Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mysteries of Isis/archive1

Mysteries of Isis

 * Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Greco-Roman mystery initiations dedicated to an ancient Egyptian goddess may be little-known today, but they seem to be indirectly responsible for the vague pop-cultural impression that ancient Egyptian religion was something secretive and mystical. And what other religious tradition has to be studied by reading a bawdy novel about a man who's been turned into a donkey?

This has been a GA since 2016, but I only considered it comprehensive enough to nominate for FAC after incorporating some German-language sources, translated by User:Ermenrich. There's also a French-language source, translated for me by User:Iry-Hor; many thanks to them both. A. Parrot (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I would like to see more illustrations, more mentions of Serapis, and greater tie-in with the Egyptian Isis cult (no mention of Harpocrates?), both in the Roman and pre-Roman periods, including mention of the mystery cult's reimportation into Roman Egypt, an article not linked to anywhere here. Figure of Isis-Aphrodite MET DT6643.jpg The picture at right might be suitable, though more motherly representations are available ... Otherwise it looks a good article! Perhaps can advise on whether mentions of the Hermetic aspects of Isis-cult would be appropriate to mention in this context?  GPinkerton (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm quite ignorant about this stuff. I have a feeling A. Parrot know what they're writing about though. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 04:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but you seem to be under the impression that this article is about the Greco-Roman cult of Isis in general. That topic is covered at Isis, and the mysteries are only a particular set of rites that were performed at some of her cult centers. The sources don't seem to indicate that Serapis or Harpocrates played any role in the mysteries, and as the article says, it's not known whether the mysteries were ever performed in Egypt itself. As for illustrations, I'm not sure what would be appropriate to add. There are no ancient depictions of the mysteries, for obvious reasons, and the exact places where they were performed have not been identified. A. Parrot (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is some evidence of the Isis cult in Egypt being "mystified" by the influence of the reimported Greco-Roman cult, particularly in Late Antiquity, and especially when the ability to read and write hieroglyphic and demotic faded and became an antiquarian or esoteric concern. The worship of Isis happening not only in certain cult centres with mysteries is surely worth a mention, as are those features which distinguish the mystery cult's view of Isis from the more generalized cults of Isis in the empire and in Egypt itself. The Wiley Companion to Greco-Roman and Late Antique Egypt of 2019 has some mention of this. GPinkerton (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that source, but unless it says something different from the sources that I drew on to write this article, you still seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding. "Mystery" is used here in the original Greek sense, of a secretive initiation rite, as in the Eleusinian mysteries, not in the sense of general mysticism. That usage is consistent with the scholarly sources. While there were mystical tendencies in the Greco-Roman cult of Isis, the "mystery cult of Isis" was not a separate entity from the general worship of the goddess; mystery initiations were just a feature of some of her local temples in certain areas. The "Spread of the Isis cult" section addresses this point; is it not sufficiently clear? A. Parrot (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it correct that Isis cult or Cult of Isis could be a valid article topic since it is broader than this article? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It probably could, though the other aspects of the cult haven't been studied in as much detail as the mysteries. Such an article would run into problems of unclear scope when dealing with Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt—it's not clear how much of the Greco-Roman version of the cult filtered back into Isis's homeland or what relationship it had with the very traditional Egyptian temples that were still functioning at the time, and most sources don't even address the issue. A. Parrot (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I might be misremembering, but isn't there a Harpocrates shown in the frescoes at the Temple of Isis in Pompeii. Surely if the mysteries were performed there then Harpocrates should feature in the article somehow. Similarly, Osiris is mentioned at the head of the article, but not his Graeco-Roman adaptation, Serapis. This holy family would have been well-known to the initiates of Isis. GPinkerton (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They would have been known to all Isiacs, but that doesn't mean they were involved in the mystery rites, and the sources never assert that they were involved. Alvar actually points out (pp. 293–295) that there was a certain disjunction between the cult of Isis and that of Serapis, that we know less about the latter than the former, and that Serapis is only mentioned once in Apuleius's story and not in connection with the mysteries. I've added text to the article to clarify the distinction between the Isis cult in general and the mysteries in particular, and thus to clarify the scope of this article, but this FAC shouldn't be spent discussing subjects that are outside that scope. A. Parrot (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * At present the article states in a caption to the lead image: The death of Osiris was a prominent motif in the cult of Isis. .... the emphasis on Osiris and the afterlife found in the mysteries dedicated to Isis. Is Osiris here specifically not to be interpreted as Serapis? Was a distinction maintained in the mysteries? GPinkerton (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. Alvar downplays Serapis's relevance, but others disagree; I've added to the article to clarify. A. Parrot (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: GPinkerton cannot participate further in this review because he is currently blocked. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Images appear to be freely licensed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ffranc
Very fascinating article! I'll start reviewing and hopefully that can inspire more people to join in.

Comments on talk page: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mysteries of Isis/archive1

Everything looks great as far as I can see. Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives some false positives from sites that have copied from Wikipedia, as is to be expected from an article like this. I'll leave the prose review to native English speakers, I haven't done spot checks and I know little about image license tags beyond "clearly free". But I support on everything else, including sources (only found a few minor issues there and fixed them myself). Ffranc (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
This has been up for over three weeks now and has attracted little interest. If you can call in any favours from experienced reviewers I would suggest that you do so if the nomination is to avoid being archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm intending to review this. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod
Just a few things:
 * "The element of Greek mysteries that certainly did not exist in Egypt was the opportunity for ordinary individuals to undergo initiation" - one gets the impression that (perhaps unlike the Mithras mystery cult) the Isis mysteries were a rather posh affair - do the sources have anything to say about this?
 * Likewise on "gender balance".
 * I can't find anything on the demographics of initiation, unlike the demographics of Isis's priesthood. Bowden has a short section on "Who was initiated?", but it's mostly saying that our evidence is so sparse that we don't know.


 * Nothing about the "sacred knot" featured in both the statues illustrated (and here), which is often said to mark a devotee - or initiate?
 * Agh, I thought I had added something about it. Now I have, for real this time.


 * You should work Agape feast into the Xtian section i think - the usual term for Early Christian feasts.
 * I'm not sure; the sources on the mystery cults mention communion but not the agape feast.


 * The mysteries feature largely in Enemy of God (novel) by Bernard Cornwell, indeed a ceremony in Guinevere's Isis temple on the English South coast (c. 495) provides the climax. As usual he seems to research carefully, then riffs freely on that. Special "beds that were "forbidden to the laymen"" feature, as you might imagine.  At the least there should link here - well, i've added one.
 * Are you suggesting mentioning the novel here? If secondary sources don't bring it up, I'd prefer not to.


 * "the evidence about Mithraism suggests the process of joining it was less mystical and more intellectual" - "less mystical" ok, but perhaps wrongly, I don't associate Mithraism with anything very intellectual. It seems rather more like modern Freemasonry, with a strong military tinge.
 * This is Bøgh's characterization of Mithraic conversion, so perhaps it should be attributed to her, but Mithraism was riddled with abstruse symbolism that seems to have meant something to its participants. Bøgh cites Richard Gordon, one of the foremost scholars of Mithraism, who says on the pages she cites, "The attainment of wisdom was an object of particular ambition in fact. Although the details of this lore escape us, it must have it must have comprised an account of Mithras's achievements, perhaps newly allegorized for each grade; an account of the human condition and the urgency of escape in the spirit; and a mass of symbols and correspondences".


 * Was there nothing relevant in Renaissance/Early Modern Neoplatonism/Rosicrucianism & such like - it sounds just like their sort of thing?
 * Not that I can tell. I haven't found any discussion of the influence of The Golden Ass (the only source for the mysteries that would have been available in that era) before Terrasson's time, except the existence of an English translation by William Adlington in 1566. A. Parrot (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally seems pretty exhaustive, given how little we know. Some intriguing possible echoes of Minoan religion, about which we know a good deal less.
 * ok, Support Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil
Comments to follow Ceoil  (talk)}


 * Withdraw . I hope this isn't disruptive to anybody (causing Ceoil to waste effort, for example), but this article is now being criticized on the talk page by an editor who wants to strip it of its GA status. I consider these criticisms ill-founded and expect most experienced Wikipedians would agree, but between that and the breakdown that FAC seems to be having at the moment, it doesn't seem like the right time to continue this review. Hopefully these problems will prove to be temporary, and I expect to renominate at a more suitable time. A. Parrot (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd hang on in there if you can - you have two supports, & User:Ceoil won't be too long. I wouldn't worry about the talk page guy. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where "breakdown in FAC" is coming from but if you really want to withdraw then I'll honour that. For now I'll hold off to allow time for any reconsideration. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See the FAC talk page; hitting the template limit has become a chronic problem. I'd rather help figure out a way to prevent the swamping of FAC, and deal with whatever happens on the talk page, than drag this out. A. Parrot (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi A, Parrot. Can I echo Ian's comment. Obviously you can withdraw a nomination whenever you want, but can I strongly advise you not to. The GAN nonsense is best ignored. If the article does lose its GA status, I am sure that any of the reviewers above, or myself, would be happy to promptly assess a subsequent renomination. And withdrawing a FAC nomination in order to reduce the FAC queue seems "cart before horse" to me; a logical extension would see a prohibition of any nominations, which would permanently prevent any "swamping". 14 FACs have been removed in the past two days - promoted or archived. I personally have an active FAC older than this one, and am not withdrawing it. This is a fine article which seems to me to be not far from achieving a deserved FA status, so I would urge you to stick with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FFIW, I still intend, and look forward to reviewing. Ceoil  (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, you've coaxed me. I'll hold off, pending Ceoil's review. A. Parrot (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Source review is below. No spot checks carried out.


 * Adams 2013 — Link Egypt Exploration Society? Publisher location not given. Looks like this is a part of a series, and you could add the series information to the citation parameters.
 * Alvar 2008 — There are specific translator last/first and editor last/first parameters, may as well use those. Given that this is the Spanish edition, is it in Spanish? Publisher location not given—I'll stop noting these as it seems to be a recurring theme, but I recommend adding them throughout.
 * Assmann 2015 — If this is the German edition, is it in German? Also, this is available (with free registration) from archive.org. May as well add a link.
 * Bøgh 2015 — May as well link to History of Religions (journal). Page numbers missing.
 * Bommas 2005 — Should "von" be capitalized?
 * Bowden 2015 — Available with free registration via archive.org, may as well add the link.
 * Bremmer 2014 — Ditto.
 * Burkert 1987 — Ditto.
 * DuQuesne 2002 — I'd link to Jan Assmann and Martin Bommas again.
 * Frankfurter 1998 — Needs "url-access=registration" parameter.
 * Gasparini 2011 — Link to Numen (journal)
 * Griffiths 1970 — Available via archive.org. Worth giving Plutarch as the author?
 * Hanson 1989 — Worth giving Apuleius as the author?
 * Harrison 2002 — Pages missing. Inconsistently uses author's initials rather than full name.
 * Hornung 2001 — Needs "url-access=registration" parameter.
 * Keulen et al. 2015 — Ditto re Harrison's name. Also, I'd add the link to him again. In general, I would add duplicate links to authors/editors in the bibliography unless they are directly under another link; otherwise, it's not obvious that the person is linked somewhere else.
 * Lefkowitz 1997 — Needs "url-access=registration" parameter. Link Basic Books?
 * MacMullen 1981 — Available via archive.org.
 * Macpherson 2004 — Page range missing.
 * O'Rourke 2001 — Available via archive.org.
 * Pachis 2012 — Page range missing.
 * Quack 2002 — I'd link to Jan Assmann and Martin Bommas again.
 * Roth 2001 — Available via archive.org.
 * Teeter 2001 — Available via archive.org.
 * Teeter 2011 — Available via archive.org.
 * Tiradritti 2005 — Even if you don't want to add publisher locations generally, for this one in particular I would.
 * Turcan 1996 — Needs "url-access=registration" parameter. The link is to a 1996 English version, so why are you mentioning a 1989 French edition?
 * Versluys 2013 — Page range missing.
 * Veymiers 2018 — Ditto.
 * Veymiers 2020 — Ditto.
 * Assmann & Ebeling 2011 — Needs "url-access=registration" parameter. I'd again link Assmann.
 * Baltrušaitis — I'd add publisher location. Also should have some sort of identifying number, such as an LCCN and/or OCLC.
 * Bricault 2013 — Link Les Belles Lettres/add location?
 * Dunand 1975 — Should have some sort of identifying number, such as an LCCN and/or OCLC.
 * Kleibl 2009 — Add location?
 * In general, I suggest using the "name-list-style = amp" parameter for works with multiple authors or editors. Your call though.
 * N.B. There are a number of double spaces in both the bibliography and the body of the article.
 * Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

, see above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'm not sure linking books to archives is required or desirable. Ceoil  (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I didn't say it was required. But how could it not be considered desirable? The guideline on this point instructs that "A citation ideally includes a link or ID number to help editors locate the source." And there is no better way "to help editors locate the source" than to link directly to a free copy of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added the page ranges, URLs, OCLCs, and additional links. The notes about foreign-language editions are meant to indicate the date of the original edition, in keeping with the documentation for the origyear parameter, which says to supply specifics. E.g., Alvar 2008 was published in 2008, but the Spanish version on which it is based was published in 2001. Location of publication isn't required, I've never used it, and it seems a really outdated way to even think about publication (my serious writing as a Wikipedian began by using a book whose ostensible location is probably London but was actually printed in Singapore). A. Parrot (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil

 * a fiery light and a shout from - "a fiery light", "shout"?
 * frenzy at night isn't very clear.
 * I've tried to clarify both of these passages; see what you think. Part of the problem with the passage about Eleusis is that the climax of the mysteries is so ambiguous that it's hard to talk about without going on a tangent. Also, while I specified what the hierophant shouted, the sources irritatingly don't explain that Ploutos is the son of Persephone (or of Demeter). Should I say so anyway?


 * I think you give too much coverage to Terrasson
 * If these are classical elements, why haven't we heard of them earlier: running over hot metal bars for fire, swimming a canal for water, and swinging through the air over a pit. These statements end a para and beg the question: why not please give us more of this. In fact, the lead could be enlived considerably by detailing or suggesting such trials.
 * I don't understand these points. Much of the influence of the mysteries runs through Terrasson, and I'm not sure what would make sense to cut. The trials were Terrasson's invention based on the ambiguous passage in Apuleius, so giving them more emphasis would mean giving Terrasson more coverage, not less.


 * One of them, Moses, learned this truth - "truth" seems to be mixing ancient belief and historical voice.
 * Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Have made some trivial c/e's mostly detailed in edit summaries, pls feel free to revert
 * Excellent use of sources, and the page reads great overall, a non specialist like me was easily able to get their bearings and understand form nearly every point. Support on prose and sources.  Ceoil  (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from SN54129
Support this article's promotion per User:Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena. It is a nuanced treatment of a niche area that makes a solid contribution to the canon. —— Serial  17:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)