Talk:Orphism

ISBN

I added almost all the missing ISBNs. Should I do something more? Also, could I delete the note below?:

Thanks! EVDiam (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Why is the article "Orphicism", a word I have never heard before, if "Orphism" is the more usual term? Maestlin 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ophicism" is an older, now out-of-date name for Orphism. Thank you, to whoever changed the title of this article to Orphism (religion). Isokrates 04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

dates

I can't see how this makes sense: Its historical roots have been traced back to the 6th century BC. Though distinctively Orphic views and practices are attested as early as Herodotus, Euripides, (5th century BC) and Plato, most of the sources to the teachings and practices of Orphism are late and ambiguous, and some scholars have claimed that Orphism is in fact a construction of a later date. However the recently discovered Derveni papyrus allows Orphic mythology to be dated back to the 4th century BC, and it is probably even older. Other inscriptions found in various parts of the Greek world testify to the early existence of a movement with the same core beliefs that were later associated with the name of Orphism.--2514 07:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Derveni papyrus, though actually written in "probably the last quarter" of the fourth century BCE (Parker, "Early Orphism", p. 488), is a commentary on an Oprhic poem that scholars believe was written around 500BCE. (M.L. West in The Orphic Poems (Oxford, 1983) fixes circa 500 BCE as the date of the Orphic poem that is the subject of the Derveni papyrus commentary (West cited in Parker p. 509 n. 87); and Richard Janko puts it at "about 550-500BCE" ("Socrates the Freethinker" in A Companion to Socrates, eds. Ahbel-Rappe & Kamtekar 2006, p. 49).) According to Kirk, Raven, & Schofield, the Derveni papyrus puts "the Orphic theogony . . . into the fifth century B.C., conceivably even into the sixth. A few of the quoted verses [sc., quoted by the commentator who authored the papyrus] are identical or nearly so with bits of the later compilation, the so-called Orphic Rhapsodies. . . . That does not alter the fact that much of the Rhapsodies is Hellenistic or Graeco-Roman, but it shows that the beginnings of beliefs that can be termed specifically Orphic, and were recorded in sacred verses, were much earlier than [the Hellenistic period]" (The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1983, 2nd edition), pp. 30-31). This all suggests that a distinctively Orphic religion probably existed as early as the sixth century B.C.Isokrates 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Gem

Hey I'm not the one who removed the image that was just restored. However if we were to vote or debate about it, I'd say remove it because not only is it of dubious authenticity, it is very singular and...rather atypical. Not representative of pre-Christian Orphism. Of all the images this article needs that's not one of them. It's currently just some dumb ass atypical image in an otherwise imageless article. Lisa the Sociopath 05:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're keeping it in the article, it should be in some kind of context. If, say, a reliable source has argued that it's evidence of an Orphic crucifixion myth, we could note that in the main text. As the article stands, it's not clear what the reader is supposed to infer about Orphism from the image. EALacey 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I was probably being a bit hasty adding it back, but I figured it was a really interesting item, and it shouldn't just disappear with no more trace than a brief edit comment about "dubious authenticity". I've done a teeny bit of googling on the item, and it clearly predates the 20th century. I haven't figured out what "dubious authenticity" is supposed to mean yet. If it means "almost certainly a modern fake" then it doesn't belong here unless it generated notable debate about connections between Orphism and Christianity. If it merely means "its dating to Late Antiquity is unprovable" then there's a strong case for it remaining in the article in some respect, possibly to illustrate a section about cross-pollination between Orphism and Christianity. We could whip such a section together pretty quickly, I would guess, considering the well-known similarities between Dionysus (the "True Vine", the "Alpha and Omega", etc.) and Jesus. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Enlighten me because I cannot find a crucifixion of Orpheus mentioned in ancient sources. Orpheus was torn apart by wild Maenads. Dionysos in the mysteries was torn apart by the Titans. I'm removing the singular dubious image pending new sources. Why not start an article about the object? Lisa the Sociopath 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! I knew there were a number of strong parallels between Dionysus and Jesus, but I didn't realise there was any hint that crucifixion might be one of those parallels. It wouldn't be that surprising to me though if the two dying and resurrected gods were syncretised in late antiquity. If you want to yank the image out for the mo that's fine. I was hoping EALacey could explain more about why its authenticity is dubious, but hey, he's probably as busy as I am. I might get round to reading up on the gem and discover a bit more. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read the comment above you? 69.254.76.77 (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be disappointing, but all I know about the amulet is what W. K. C. Guthrie says in Orpheus and Greek Religion (2nd edition, 1952). In his main text (apparently unchanged since the 1st edition) he dates it to the 3rd or 4th century AD and says it "has usually been supposed to be the work of some Gnostic sect exhibiting a syncretism of Orphic and Christian ideas" (p. 265). He then cites an alternative suggestion by Eisler that there was a myth of Dionysus' crucifixion independent of Christianity, but is unconvinced (he refers to Justin Martyr, Apology 1.55, who states that no pagan god was crucified). In a supplement to the second edition (p. 278), he writes: "In his review of this book in Gnomon, 1935, 476, Kern [author of the then standard collection of Orphic fragments, which was one of the sources Guthrie cited for the amulet] recants and expresses himself convinced by the expert opinion of J. Reil and R. Zahn (Ἄγγελος, Arch. f. neutest. Zeitgesch. und Kulturkunde, 1926, 62 ff.) that the ΟΡΦΕΟΣ ΒΑΚΚΙΚΟΣ gem is a forgery." I can't follow up these references as I don't read German. I also don't know whether any more recent scholarship has discussed the artifact in the context of Orphism. Unless some can be found, I'd favour leaving it off this page, although an Orpheus amulet article written by someone who'd read the German articles would be interesting. EALacey 10:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Yep, leave it off this page for now. I'd love to follow this up, but I don't know when I can. At least it'll be in the talk page archives now. I really appreciate that. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a 2009 article here with a completely new theory. It was mentioned in the discussion at FreeRatio. The theory itself seems quite intriguing, but more important is the fact that the article lists all the major literature on the Orpheos Bakkikos, pros and cons. It's noteworthy that the scholars, who initially doubted the stone's authenticity, based their arguments on totally pseudoscientific premises. The article mentions an archeologist named Mastrocinque, who refuted all of these arguments and also presented more stones with the same inscription. Later scholars, who argued against the stone's authenticity (like Spier) were only epigones of Zahn & Reil. Mastrocinque hasn't yet been refuted, and the majority of original publications actually points to the stone's authenticity, e.g. Hinz & Neumann, who draw the same connection to the so-called Iobakchoi (??) as the new article. 85.179.133.207 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've skimmed over that pdf. I can't find the guy's name who wrote it anywhere so it might as well be Wikipedia:No original research Also, while he mentions that Mastrocinque hasn't been refuted, I don't remember him giving examples but I could be wrong. Anyway, I'm not sure what anyone is trying to argue here. If it's authentic, then it seems to date around the second or third century. Big whoop. I don't understand how Christianity is argued to be the religion that stole EVERYTHING but had nothing stolen from it by someone else. But really, just think about it. Out of any ideas to be borrowed would the Christians really borrow being crucified? Would they really want God to be killed in the most disgraceful way? That's like saying if Jesus was shot with an arrow, someone said they stole the idea from some Greek god who got shot with an arrow. Crucifixition isn't something mythical that happens. It's just something very real that happened to a lot of people. I'm pretty sure if there's one historical fact that everyone agrees on about Jesus, it's the crucifxition. IMO, the stone looks like a forgery. The art that it was compared to was pretty bad. This looks too three dimensional to have been made back then. Also, where is the story about this person being crucified in the first place? That pdf points out that Justin Matyr even says that no other pagan god had been crucified.69.254.76.77 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I looked into it more. Eisler was quoted as saying that Lycurgus was crucified by Dionysus himself. This is true but irrelevant to the stone. Lycurgus was an enemy of Dionysus anyway. Also, there were so many various ways of being crucified, that saying someone was crucified doesn't instantly mean a T shape. IMO, Dionysus did it after a battle so I'd imagine it would be a straight pole. Pentheus was mentioned next but his page says "Dionysus then lured Pentheus out to spy on the bacchic rites. The daughters of Cadmus saw him in a tree and thought him to be a wild animal. Pentheus was pulled down and torn limb from limb by them (sparagmos), causing them to be exiled from Thebes." Anyway that's the best you're going to get. Nothing else is spoken of in any written sources and the contrary is given, again, by Justin Martyr. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a quote from Freke. I can't verify (make that I don't feel like it) that it came from Secular Web's discussion board, because I'm not going in there. You can verify it yourself if you want. If it's not there, let me know and I'll recant myself. "Our thesis certainly doesn't rest on [the amulet] in any way. (It is after all from the 3rd century CE if the dating is right, which we have not challenged)." *sigh* This reminds me of Gilbert Gottfried on the Bob Saget Roast that came on last night. He kept saying how Bob Saget was accused of having "...raped a girl in the 90's." He kept saying it over and over but he didn't believe the accusations. The joke was that he kept repeating the idea, even that it was untrue so that people would have the idea in their heads that he really did commit rape. By Freke putting that rock on the cover of his book, that he admits was created long after Jesus was crucified, he did the same thing. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Coming at this a few years late, but shouldn't all this be included in the article? Whether Orphism inspired Christianity or Christianity inspired late Orphism, both would be interesting information and an example of how religions borrowed from each other in the first few centuries AD. The response to an image of a crucified Orpheus would only be "so what it postdates Christ, leave it out" if the editor has something to prove. 2600:1002:B012:4D2:3EAE:1DC6:4F5B:304C (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Recently deleted from references

• Antonio Virgili Culti misterici ed orientali a Pompei (Rome: Gangemi) 2008. This was deleted as "spam". Perhaps this was an error. Or a joke. --Wetman (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a joke. Multiple IP addresses (79.3.187.138, 82.51.81.254, 82.51.131.93, 82.51.174.107, 82.55.142.98, 82.55.146.87, 82.55.149.203, 89.97.190.82) have been editing exclusively to add references to Antonio Virgili's works to numerous articles: Demographic transition, Dionysian Mysteries, Dionysus, Eleusinian Mysteries, Heraldry, Jewish Emancipation, Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic), Knights Hospitaller‎, Mother goddess, Mystery cult‎, Myth and ritual, Mythology‎, Øresund, Orgy‎, Orphism (religion), Polytheism, Religion in ancient Greece, Religion in ancient Rome, Religious symbolism, Sociology of religion, Villa of the Mysteries, and possibly more that have escaped my notice. It's possible that Antonio Virgili's works really ought to be recommended as further reading on all these topics, but if so that decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, and not by someone whose aim is clearly promotional. EALacey (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. There was more to this than met my eye. I don't suppose anyone has looked at the book in question.... --Wetman (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

quotations and translations

An editor deleted footnotes identifying the source of quotations because they referred to the original Greek tablets, and did not identify the source of the translation. Although certainly the source of the English translation has to be noted, deleting the tablets on which the translations are based only compounds the problem, because it makes it harder for an editor to find the missing info. I have a copy of Graf and Johnston's Ritual Texts for the Afterlife that I've been meaning to dig into, and will try to provide the needed citations. In the meantime, I think we all know that the Orphic tablets were written in Greek, but that we work in English and don't provide untranslated Greek on Wikipedia. So please leave the identification of the source documents in place. I've added (unconventionally, I admit) a "citation needed" within the two relevant footnotes. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphic tablets and the Luperci

In G. Colli's work La sapienza greca Milano 1977 I found two lamellae from Thurii that read:

1. F 32 f K

...theos egenoy ex anthroopoy, eriphos es gala epetes. you have become god from man, lamb you fell into milk.

2. F 32 c K

...eriphos es gala epeton. lamb you fell into milk.

Now this is parallel to the final ritual of the Lupercalia in which the leaders of the two teams, young noblemen of the Fabii and Quinctii gentes, had their forehead passed upon with a bloody knife and then cleaned with a woolen flock wet in milk. Mannhardt Mythol. Forschungen pp. 74-75 and 99.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

References

This article is of very high interest as far as the topic is concerned but unfortunately the content is not referenced. There may be many dubious points i.e. very debated among scholars. Main contributors: Lobeck, Rohde, Guthrie, Macchioro, Colli.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Herikapaios Phanes and/or Dionysus: interesting that he is the first god. The word may mean god of springtime but also torn apieces from ereikoo.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

challenge

I'd like to ask the people who are so exercised over Thracian v. Greek v. "Hellenistic" exactly what we gain if we established beyond any doubt the precise time and place that "Orphism" (a modern misnomer) began. What would this tell us about the belief system(s) and its influences on the cultures in which it existed? This is a very unsophisticated and uninteresting line of inquiry, and I wonder whether those who spend time on it couldn't produce something more profitable by reading the vast amount of material available on this complex of beliefs and giving us the benefit of summarizing it in the article (inadequate article, as has been pointed out above). It's like saying if we know the scientific etymology of the theonym Apollo, well then, our work is done, and we know all we need to know about why Apollo was such an important deity in Greek and Roman religion and in the mythological tradition of Western Europe. Sorry, just my rant for a snowed-in day before the coffee kicked in. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a far more lucid and less grumpy rant than the one I'd prepared after no less than three coffees. Its a serious point. I'm rather losing patience with cleaning up the fallout of this insistent Thracian non-issue. The lead para now looks like it's been hit by citation-grapeshot. No need for it. Haploidavey (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Further to this: the lede or introductory section of any article should summarise the article content. If the Thracian business were relevant to an understanding of the topic, it would be addressed in the article itself; and that's where any citations would belong. Haploidavey (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orphism (religion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324164259/http://greekandlatin.osu.edu/people/person.cfm?ID=81 to http://greekandlatin.osu.edu/people/person.cfm?ID=81

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A separate article on Orphic literature

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

[To user Paul August:] To get your opinion on this, would you agree that an article on Orphic literature would be a good idea? I think it represents a sufficiently distinct topic from Orphism (religion) to justify a separate article, and I am dissatisfied with the current section at our page there, particularly because the word "religion" in brackets in the title seems to imply the notion that the theogonies are the "texts of the 'Orphic religion'", or something to this effect (a largely outdated view), though moving the page to just "Orphism" might also solve this issue? – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, a separate article on Orphic literature would be warranted, if for no other reason than to distinguish that topic from "Orphism" as a religion or whatever else it might be or have been. As for the disambiguator "religion", I agree it is misleading, but I can't think of a better one. So I would be in favor of moving it to just "Orphism", but given Orphism (art), we would have to have a convincing argument that this Orphism is the primary topic first. Otherwise I think we may be stuck we Orphism (religion). Paul August ☎ 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would assume that Orphism constitutes the primary topic, though I can't claim to know a whole lot about modern art, and those who do might disagree, so accepting the current title is probably the easiest solution. I'm glad you think a page on Orphic literature is a good idea; it will be a big project, but it will hopefully fill a noticeable gap in our coverage here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Paul August ☎ 14:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think a page on Orphic literature makes sense. West's book, The Orphic poems, certainly suggests there's more than enough material for a standalone article, especially factoring in other literature such as the Orphic Argonautica and the Derveni papyrus.

I'd also support a renaming of this page in addition to a separate literature page, I think the total page traffic difference alone suggests this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it seems somewhat "common sense" to me that the term "Orphism" should primarily refer to the movement named after Orpheus that was from the same time period as Orpheus. Perhaps if there are strong feelings otherwise we could rename both pages, to Orphism (ancient) and Orphism (modern)? This would also get around the issue of taking a stand on what exactly Orphism *is.* - car chasm (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear that there is support for a page on Orphic literature; in addition to West's book, more recent treatments of the subject by Bernabé, Brisson, Meisner, and others give strong grounds for an article, and there would be quite a bit to cover. With regards to this page, I think "Orphism" is probably the ideal if there were to be a consensus for that, as (to quote one review) "Orphic studies is a heated battleground in which scholars neither agree on what Orphism is nor on whether it is a valid category at all"; as you say, the pageviews are certainly compelling, and this Orphism would also have greater long-term significance than the art movement. "Orphism (ancient)" might also be a possibility, though (it is an improvement over the current title at least). – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I've done a bit of refactoring of this article so that it's easier to expand the literature material and possibly WP:SPINOUT an article on Orphic literature from this one once enough content on literature has been added that it dominates the rest of the article, please let me know if you have any concerns with that approach! - car chasm (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Those changes all look good. To be honest, this article probably needs to be rewritten, either by an expert in the subject (if we have any), or an otherwise brave soul; there are some immediate issues which wouldn't be too difficult to address, but questions as to what content should be included (and what would be better at Orphic literature or Orpheus), how to structure the article, and how much weight should be given to different scholarly viewpoints are all broader problems which would probably benefit from discussion amongst a group of editors. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

---

• Orphism (religion) → Orphism
• Orphism → Orphism (disambiguation)

– This page is the primary topic, by both measures at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and those at WP:DPT). This Orphism clearly far outstrips the art movement in terms of long-term significance. The pageviews indicate that, over the last year, this page on average received between four and five times the monthly views of Orphism (art), and WikiNav indicates it received twice the number of hits from the dab page last month. Furthermore, in Google Books and Google Scholar searches almost all results are for this Orphism, with only the odd result being for the art movement.

With respect to the current disambiguator, the idea that Orphism can be summed up, in a word, as a "religion", is, to put it lightly, very out of date (probably by about 100 or 150 years). Nor, in the modern conception of "Orphism", is there really any clear or meaningful definition which can be ascribed to the word. In M. L. West's words (The Orphic Poems, p. 3): As for 'Orphism', the only definite meaning that can be given to the term is 'the fashion for claiming Orpheus as an authority'. (Note that the view of Orphism presented in the current article is itself pretty out of date.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support, yes of course. Paul August ☎ 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Theparties (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support, on the grounds that this is the primary topic, and because the art movement can readily be found via a hatnote, although I note that as this is a topic relating to ancient Greek religious beliefs, philosophies, and practices, the disambiguator "religion" is fine. It's simply not necessary, since between the two alternatives, this topic is much more likely to be the one searched for. P Aculeius (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  While the disambiguator "religion" might be ok as far as disambiguation goes, it is, as Michael points out, very misleading, since it tends to perpetuate a misnomer. Paul August ☎ 13:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Ifly6 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definition

The article's current definition of Orphism is:

Orphism is the name given to a set of religious beliefs and practices originating in the ancient Greek and Hellenistic world, associated with literature ascribed to the mythical poet Orpheus

This statement seems mostly in accordance with how recent scholarship (or at least reasonably recent scholarship) has viewed Orphic matters; there were rites and cult practices attributed to Orpheus, and these were probably associated with some literature which had the same attribution. However, I'm not really sure that this is a definition of Orphism itself. The manner in which Meisner uses the word seems in line with common usage to me (p. 5):

In this study, the word “Orphism” usually refers to a religious sect that, whether or not it actually existed, was misrepresented by earlier generations of modern scholars, and the word “Orphic” refers to either rituals or texts whose origin or authorship was for some reason ascribed to Orpheus. The word “Orphic” might also refer to an individual or group who used these texts and rituals, or to the anonymous author of an Orphic poem, but this does not necessarily imply membership in a sect called “Orphism.”

That is, the term "Orphism" refers to a theorised cult (or, in older scholarship, religion), the existence of which was considered certain in scholarship around the beginning of the 20th century; since then, whether or not such a sect existed, its nature, and what the extant evidence might point to in place of such a cult, have all been in debate. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and ...? I would agree, in accord with Meisner, that the first definition isn't quite right. But I'm not sure what exactly should be done with it. Quoting you above: this article probably needs to be rewritten, either by an expert in the subject (if we have any), or an otherwise brave soul, and I'm neither particularly expert or brave. You, on the other hand, are probably our current "expert" and brave to boot, so, you know, go to. Other less expert and brave editors like me, will always be here to criticize and correct ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm not sure what exactly should be done with it sums up my thoughts towards this page – but you've put me on the spot with the kind words, so I'd better think of something somewhat clever to say about how the page should be improved. ;)

Seeing as we have (or will have) separate pages on Orpheus and Orphic literature, I think the best idea for this page would be to frame the discussion more around the scholarship on the topic (more of a "we can't say what Orphism is, but what people have said Orphism is" attitude). As such, I think having a "Scholarship" section which goes over the debate on the topic – from at least as early as the Renaissance – would make sense (though the section could begin perhaps from late antiquity). Some form of "Definition" section would probably also be sensible, framing the discussion between opposing viewpoints, and presenting a few "definitions" which have been put forward by different scholars (eg. Edmonds' definition, perhaps West's).

As to the rest of the page, my best guess would be a structure similar to Edmonds' book, dividing the content between "Doctrines and rites" and "Orphic literature" sections, the latter of which would discuss the degree to which such texts might have been used in ritual. The other approach would be to structure the page by the known pieces of evidence, similarly to Chrysanthou (whose structure is: Zagreus myth, gold tablets, papyri, Rhapsodies); once you start listing things, though, you never end...

This also leads me to wonder whether we should have a separate article on the Orphic gold tablets. The current page is titled "Totenpass" (the German term), though I'm not sure I've come across it before, and it appears to be fairly rare (, ). – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Orpheus or Ophism, though this does seem like an interesting topic I'd like to learn more about. Obviously, as Wikipedia is meant to discuss what other people have discussed, something like a "Definition" or "Scholarship" section detailing what scholars, academics, and experts on the subject is required. To show what the experts believe Orphism is. If somewhere in there, we also have sources and descriptions in the article detailing what people during the archaic to Roman eras believed Orphism was about, that would also be great.

Moving a bit further along, even if a separate "Orphic literature" page is created or individual texts get their own pages - like Orphic Argonautica - having a section detailing them here to some extent would also be helpful. Same goes for things like initiation rites, rituals, and beliefs. As for Chrysantou, I'm not sure I understand what the suggestion is. :/ If the page follows his example, how would this article be structured @Michael Aurel:? PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: In Chrysanthou's book, each chapter discusses an important group of evidence related to Orphism; in order, she discusses the Zagreus myth, the gold lamellae, the Derveni Papyrus and the Gurôb Papyrus, and the Rhapsodic Theogony. So we could theoretically have a section on each of these (or other such pieces of evidence), rather than splitting things in the way Edmonds does. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll admit, it's kinda difficult to figure out how the article should look when it's not as if I have two separate examples in front of me to choose from. If Chrysanthou covers these things, of course they should be included here. But structuring the article solely based on evidence we have on Orphism, without sections like "Definition" or "Rites" doesn't seem that great of an idea. Based on some of the things you mention about her book, the Derveni Papyrus, the Gurôb Papyrus, and the Rhapsodic Theogony are all texts that could simply fall under the "Orphic literature" section, right? As for the Totenpass, it could be its own section, while the Zagreus myth falls under a section discussing Orphic mythology; which could be part of a larger section of "Mythology/Beliefs and rites".

But then again, I'm just some rando. I barely know anything about Orphism, and I haven't read either Chrysanthou or Edmonds. It's up to you @Michael Aurel: to decide how to move forward. The best I can offer is a constructive criticism and/or copyediting of a finished product; if you'd like that. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure. The general approach, if we were to follow Edmonds' structure, would be to bring up certain texts in accordance with their relevance to each section. So, to give a few examples, the gold tablets would probably be discussed only in the "Doctrines and rites" section (as that's where they're relevant), while the Rhapsodies would be discussed in the "Orphic literature" section, and the Orphic Argonautica wouldn't be mentioned at all, except perhaps very briefly (as it has no real relevance to a general discussion of Orphism).

As to actually rewriting the page, I wouldn't say I'm necessarily volunteering to do so (at least not at the moment), but my comment above hopefully gives at least a few pointers on how one might approach that task. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

---

• Orphism → Orphism (religion)Orphism (religion)
• Orphism (disambiguation) → Orphism

– While this page receives 2.8 times as many pageviews as Orphism (art), there is no clear primary topic evident from search-engine results. It is possible that some readers are being misdirected to this page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom, good idea, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Over the last year, this page received roughly five and a half times as many pageviews as Orphism (art). (This is considerably higher than the nominator's estimate because pageviews to the redirect Orphism (religion) weren't taken into account.) Given that people have been writing about and debating this Orphism for a few thousand years, and that they show no signs of stopping anytime soon – I can think of at least two full-length books which have been, or will be, published on the subject this year, one of which is a Loeb tome – I think that this Orphism is fairly clearly primary with respect to WP:LTS.

Regarding the claim that It is possible that some readers are being misdirected to this page, WikiNav indicates that this isn't happening on any meaningful scale: only 2.7% of this page's outgoing pageviews are to Orphism (art), with nine other pages receiving a greater number of outgoing pageviews. This would suggest that the vast majority of readers are being sent to the right place. As to there is no clear primary topic evident from search-engine results, WP:DPT states that: Simple web searches will be problematic due to limited sources, open interpretation, and personal search bias (it notes that they can be of value in cases where other indicators are inconclusive, but in this instance they aren't). The most important measure is usage in reliable sources (as WP:DPT says). At least for me, 27 of the first 29 Google Books results pertain to the ancient Orphism (I wasn't able to access one of the first 30), as do 29 of the first 30 Google Scholar results.

Furthermore, the disambiguator "religion" is really quite misleading. One must go back to about the 1930s to find a time when Orphism was widely considered a full-blown religion. Since then, there has been a huge amount of debate about what Orphism might have been, and indeed whether something coherent called "Orphism" can really be said to have existed at all. Plenty of modern approaches to Orphism, for example, have treated it as a literary tradition more than anything. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: For all the reasons stated above by Dimadick and also Michael Aurel, who first proposed the change last year. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Seems clearly primary, both from notoriety and long term significance. Paul August ☎ 11:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the longterm significance criterion. The religion has a far older history. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons explained by Michael Aurel above. The two topics do not appear comparable in terms of their claims to be primary. P Aculeius (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose For the page view reasons stated above Virginia Heart (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as explained above, including in the nomination comment itself. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.