Michael Aurel The individual hymns in the collection ... typically gain the attention of the deity they address: I think we can say that they call for or seek the attention of a deity, but knowing whether Zeus Astrapaios actually did pay attention to any given recitation is, I think, a bit beyond what WP:V can do. Aha, indeed – let's not start making supernatural claims here. I've opted for "call for the attention". – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Suggest linking or explaining "epithets", which has a specific meaning in Greek poetry/religion beyond its normal English sense. Linked Epithet#Religion, here and in the body, for now. I've considered a few possible brief explanations, but they all end up sounding as though they're restating information from the previous sentence. It might be possible to shuffle information between these two sentences, though, such that we give the reader a better idea of what epithets are; I'll ponder this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC) The most prominent god in the collection is Dionysus: consider a rephrase for clarity: Dionysus is not the most prominent god that is invoked in the poems, but rather the god who is invoked most often. Good catch – rephrased to "The god featured most prominently in the collection". – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC) The Orphic Hymms seem to have belonged to a cult community: typo. A sly one – fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Van Liempt's first name appears to have been "Leonard", judging from this bibliographical record of his doctoral thesis. Well spotted. Inserted. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC) A small one, but why is Johannes Galenos not Ioannis? Seems odd to Latinise his first name but not his second, or really to Latinise either, given that he spoke Greek. Is he the same guy as Ioannes Diakonos Galenos? Yes, that's our man. "Johannes Galenos" was a slightly muddled amalgam of the renderings in Morand ("Jean Galenos") and West ("Johannes Galenus"); I've opted for "Ioannes Galenos", per the article you've highlighted and Athanassakis and Wolkow. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC) 3rd and 4th-century AD: hyphen, keeping the space, after 3rd. Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Some of these translations have places of publications, others don't. Fayant seems to have it twice. Is there a logic here? Nope, just me being lazy in some cases. I think I've fixed all of these now, in the editions/translations section and the references section. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC) The note completely outdated. against Taylor's translation is almost certainly correct, but still needs to be sourced. This was really just an expression of irritation towards this translation's prominence online. I've removed it, as such a comment could probably be added to multiple works listed there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Optional, but I'd consider using citation templates for the selected translations, or otherwise moving the year closer to the front: the list is in chronological order, but the reader has to do a bit of looking around to figure that out. I've moved the dates to the front of the citations; though this is not entirely consistent with the references section, this is probably not an issue. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC) I don't really understand the logic in the references -- some sources have dates, others don't; some page numbers are preceded by e.g. "Introduction", most aren't. Granted, GA doesn't really require any logic to this section at all. All sources should hopefully be cited with regular page numbers except for Rudhardt 2008, which I've only been able to access through an online version which doesn't have pagination, and instead numbers the paragraphs in each chapter; as such, I've ended up citing this as "Rudhardt 2008, Chapter x, para. y", where "Introduction" is sometimes the chapter cited. Dates are included only when the author has multiple works listed. Also, if there are any other parts of the current citation style which you find baffling, feel free to highlight them, as most readers will no doubt share in your confusion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Absolutely fine: it is a fairly sacred principle here and at FAC that nominators may use whatever citation style they like, as long as it's consistent and makes reasonable sense. I've been on the other side of this conversation enough time to defer to your methods here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC) the Byzantine writer Johannes Galenos: I think we need a date here. Added what we have around dating into the note. Expressing this succintly in the prose would probably be a little tricky. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I think we need to put a date on the various hypotheses for the date of the Hymns in the first paragraph of the relevant section, given that most are C19th. Added for Wilamowitz and Liempt. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Christian Petersen, who saw the influence of Stoicism in the Hymns, posited that they must have been composed after the flourishing of Stoic thought: again, when exactly is "the flourishing of Stoic thought"? I've just removed this sentence, as we really don't need to be citing old fossils like Christian Petersen when we have 21st-century scholarship at our disposal. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC) though others have instead seen Platonic or Neoplatonic influence in the collection.: ditto: these things did not have their heydays at the same time. Sentence removed, per above comment. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC) On the basis of the language and meter of the Hymns, Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff judged that they can not have been composed before the 2nd century AD, but were earlier than Nonnus: that they could not (sequence of tenses). When did Nonnus write? Fixed, and date added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC) A number of early scholars: can we name any of these, or be more specific than "early"? Do we mean 12th-century Constantinople, 15th-century Florence, or 19th-century Berlin? "early" is indeed problematically vague. Though her wording indicates multiple scholars thought this, Ricciardelli only really cites one scholar who had this view, "N. Terzaghi", presumably Nicola Terzaghi, writing in a paper in 1921. She also points to an opinion from Maass, though he seems not to have actually considered this the location of composition. I've rephrased to "Around the beginning of the 20th century, several scholars". – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC) That seems sensible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Link, explain (it becomes important in this paragraph), and transliteration-template temenos. Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Likewise, I don't think it would hurt to be explicit about where Pergamon is. Good suggestion – it's location is important, as the Hymns were likely composed somewhere near the coast (something to do with how sea deities are represented in the collection, if my memory is correct); this is not something we're mentioning, but hopefully I'll add it at some point. Rephrased to "Pergamon, a city near the Western coast of Asia Minor". – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC) The collection can be seen as an example of the broader genre of hymns in Orphic literature, of which there are examples dating back at least as far as the 5th century BC;: not clear here whether we mean that hymns, Orphic literature, or Orphic hymns date back to the C5th. The last – rephrased to "The collection can be seen as part of the broader genre of hymnic literature attributed to Orpheus, of which there are examples dating back at least as far as the 5th century BC". – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC) "Greek Magical Papyri" isn't generally italicised in English, as it's a description rather than a title. Italics removed, not too sure why they were there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC) in a codex which also included the Orphic Argonautica, and other Greek hymns such as the Homeric Hymns (in the lead): the comma after Argonautica needs either to be moved after Greek hymns or dropped. Consider linking "codex", too. Dropped, and linked. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC) One of the most salient characteristics of the Orphic Hymns is the strings of epithets which comprise a significant portion of their content: what does salient mean here -- it normally means "relevant" or similar. "Distinctive"? Hmm, "conspicuous" or "prominent" essentially, though "most salient" doesn't sound right, and is tautological I think. Your suggestion of "distinctive" is much better – adopted. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC) The only definitively Orphic deity in the collection is Protogonos: He's been Protogonos-Phanes so far: any reason to give only one name here? He's now "Protogonos" throughout, which is better I think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Of all the deities featured in the Hymns, however, the most prominent is Dionysus: see earlier discussion re. "prominent" in this context. Rephrased to "Of all the deities featured in the Hymns, however, the one given the place of greatest prominence is Dionysus" in the body, and "the deity featured most prominently" in the image caption. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC) in addition, the collection contains several references to known non-Greek gods, such as Isis and Men.: consider "the Egyptian goddess Isis and the Anatolian god Men", which would help avoid the misreading of "Men" as "men". On first read, I wasn't sure what the word "known" was doing here; the next paragraph makes clear that we need it because we don't know who some of the others were. It might be useful to move this bit about non-Greek deities down into that paragraph, which would clarify and make more coherent the geographical discussion? I've adopted your suggested rephrasing. I've removed the word "known" and replaced the phrase with "several references to non-Greek deities attested in other literature", which might alleviate the confusion to some degree. This part could potentially go in the discussion in the paragraph below, though the possible issue with doing that is that I don't believe any scholars have commented upon Men in discussing the location of the Hymns, and, while Isis has been discussed in this context, she's of course only been used as evidence for an Egyptian origin. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC) though hymns attributed to Orpheus are mentioned in works such as the Derveni papyrus and Pausanias's Description of Greece,: another ring on my bell for rough dates (these texts are hundreds of years apart). Another fair point, dates added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC) He refers to epithets from the hymns to Helios and Selene: see my earlier query about personifications: Sun has now been promoted (and wikilinked) to Helios, which will confuse most people, but I think this second approach is better. Yes, this second approach is better. The earlier sentence has been removed, for now. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC) In the early Middle Ages (or perhaps late antiquity): for most scholars, those terms overlap largely or even totally. What difference are you trying to pull out here? Not any, really. I've rephased to "As early as perhaps late antiquity", which avoids the awkward comparison of the two overlapping periods, and might be better overall. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC) The earliest known codex containing the Orphic Hymns to arrive in Western Europe was brought to Venice from Constantinople by Giovanni Aurispa in 1423—a manuscript which likely dated to the 12th or 13th century: there's a lot of "maybes" holding this line of reasoning together (that Aurispa's codex was Ψ and that Ψ dates to those years -- it might have been Ω, which is a descendant of Ψ), but I can see good reasons for not getting into those weeds here. Oh good point, this is not quite right, as Richardson is giving that dating for Ψ, not for Aurispa's manuscript (unless the two are the same). Since we haven't mentioned the archetype yet, we probably shouldn't have this here – moved down to the sentence about Ψ, and this also helps shorten an overly long sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC) OK, this is a niche one: we've somehow got two different printings of ϕ: one in the body text and one in note 174. The one in the note looks odd to me: advise simply replacing with a unicode ϕ unless there's some reason to use the other variant? Hmm, for some reason when I put φ in the wikitext it comes out as φ, and vice versa, which I've just spent five minutes confusing myself over – not sure if there's a reason for this, but this is likely the culprit. Hopefully this is now sorted. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC) In the mid 15th century, following the arrival of the codex brought by Aurispa to Renaissance Italy, the Orphic Hymns seem to have attained a level of popularity amongst the educated: in Italy, or anywhere else? In particular, when you say "Italy", do you really mean "Florence" (as is the case for the Homeric Hymns). Possibly "Florence" would be more accurate ("Italy" does feel a little broad here), though we're bound by what Hunsucker says, which is: During the decades immediately following his return, knowledge of them in Italy increased remarkably, and there is much evidence for their popularity in the learned circles of the Renaissance. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable going beyond Italy with that: "the Renaissance" can cover Western Europe in general, but equally, particularly early on, it can be limited to Italy, and Hunsucker did qualify knowledge of them in Italy without then moving onto e.g. France or Spain. NB that this book, p. 81f and this one, p. 65 both situate the popularity of the Hymns in a specifically Italian context. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Ah, I think I see your original point now – we shouldn't imply that they were popular elsewhere. Would "In the mid 15th century, following the arrival of the codex brought by Aurispa to Venice, the Orphic Hymns seem to have attained a level of popularity amongst the educated of Renaissance Italy" work better here? – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Yes, I think that works very well. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Great, added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC) denoted in the manuscript tradition by Iunt: this is pretty opaque: known as "Iunt." in scholarship? I assume it needs the dot, as it's an abbreviation? Yes, not really "in the manuscript tradition" – this is how Quandt abbreviates it in his stemmata, so I think calling it a "siglum" is accurate ("denoted in scholarship by the siglum Iunt"); I've also added the word "siglum" to the first place where mentioning it would be appropriate. Quandt and Ricciardelli seem to omit the dot. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Bibliography: you may wish to consider using columns (via the Refbegin/Refend template), as it's a long one. Added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) What is a God? Studies in the nature of Greek divinity: this book title is in sentence case; the others are in title case. Good catch, fixed. Michael Aurel (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Personal taste, perhaps, but I would generally convert non-English names of presses (e.g. Presses universitaires de Liège, Typographeo Clarendoniano) into English. There's a particularly strong case for this on the latter; if we're going to insist on the Latin, we should at least use the nominative, but that seems rather silly given that it's official name is in English. Advice taken, in these two cases and one other. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Zürich and Munich: seems odd to use the German for Zürich (not Zurich) but not for Munich. Used "Zurich", per our article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Volume 10, Obl-Phe: endash, not hyphen, as it's a range. Well spotted, fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Blanc and Blumenthal should be alphabetised before Borgeaud. Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:41, 16 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)

No.	Title (usually including offering)	Addressee	Identity of Addressee	Lines	Content	Ref.
1	None	Hecate	A sepulchral goddess in Greek religion	10	Connects her with Artemis, associates her with the Moon
2	"Offering of Prothyraia, storax"	Prothyraia	An epithet of Hecate, Eileithyia, and Artemis	14	Assimilates her with Artemis, celebrates her role in promoting childbirth
3	"Offering of Nyx, firebrands"	Nyx	Personification of Night in the Theogony	14	Describes her as mother of gods and men, calls her Cypris, an epithet of Aphrodite
4	"Offering of Ouranos, frankincense"	Uranus	Father of the Titans in the Theogony	9	Emphasises his antiquity, identifies him with the cosmos

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)

• 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)

Image review -- Pass

Not many here, but the two are well chosen.

• Both image need licensing tags for the original work, as a formality.

  Possibly done, though it's equally possible I've misunderstood the task (I've never touched Commons before); I looked to the nearest FA and a similar piece of art, and assumed you mean something like this (possibly?). Please do correct what I've done if it's incorrect, though. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right (the CC licence can cover the photograph, but only the original author can release the rights to the artwork, so we need to prove that it's in the public domain and no such rights exist.) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Alt texts should be added per MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.

  Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Captions are succinct and add value (though consider a rephrase of Mosaic of Dionysus, the most prominent deity in the Orphic Hymns.

  Think I may have just beat you to it on this one. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review and spot checks

• One preemptive comment on sourcing. We're missing Fayant's 2014 study, which should be cited throughout the article (I haven't been able to find a copy, and will probably ask for sections at WP:REX after this). I also discovered, when responding to one of the above suggestions, that no less than two weeks ago Brill published a full-length study on the collection, [1] by Daniel Malamis (whose PhD thesis on the topic I had been meaning to read)! And... in English, which is a first in the history of the Hymns' scholarship! So I'll make sure to start using it soon as well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Great -- none of this is a problem at GA, as comprehensiveness is not required, but it'll be a factor at FAC. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

To follow.