Talk:Zagreus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citation needed.

When a request for a Citation has been made, one should wait for an answer for a time and then delete the challenged assertion because it cannot be verified by the reader if he or she is so minded. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has been tagged for a while, however that doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. A citation needed tag can be added even to well-known facts simply because someone thinks providing a source will be useful for researchers. In that case the tag could remain any length of time until someone contributes a decent source. A statement is deleted if it is disputed and no-one is forthcoming with a source.

Anyway, I'll try to find a better solution to the issue and actually hunt down a slightly improved source from somewhere on the internet. I was really hoping we'd get a decent literary source for this... Fuzzypeg☻ 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done! GeorgeLouis 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

The Orphism (religion) article gives a differing creation myth than this one. - DNewhall 15:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that actually matter? Do you know how many contradictory creation myths Greek mythology just generally has hanging around? - Azurefox 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.176.142 (talk)

Well, if this article was reporting an alternative version of the myth, then it'd be fine, but from what I can see, this article is just plain garbled. Creating semele's body from Zagreus' heart? Where does that come from? And the order of events has been rather drawn out, with Zeus saving the heart and implanting it in Semele, and only then returning to blast the Titans. I'll try to fix it up a bit. Fuzzypeg★ 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's improved matters a bit. I've removed the contradiction template. Fuzzypeg★ 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

...three virtuous lives...

I found that hidden in chapter Orphic Zagreus:

unfounded: The Orphics believed in the transmigration of souls and that a person was able to remove their intrinsic evilness by living three virtuous lives. Afterwards, they would dwell in Elysium forever.

-- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed parapgraph

I removed the following paragraph...

In Orphic tradition, Persephone was the mother of Zagreus (Dionysus) by Zeus; in the Iliad, Persephone's consort Hades, king of the underworld, is called Zeus Katachthonios, "Underground Zeus". In Hesiod's Theogony and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Zeus granted that Hades could abduct Persephone, suggesting that their roles are sometimes interchangeable. Both Zeus and Poseidon were occasionally consorts of Demeter. "Underworld Zeus" is linked with Demeter by Hesiod. It is this that has generated some suggestions that Zagreus may be a son of Persephone with her husband Hades.

For a couple of reasons, besides being hard to read. For one, it mostly repeats, at greater length but less understandably, points about Zagreus's genealogy that have already been made. Second, it makes a synthetic claim (that "Zeus" means "Hades" in this context, if I understand it correctly) based on primary sources. Although it's not that much of a stretch here, making a synthetic claim based on primary sources is considered OR. Bacchiad (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Paul August ☎ 14:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Kereyi's book which is cited a few times and listed in the references goes into detail on this. It's been a while so I couldn't say where. It almost looks word for word like something in Kerenyi but I no longer have a copy. Czarnibog (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Zagros

Is the name of Zagros mountain range in Iran derived from this Zagreus? Aminabzz (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

They're actually not etymologicaly connected.

Wikifan153 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Zagreus is an Underworld Resident

I was hoping that Zagreus could be added to the "Residents" section of the Greek underworld Template. Seeing as he is believed to be a son of Hades it only makes sense that he was probably born in the Underworld, or at the very least spent some time there.

(161.29.246.205 (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC))

Zagreus in videogame Hades

I'm new to editing wiki pages so there may be some errors or confusion on my part. But I was wondering, out of curiosity, is there any particular reason an, "in popular culture" section hasn't been added to this article? --DeerSalad (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC) 05:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Everything in such a section would need to be covered by reliable sources, which establishes its relevance, significance and notability with respect to the article's subject. Paul August ☎ 20:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

What sort of sources would we be looking for, out of curiosity? Would, for example, an interview with the developers discussing the game character's connection to the mythical figure be sufficient, perhaps something establishing the general notability of the game (e.g. as having introduced the formerly highly obscure figure to a wider audience), or are we looking for something more professional/scholarly? I assume the problem here is less one of subject matter and more that previous attempts to add such a section have cited either nothing at all or the game's wiki and things like that. I Knew Him Horatio (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes some sort of scholarly source. That the character in the video game is connected to the Greek god Zagreus is not enough. And the notability, or significance of the game, or character is not the question. The question is whether the video game character has any particular relevance, significance, and notability with respect to the Greek god? And more importantly, are there any reliable scholarly sources which assert this? The mere existence of a character in some video game, or movie, or book, which is somehow based on the god, does not warrant its mention in the article. Paul August ☎ 01:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with Paul August. First of all, in regards to notability: Zagreus is the main and only playable character in the video games Hades. This game won many 2020 Game of the Year awards. It is very well known, and is most likely responsible for a massive uptick in searches for "Zagreus". And it is worth noting that the underlying Greek mythology is very central to the story and this character. A segment of the game even involves Zagreus and Dionysis planning to trick Orpheus into thinking they are the same person. Pretty relevant, and an interesting interpretation of the Orphic version of the story, eh? Secondly, now to address your requirement of "scholarly sources". How is that a requirement? And what does that mean? Traditional "scholarly sources" would not exist for a recent pop culture reference. I can find plenty of internet articles addressing the Greek mythology basis behind the video game character. But also, other Greek mythological characters have "in popular culture" sections, without sources, that are less notable. The Hades article itself has it's own "in popular culture" section which specifically mentions this very video game Hades. Paul, it appears that you are opposed to "in popular culture" sections in general, as they can often become lengthy lists of irrelevant and unnotable references. I generally agree with you. However, in this case, I think this video game reference is just so notable that it should be added. Perhaps as a paragraph describing how the game interpreted the mythology in developing the character, and stating similarities and differences? I dunno, I've just seen so many less notable popular culture references included in wikipedia articles, and it seems so warranted here. And in looking at the article history, you can see that a lot of well-intentioned people wanted to add it. Cougroyalty (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Quick edit to try to fix formatting. Doing this on my phone. Hopefully this work. Cougroyalty (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Here are some articles:

- About the accuracy of the Greek mythology portrayed in the game Hades: https://screenrant.com/hades-greek-mythology-real-story-explained-underworld-zagreus/
- Discussing why the game developers chose Zagreus as the main character: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/5/22315749/hades-theseus-worst-character-zagreus-supergiant
Could these be used as the 'required' sources? Cougroyalty (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these potential sources. I will take a look, when I get a change. The key here, is that all assertions made, anywhere in Wikipedia, need to be verifiable (see WP:VERIFY), that is there needs to be a reliable source (see WP:RS) which substantiates the assertion. Paul August ☎ 16:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, if, after you've read WP:RS, you think the above sources qualify, then it might be a good idea if you were to propose some text, cited to those sources, for discussion here, Thanks. Paul August ☎ 16:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed text:
Zagreus is not well represented in popular culture, partly because there are so few stories about him. In fact, this is why Supergiant Games chose to feature Zagreus as their main character in their 2020 video game Hades, as it allowed them more creative flexibility. In the game, Zagreus is the son of Hades and is attempting to escape the underworld, discover the identify of his mother (revealed to be Persephone), and to find her and learn why she left. The game even references the Orphic version of the Zagreus story, of Zagreus being a sort of previous version of Dionysus, by having Zagreus and Dionysus trick Orpheus into thinking they are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cougroyalty (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Thanks for proposing some text. I've taken a look at the sources provided. None of them are reliable sources with regard to Greek religion or mythology. They might be considered as reliable sources in the context of video games (if so then it could possibly be appropriate to add this conten to the article on the game), but I'm not in a position to able to judge that. Paul August ☎ 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that they are reliable sources in the context of video games and pop culture. Since that is the context on which I wish to add the proposed paragraph, then I feel that it is appropriate. I will go ahead and add it. Thanks for your feedback. Cougroyalty (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The context of this article is Greek mythology, so the sources provide are not reliable sources for this article. I'm going to remove your text until we can come to some consensus here. Paul August ☎ 15:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The mere existence of the video game character somehow based on the god, is not enough to warrant mentioning in this article. What is needed here are reliable sources, which establish this character's relevance, significance and notability with respect to the Greek god. The sources provided do not do that. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The following Greek & mythology related articles all have popular culture sections referencing video games: Greek mythology in popular culture, Hades in popular culture, Zeus, Ares in popular culture, Theseus, Megaera, Leonidas I, Cultural depictions of Medusa and Gorgons, Xerxes I, Minotaur, Valhalla. I admit that there is a lack of consistency as to how it is portrayed. I think I might try to seek some outside opinions.Cougroyalty (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC about adding In Popular Culture video game reference

(Prior discussion above at Talk:Zagreus/Archive 1#Zagreus in videogame Hades)
Should an "In Popular Culture" section be added to reference the video game character from the game Hades? Cougroyalty (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. For all the reasons I stated above. The video game Hades is very notable - it won many 2020 game of the year awards, and Zagreus is the main character. The game is faithful to the mythology and interprets the mythology in interesting and creative ways. For many people, this game will be many people's first exposure to Zagreus. Also, the proposed text as drafted is a paragraph with references instead of just a list, per MOS:POPCULT. Many other articles have similar "In Popular Culture" sections, often of worse quality, and this isn't trying to do anything different. Finally, I wanted to include a link to another article I found that discusses in depth how the game interprets Greek mythology in unique ways, which could be another good reference source: https://www.wired.com/story/hades-ancient-greek-masculinity-classics-representation/
  Cougroyalty (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As for "Many other articles have ...", see WP:OSE. Paul August ☎ 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting article that is somewhat inconclusive in this situation. The second sentence of the essay states: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." And then there is this section WP:OSE#Precedent in usage which leads with: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." And my position does not solely rest on this argument anyways. Cougroyalty (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll quote what I said above: "The mere existence of the video game character somehow based on the god, is not enough to warrant mentioning in this article. What is needed here are reliable sources, which establish this character's relevance, significance and notability with respect to the Greek god. The sources provided do not do that." Paul August ☎ 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know about this video game and whether it is notable, but I don't think that the line run above, i.e. that because this is a mythological topic, sources relating to mythology would be necessary to establish notability of the popular culture section. It would be right for the article on Cleopatra to include a reference to Elizabeth Taylor even if the only sources mentioning the performance and its significance were film studies sources. Furius (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree if all we needed to know was whether this video game character were notable in it's own right, then sources of the kind provided might be sufficient. But I think we need more than that, we need to know that it is notable with respect to the Greek god. For me, that would mean sources other than video game focused sources who think the character is important with respect to the god. Paul August ☎ 14:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that holds. In the Cleopatra example, it would be enough to have film studies sources saying "this representation of Cleopatra has been important for the cultural consciousness and/or the development of film" (in fact, film studies sources would probably be better evidence for that than classicists). Likewise, for this, video game sources saying that this representation has been significant for the wider cultural consciousness or for video games will do.

At any rate, the encyclopedia is editable. If a reference is added and after three years it turns out that this game was a flash in the pan and has been forgotten, then we can take the reference out. Furius (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support In addition to what Furius said, the video game is pretty unambiguously notable. It won multiple awards. Loki (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think that there are strong enough sources to support mentioning Hades, as in Zagreus is the protagonist of the 2020 video game Hades _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the sources seem strong enough to assert that "Zagreus is the protagonist of the 2020 video game". But not much, if anything, more. But if that is all that we can verifiably assert about this character then I don't think it warrants mention in this article. As I said above the mere existence of such a character is not enough. Paul August ☎ 14:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the widespread acclaim that the game received, I think we can probably come up with a due way to mention it. I disagree with the assertion made by Nyx86 below: Hades was widely acclaimed as one of the best games of 2020 and a standout in its genre, and as one of the only depictions of Zagreus in modern culture I think it bears mention. If we can find a scholarly source backing up the claim that Zagreus is obscure or rarely mentioned in fiction, I think we could have enough text to justify a popular culture section that mentions both Zagreus's relative obscurity and the fact that he is the protagonist of this game. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, Zagreus is covered in literature for thousands of years. The video game shall be forgotten in a few years.Nyx86 (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC) strike sock

Fairly presumptuous of you to state that the video game will be forgotten in a few years... But it sounds like you are making a notability argument, so I'll address that. I just wanted to add that within video game culture, Zagreus is VERY notable, entirely due to the game Hades. This game single-handedly thrust Zagreus into the public spotlight. Exponentially more people know about Zagreus now because of this game than ever did prior to the game. I'm willing to bet web searches for "Zagreus" and visits to this wikipedia page shot up astronomically after the release of this game. This game did more for bringing Zagreus to public awareness than thousands of years of literature ever did, and it only seems appropriate to recognize this. Cougroyalty (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of what you say above might be true in the short term, but please see WP:RECENT which discusses the importance of balance, historical perspective, and the long-term significance of content. However I would dispute your assertion that "Exponentially more people know about Zagreus now because of this game than ever did prior to the game". How many players of the game do you think there are? 10,000? 100,000? But surely there have been many millions of people who knew and worshiped this god, over a period of at least a thousand years, and add to that the many more who have read about, discussed, debated, and written about the god ever since. The earliest surviving mention of the god was circa 6th century BC (calling Zagreus the "highest of all gods"), but the god certainly had already been around for a long time before that. The dismemberment of Zagreus is often considered to be the most important myth of Orphism. He is associated an Orphic anthropogony, that is an Orphic account of the origin of human beings, involving notions of "original sin" and the doctrine of the divinity of humankind. The god has frequently been written about and discussed in connection with Christian theology, beginning at least as early as the 2nd century Christian writer Clement of Alexandria, through the early 4th century Christian apologists Arnobius and Firmicus Maternus, and continuing to the present day (see the raging modern debate concerning the Orphic anthropogony). Paul August ☎ 17:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is all great debate! I just wanted to add that the game Hades has sold over a million copies as of September 2020. Cougroyalty (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And hundreds of millions have learnt the classic Greek pantheon over two millennia.Nyx86 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC) strike sock

I'm slightly doubtful about that claim, and I suspect that a far smaller number will have heard of Zagreus. But pure numbers don't help either viewpoint very much. Andrew Dalby 14:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The section can be modeled into a "Cultural depictions" section in general. Additionally, notable coverage in one medium does not overrule notable coverage in another medium. Dege31 (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the points made by Paul August Sea Ane (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The sources proposed are good in the context of video games (that's the right criterion), and they show that the game makes serious reference to the Zagreus mythology. (Not sure if someone has already mentioned it: this YouTube piece looks potentially useful as a source.) Andrew Dalby 20:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Go to some fandom wiki if you want to add trivia. ~ HAL333 21:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The In Popular Culture section exists in many articles, doesn't it? RSSP-2020 ^(talk) 04:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support As Andrew Dalby points out, sources are sufficient to show Zagreus is the central character in a video game that meets notability, so this should be included. If anything, I'm puzzled at the opposition to its inclusion here; video games are a central part of popular culture, as are comic books, tv sitcoms, Internet memes, & other ephemera. (This reminds me of another conflict, where a now-banned editor refused to allow any reference to "V is for Vendetta" in Guy Fawkes despite himself providing proof that the movie was intended to refer to the Gunpowder plot. Too bad that discussion was somehow never included in the archives of that article.) We should not let snobbishness blind us to the obvious. -- llywrch (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised too. What's proposed would be notable, relevant and well sourced. I think that the opposition is a little bit overdone. (Just guessing ... please forgive me if this guess is wrong ... possibly there's a sense of "I don't like 'In popular culture' sections"? Well, if it comes to it, I don't generally like them either, I must admit: they are often poorly sourced and of low quality. But I think this proposal justifies itself.) Andrew Dalby 19:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support In accordance with the points made by and sources given by Cougroyalty. I'm fairly surprised that this section hasn't been added yet. RSSP-2020 ^(talk) 04:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Question for Andrew Dalby and Llywrch: So far, given the sources provided above, as far as I can see the only relevant verifiable assertion we can make so far is:

Zagreus is the protagonist of the 2020 video game Hades.

Do you think that is enough to warrant mention here? Perhaps with the addition of some verifiable statement concerning the popularity of the game? My overriding concern is that whatever we add be well sourced. I'm not opposed to popular culture mentions in general. But I do think we need something more than just mere existence. We should also be concerned per WP:RECENT that whatever we add here will have long term significance. Paul August ☎ 12:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Paul August, I'll begin by saying that I have never played a game like this. The video game I mean, not the Wikipedia game, but I only engage even in the latter when I am pretty sure it will help the encyclopedia. End of prologue.

We can surely say more than Paul suggests. It's clear from several sources cited above that the mythology of Zagreus was a significant influence on the makers of Hades. Their reworking of the character and story in the video game context is striking. It's notable in itself and worth detailing from secondary sources. The sample text, which Cougroyalty supplied far above at Paul's request, is a beginning.

"Recentism", if I may call it that, is the other issue that Paul raises here. Sim City (I take this example because I happen to know it) started in 1989, already claimed five million sales when Wikipedia was still a twinkle in the founder's eye, and is still limping on after thirty years. Will that happen to Hades? Which will be forgotten first, Sim City, Wikipedia or Hades? We don't know, do we? But if Hades has a million sales already, it has a shot at continuing notability. Let our Wikipedian children decide whether it still belongs in the article "Zagreus", thirty years from now [ Furius said "three years" above, but I'm betting on longer]. Andrew Dalby 14:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Hades seems to be a notable video game and a significant depiction of the god in popular culture, therefore it merits mention. Compare with the article on Zeus. Dege31 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support, based on its notability as pointed out by different editors above. Idealigic (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support in some fashion. I'm not typically a fan of most "in popular culture" trivia, but not only is the game very popular/respected in gaming, but it's dedicated to its source material. It's not just someone named Zagreus or an off-hand reference, and has led to no shortage of coverage of the relationship between the game and the mythology, or even commentary about how it says something about Greek culture. I don't know how long any such mention in the article should be, but this RfC seems primarily concerned whether it should be included at all... so, yes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Paul August, it looks like the discussion is trending toward adding it. At this point, would you be ok with adding the proposed text I included above? (I would include the additional references that were later noted.) I tried my best to follow WP:POPCULTURE, and I believe what I proposed better complies with the policy than simply stating: Zagreus is the protagonist of the 2020 video game Hades. Perhaps a different section name besides "In Popular Culture" would be more palatable, such as "Cultural Influence". Or are you still opposed to the idea and would like to continue to hear some other opinions? Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course I can't speak for the other opposing editors, but here's my view. There does seems to be considerable support for adding some mention about the video game character to the article. Whether there is enough support to declare a "rough consensus" is another matter, but I think it is at least close to that. As I've said above my overriding concern is that whatever we add be well sourced. (The other questions pertaining to balance, weight, notability, relevance, long term significance, etc. are more issues of editorial judgement, about which there can be considerable divergence of opinion. But my concerns here seem to be in the minority, so I will not continue to press them.)

As to what mention to add, unfortunately I don't see the above discussion as providing a lot of guidance. I think there are enough sources to support the following:

Zagreus is the protagonist of the 2020 video game Hades.

If someone adds that, I won't object. To add much more than that might require more sources and/or more discussion. Paul August ☎ 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a few quibbles with the exact phrasing of the "proposed text" above (I'd cut "Zagreus is poorly represented," "even", etc), but it strikes me as generally fine - I would expect anything much longer than that to go into the article on the video game. Furius (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, how about this New Proposed Text as a compromise:

In Popular Culture

Zagreus is the protagonist of the 2020 video game Hades. In the game, Zagreus is the son of Hades and is attempting to escape the underworld, discover the identify of his mother (revealed to be Persephone), and to find her and learn why she left.

References

I like the second sentence since it adds a bit more context, especially since the game creators had a few options to choose from as to how to interpret the myth and Zagreus's origin and parentage. Cougroyalty (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Furius (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the cited sources satisfy WP:RS and specifically mention the details given in the second sentence (I haven't checked either of these things!), then I won't object to that sentence either. But we should format all the cites more appropriately, bare urls are not good. Paul August ☎ 12:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are reliable sources in the video game world. I will slightly reword the second sentence to make sure everything stated specifically comes from the sources. I will try my best to format the cites correctly. Please help fix if I don't get it quite right. And Paul, I respect your expertise on the subject matter and can understand where you are coming from, and so I am glad we were able to have a civil debate and agree on a compromise. Thank you! Cougroyalty (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - The game is notable and Zagreus is the main character, not some random side-show. Other than the usual and tiresome opposition to including popular culture content to high-brow pages, I don't see why we wouldn't include it. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolution - We have reached an agreement to include the "In Popular Culture" reference in the form of the new abbreviated proposed text just above. I want to thank everyone for providing feedback and participating in this civil and constructive debate. This is my first time using a form of wikipedia dispute resolution, and it went better than I expected. I will go ahead and remove the Request for Comment tag. Hopefully I do it correctly. Thanks! Cougroyalty (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Updating

The following discussion was copied from User talk:Michael Aurel:

Re this edit, I haven't thought much about that article since I wrote most of it six years (or so) ago. In particular, since there was at that time an ongoing debate surrounding the sparagmos, the anthropogony and Orphism, I would not be surprised if an update of that part of the article was warranted. For example Meisner's book was unavailable at the time, and would be a very useful source. It's a very interesting subject, and I would encourage you take a look at our article with an eye to updating it as you think needed. Paul August ☎ 14:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Zagreus of course represents a very tricky and complex topic for an article, but I think the sentence However, when and to what extent there existed any Orphic tradition which included these elements is the subject of open debate essentially covers the debate of the last 20 or so years. The main possibility for expansion would probably be elaborating on this and presenting the views of a few of the more prominent scholars in recent times (such as Edmonds, Bernabé, and Brisson), and, as you say, implementing a few sources which have been written since your work at that article (e.g. Meisner, Chrysanthou, Heinrichs). I don't think there is anything at that page which is actually out of date in any way, mostly because your work there is a very faithful representation of the ancient sources, but there are probably places where older sources (e.g. Guthrie, Linforth) could be phased out a bit, and we could also add Bernabé's edition alongside Kern for the fragments. It is a very interesting subject, and it would make a good project. [...] Michael Aurel (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

End of copied text (with ping to Michael Aurel).

Paul August ☎ 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul August: Certainly a very interesting topic! Of course there wasn't anything in the article which actually needed "updating" as such, but I've added some more sourcing, particularly using more recent works on the subject. I think there are possibilities for expansion in the future, particularly in the section on the anthropogony; for example, we could include other references to humans being born from the Titans, and could also mention the (supposed) relation of the story to evidence such as the gold tablets, even if for no reason other than that scholars have argued rather vehemently over the matter. Another possibility would be to move some of the more significant pieces of interpretation from modern scholars out of their notes, and into the article's prose (or maybe even a separate section on modern interpretations of the story?).

I do have one question, which concerns the first sentence of the article. I think it might be best to try and reword it so that we can avoid the phrase "worshipped by the followers of Orphism", so as to make sure not to imply anything about the nature of Orphism. Would you be happy with reworking it to be "believed to have been worshipped by the followers of Orphism"? Or, a better solution might be to simply have "sometimes identified with the Orphic Dionysus, the son of Zeus and Persephone, ...", with a link to Orphism (religion) on the word "Orphic"? Any thoughts appreciated. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been following your good work here with considerable interest. Thanks for this.

As for expansion, that is always possible, but we also want to avoid adding too much detail and thereby obscuring the main points. For me the notes function as an appropriate place for this kind of secondary content. But a separate section could also serve this purpose. I would certainly welcome any text you might propose in this regard.

As for the first sentence I think your concern is completely justified. Both of your suggested replacements are improvements. I've used a tweaked version of your second one, what do think? Paul August ☎ 14:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence looks good. As to keeping those modern interpretations in notes, that might be the best idea; if we were to move some such content out, we would need to be very careful as to which viewpoints we gave weight to. A separate section (maybe "Modern interpretations" or "Modern scholarship") is a possibility (Meisner's section, "Modern Interpretations of the Zagreus Myth", could be a good starting point), though it might inevitably end up being duplicative of content covered higher up in the article.

I'm unsure whether a mention of the gold tablets would be justified here (I will leave that decision up to you). The "I am the son of Earth and starry Heaven" phrase is one passage brought up quite often, and has been viewed as a reference to the anthropogony; Meisner, p. 9 n. 33 cites 5 works (Detienne, Christopoulos, Bernabé and San Cristóbal, Bernabé 2011, and Graf and Johnston) which apparently suggest this interpretation (though I haven't checked them yet). If these sources do indeed take this view it might be worth mentioning (in the bottom paragraph of the anthropogony section possibly?), of course noting the perspective of those who disagree with this notion.

I think several passages referring to the creation (or descent) of humans from the Titans could possibly be mentioned somewhere. For example, Proclus refers to the "Titanic race, which [Orpheus] says Zeus formed from the limbs of the Titans" (Meisner, p. 269 has the full quote), and Damascius says that humans are created from the "from the fragments of the Titans" (quoted from Meisner, p. 249). Bernabé altogether collects 14(!) fragments which he sees as referring to this idea, though some are questionably related at best. (Others possibly worth mentioning are a passage from the Orphic Hymns and one from Dio Chrysostom.) These references may or may not be worth their own paragraph (I would happily write such a proposed paragraph if you think this is a good idea, or could otherwise provide any quotes). – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources Meisner cites, mentioning that phrase from the gold tablets might not be a good idea after all. Even though Meisner says that This is how Comparetti interpreted the statement “I am a child of Earth and starry Sky” in the gold tablets—“Earth” referring to the Titanic nature and “starry Sky” referring to the Dionysiac—and recent scholars have continued to suggest this interpretation, only two of the five recent sources (Bernabé and San Cristóbal, Bernabé 2011) actually seem to mention the passage. So while there seems to be at least one scholar (Bernabé) who takes this view in the modern day, I can't find anything convincing to suggest that there are others (except possibly San Cristóbal), and that probably isn't enough to warrant a mention here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul August: Just in case you missed this ;) (though of course I understand if you don't have the time to respond to this at the moment, I ended writing more than I had intended...) – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I did see these responses of yours; sorry for the slow reply.

• A section on modern interpretations might work, I would have to think more about that to be able to give an informed opinion.
• I agree that mentioning the gold tablets is probably not (yet?) warranted.
• As for including somewhere a mention of the Proclus and Damascius quotes which apparently refer to the anthropogony, that's probably a good idea. I would welcome any text you might care to produce.

To be of more help in all of this, I would really need to do some homework, in particular a careful read of Meisner, something in principle I'd very much like to do, but in practice ... who knows?

Paul August ☎ 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly fair enough. The easiest solution would be for me to put forward some text for consideration; I will hopefully do so sometime in the next few days. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

How would you feel about me adding this paragraph, maybe below the Plutarch passage? I've also included the passages from Dio Chrysostom and the Orphic Hymn to the Titans. You can make any changes if you would like.

Other sources have been taken as evidence for the anthropogony having been part of the story before Olympiodorus. The 5th-century AD Neoplatonist Proclus writes that, according to Orpheus, there were three races of humans, the last of which is the "Titanic race", which "Zeus formed [συστήσασθα] from the limbs of the Titans". Proclus also refers to the "mythical chastisement of the Titans and the generation of all mortal living beings out of them", connecting the punishment of the Titans with the birth of mankind. Damascius, after mentioning the Titans' "plot against Dionysus", recounts that "lightning-bolts, shackles, [and] descents into various lower regions" are the three punishments which it has been said the Titans suffered, and then states that humans are "created from the fragments of the Titans", and "their dead bodies" have "become men themselves". Passages from earlier sources have also been interpreted as referring to this idea: the 1st century AD writer Dio Chrysostom writes that humans are "of the blood of the Titans", while the Orphic Hymns call the Titans the "ancestors of our fathers".

– Michael Aurel (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

At first blush this all seems good (so feel free to add it if you want). But the more I read and think about all this (not just your proposed text, but also the rest of the article), the more questions I have. The more I learn the less I know. I hope to have more to say later. Paul August ☎ 15:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I will add it in for the moment, and we can modify or rewrite it in future if needs be. And "the more I learn the less I know" is how this topic can make you feel at times; I tend to find myself convinced by whichever scholar I have read most recently. I look forward to hearing what you have to say on the matter. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Concerning this sentence:

Proclus also refers to the "mythical chastisement of the Titans and the generation of all mortal living beings out of them", connecting the punishment of the Titans with the birth of mankind.

We need to make clear that Proclus' "mythical chastisement of the Titans" does not necessarily refer to the sparagmos, it might, for example, refer to the Titanomachy. See Edmunds 1999, p. 40 n. 14. Paul August ☎ 14:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC) P.S. Re whichever scholar I have read most recently, when considering Chrysanthou, we should also consider considering: BMCR 2021.03.13

Sure, it would be a good idea to state the absence of the dismemberment element in that passage, so as not to inadvertently imply its presence. What do you think of this change?

As to the possible merits or demerits of Chrysanthou's study, she makes some bold assertions in parts of her work, and some of her views could be considered controversial. On the topic of the Zagreus myth, she generally disagrees with Edmonds' views, and is quite indebted to those of Bernabe (though her stance is not as strong as his), and so Edmonds' review is of course negative. While there is no scholar in this area that could be considered "neutral", Meisner is probably close, and I think his review gives a fairer perspective on her work. Though we can't give too much weight to any one source of course. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Your change clarifies things quite well. I agree that Meisner seems to be the most "neutral" commentator here. Paul August ☎ 00:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

References