Talk:Caloyers

message: Is the info on this page up to date? The main source appears to be some sixteenth or seventeenth century geezer. Possibly times have now changed? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Up to date?

message: Since I haven't heard anything in reply to the above, and since I might still be faulted for not providing adequate sources for my comments, I wish to add the following:
The issue addressed in Proof 1 is the nature of the 'rule' in Orthodox monasticism.  While there was a early canon of the Church which required that every monastery have a rule, historically that was never applied in the East.  Hence, thinking about Eastern Orthodox Monasticism in terms of a Rule of St Basil is a 'category error'.  There were in the East, however, foundation documents for individual monasteries, which foundation documents took the place of a rule and which applied only to one foundation, the one specified by the document.  A rule for an individual house was called the monastic typikon, and had the nature of the constitution of the house.  Because of the nature of the law of inheritance in the Byzantine Empire, the founder of a house often used the form of a testament to govern his foundation after his death, rather than the form of the monastic typikon.  The following reference is to a collection of all the surviving monastic typika (plural of typikon) from the Byzantine Empire, together with the other foundation documents.  It should be clear to anyone who reads these typika that my remark in Proof 1 is correct that the statement in the Caloyers article that '[t]hey are of the order of St. Basil, and consider it to be a sin to follow any other order than his,' is justifiably to be called nonsense.  Here is the reference:
Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents.  A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founder's Typika and Testaments.  Edited by John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero with the assistance of Giles Constable.  Translated by Robert Allison, Anastasius Bandy, George Dennis and others.  In five volumes.  In the series Dumbarton Oaks Studies, No 35.  2000.  Washington, DC, USA: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.  See also: http://www.doaks.org/typ000.html.
Next, in regard to Proof 2, what is in issue is the nature of the liturgical typikon of the Orthodox Monastery.  The liturgical typikon is the order of service followed by the parish or monastery in the execution of the Church services.  The Typikon, which can be as long as 900 pages, provides very detailed directions for the order of service.  The following two typika have been published (in Greek, without, so far as I know, English translation):
The Liturgical Typikon of the Monastery of Dionysiou on Mt Athos, one of the most liturgically heavy typika on Mt Athos.
The Liturgical Typikon of Georgios Rigas, published 1994 by the Patriarchal Institue for Patristic Studies, Thessaonika Greece as 'Leitourgika Vlatadon 1', with an introduction by Professor Ioannis Foundoulis.  This Typikon represents Athonite practice as of the Kollyvadist controversy around 1800 AD, although the typikon was for a monastery outside Mt Athos.
In addition, the Liturgical Typikon of the Great Church of Christ of Constantinople (i.e. of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) is published and in regular use in Greek parishes, along with Greek monasteries that would not follow the liturgical typikon of Mt Athos.
In the Greek Orthodox Church since the fall of Thessalonika (about 1439), there has been only one liturgical typikon in both the parishes and the monasteries, the monastic liturgical typikon.  The monastic liturgical typikon is not to be confused with the monastic typikon discussed above; the monastic liturgical typikon is called monastic in distinction with the parish (or, sung) liturgical typikon which was last used in Thessalonika in 1439.  The above referenced liturgical typika are variants on the central theme of that monastic liturgical typikon.  In the Russian Orthodox Church the liturgical typikon is a somewhat more archaic form of the Greek monastic liturgical typikon.  It will be evident to anyone who has experience of an Orthodox monastery or who peruses the above-reference liturgical typika, that there is absolutely no provision for church services from midnight to sunset.  The basic structure of services is the same as it is in the Benedictine tradition in the West: Vespers for one hour starting three hours before sunset, followed by a meal, followed by Apodeipnon (complines) (half an hour, perhaps with an additional service for another half hour), followed by rest.  Then about 2:00 AM (in winter) there is the Midnight Office (about half an hour long), followed immediately by Orthros (matins) (about 2 - 3 hours).  Then there is the First Hour, followed by the Divine Liturgy (mass) (one to one and one half hours long), perhaps with a rest break several hours long before the Divine Liturgy.  Then some hours later, the Third and Sixth Hours are read together, before the morning meal.  Then there are no other services until the Ninth Hour, immediately before Vespers.  Each of the Hours services takes about 10 minutes to read.  In an Orthodox monastery with a full program of services following the Greek typikon, the full program would take 6 to at the very most 8 hours.  A visit to an Orthodox Monastery and perusal of the liturgical typika will confirm this.  Hence, there is no chance of there being found an Orthodox monastery with services from midnight to sunset.  And this has been the state of affairs for many centuries.  It should now be apparent why I think that the caloyers article should be 'honorably retired'.  It is just not academically sound. 10:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More remarks on the above two Proofs 

message: I investigated the provenance of Kessinger Publishing's Faiths of the World by James Gardner.  First, as can be seen from Kessinger's home page, Kessinger specializes in digital reprints of 'scarce and hard to find books'.  In fact, the Kessinger information page on Volume I of Faiths of the World makes it clear that their edition is a reprint.  Where might the book have come from?  This antiquarian book site's page on Gardner's Faiths of the World makes that clear.  The book was originally published by A Fullarton, Edinburgh, between 1858 and 1880.  It is no wonder that the Caloyers Wikipedia article might be out of date.  But someone might say, well why not just fix the article?  The problem is that even the title of the article -- Caloyers -- is out of date and should be retired, to be replaced by an academically serious article on Eastern Orthodox monasticism.
I am still investigating the provenance of the Baker Academic title, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature. 07:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand the literary observations you made (I'm an engineering student!) but I agree that the title and the scope of the article is too narrow: this article should be about orthodox monasticism in general. I don't have much time now due to exams, so if we put up a request for a move would you edit the article to be about orthodox monasticism in general? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: More to the point: i think that the article talks about monks as seen from the eyes of a catholic (it speaks of the "rule of St Basil" and it says that "they have not been reformed" or sth like that) and it talks about Greek monks that live in Athos, which is way too narrow sighted. Also, besides the see also link to hesychasm it provides no insights whatsoever about the way the monks and nuns live or why. I really think this could be a great article but I really don't have time to work on it... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provenance of Gardner's ''Faiths of the World'' 

message: We find the following information from this contemporary biography of Dr James Strong:  Dr Strong, the co-author of the Cyclopedia, was a Methodist scholar of biblical literature.  The Cyclopedia was originally published as follows: 10 volumes, 1867-81; supplement, 2 volumes, 1885-87.  Dr Strong worked together with his collaborator, Dr McClintock, on the first three volumes, but after Dr McClintock's death continued the project by himself.
It is clear from the above that the Cyclopedia is a reprint of a 19th Century Protestant work.
That means that the listed sources for the Caloyers Wikipedia article are a 1728 Encyclopedia, and two works that date from 1858 to 1881, both written by non-specialists in the field of Orthodox Monasticism.
(It is noteworthy that Gardner indicates in his own work that he is relying on the 'best' sources.  Hence, it is problematical what the dating of his sources is.  The dating of sources would also be a problem in the Strong-McClintock work.)
There seems to be a lesson here.
With regard to Michael Famelis' very kind offer, I am still considering whether to accept.  I haven't been working on such an article.  I would therefore have to start from scratch.  Moreover, the sub-entry on Eastern Orthodox Monasticism linked to in the Caloyers article would also have to be cleaned up.  There is some work here.  I will think about it and give an answer. 06:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provenance of Strong & McClintock's ''Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature''  

message: In the context of the references being written from a past tense perspective, could I propose rewriting this article in the past tense? Thanks, Addhoc 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reword from a past tense perspective, if thats ok with everyone. Addhoc 10:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change present to past tense 

message: Gee guys, there was no need to go that far. I've seen disputes in WP that are a lot more heated than this one! To the point:
I honestly believe that the whole thing is a misunderstanding. The word "caloyer" is merely an english transliteration of the greek word "καλόγερος" which is a common synonym of the (more proper) word "μοναχός". The funny thing is that the word "monk" is also derived from the greek word "μοναχός" so this is whole issue is merely wordplay. So, yes, a caloyer is a greek orthodox monk. But orthodox monks are not always greek. I would find it rather bizarre to refer to a russian monk in Siberia, or an american monk in Arizona (there is at least one orthodox monastery there) as a "caloyer". Moreover, the term has fallen out of use: a google search for "caloyer -wikipedia" brings up a mere 500 hits, the first one being this one which is sourced from a 1913 webster's dictionary. 
So, to my understanding things are like this:
The term has indeed existed and is still around on the internet so it is likely that someone would come looking for an exlpanation. So deleting the article as Orthodox Monk suggested wouldn't be a good idea. However the term is not accurate in its description of eastern monasticism, as can be plainly seen in what webster says it means. It is imho an outdated term, coined at a time when eastern monasticism was something exotic to westerners. Also note that the current article title is in plural form.
So, what I believe could be done is this:
Move the article to "Eastern Orthodox Monasticism", keep a redirect of "Caloyer/Caloyers" to it. In the article the broader issue of eastern monasticism should be discussed. The article should also contain the information about the term "caloyer" and its usage. Note that what is important in this case is that the article should discuss how "caloyer" is used (as a narrow subset of "orthodox monk": a "greek, athonite orthodox monk"?) and not define "caloyer" in contrast with the reality of eastern monasticism, as imho, this reality is much different from the rustic description provided in the current form of the article.--Michalis Famelis (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of the mechanics of what you describe, could I suggest first writing a stub entitled "Eastern Orthodox Monasticism" and then setting up a merge proposal? Addhoc 10:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MedCab?? 

message: I fully agree with the following points of Mr Famelis [remarks in square brackets are my own]:
1.  The term 'caloyer' is a transliteration [through the French and Italian] of the Greek 'καλόγερος', which is a common synonym in Greek [although somewhat more colloquial] for 'μοναχός', which simply means 'monk'.  [The term 'caloyer' was in common use in English, from what I can gather, until roughly the end of the Nineteenth Century, when it gradually fell into disuse, although 'καλόγερος' is still in common use in Greek.  My objection to the use of the term arises from the fact that it is no longer in common use in English.  Hence, using it as the main article title for a Wikipedia article on Eastern Orthodox monasticism is being unnecessarily out of date as a matter of English usage.  I repeat that as an Orthodox monk for some years I had never heard the term even though my mother tongue is English.]
2.  I agree with the point about referring to American monks and Siberian monks as 'caloyers' with the proviso that in the period that the term was used, there wasn't such a clear understanding in the West of the relation between 'Greek monks' and other Orthodox monks.
3.  I agree that someone might want to know what the term means.  [You will note that I originaly suggested that the term would best be reserved for a dictionary entry.  If you want, I have no objection to its being included in an article on Eastern Orthodox monasticism.  But see below on the CONTENT of the caloyers  Wikipedia article, where I do have serious objections.]
4.  Mr Famelis writes:  'However the term is not accurate in its description of eastern monasticism, as can be plainly seen in what webster says it means. It is imho an outdated term, coined at a time when eastern monasticism was something exotic to westerners.'  [That's what I've been trying to say for how long now!]
On the next point I do not fully agree with Mr Famelis:
:Move the article to "Eastern Orthodox Monasticism", keep a redirect of "Caloyer/Caloyers" to it. In the article the broader issue of eastern monasticism should be discussed. The article should also contain the information about the term "caloyer" and its usage. Note that what is important in this case is that the article should discuss how "caloyer" is used (as a narrow subset of "orthodox monk": a "greek, athonite orthodox monk"?) and not define "caloyer" in contrast with the reality of eastern monasticism, as imho, this reality is much different from the rustic description provided in the current form of the article.
I agree that there should be an article entitled Eastern Orthodox Monasticism, with a redirect of 'Caloyer/Caloyers' to it.  Moreover, that in the article the broader issue of eastern monasticism should be discussed.  And that the article should also contain the information about the term 'caloyer' and its usage [although I disagree with Mr Famelis' understanding of just what 'caloyer' means--see below.]  However I do agree with the thrust of Mr Famelis' argument, that Wikipedia should 'not define "caloyer" in contrast with the reality of eastern monasticism, ... this reality is much different from the rustic description provided in the current form of the article'.
So what don't I agree with?  What I don't agree with is the merging of the CONTENT of the caloyers article into a putative article entitled Eastern Orthodox Monasticism, even a stub.  I have given some very long-winded scholarly and sourced arguments above why the CONTENT of the article is faulty.  
First of all, if you go to this link, provided on the caloyers article yesterday by Addhoc, and study it for a few moments, it should be clear that 'caloyers' were not some special group of Orthodox monks: the term is clearly being used for just plain Greek Orthodox monks.  This is clear from the reference to the provisions of the Emperor Justinian.  Those provisions were for all monks.  Moreover, the reference to 'five thousand Greek monks or CALOYERS (which see) resident on this mountain' makes this clear.  Gardner is treating 'caloyer' as a synonym for 'Greek monk', not for a special kind of Greek monk.  Moreover, the only candidate mountain would be Mt Athos.  The present population of Mt Athos is less than 2,000.  Let's suppose that when Gardner wrote his book in 1858 that there were 20,000 monks on Mt Athos.  A subset of 5,000 monks that belonged to a special group of Greek Orthodox monks with special characteristics on Mt Athos would be a very big historical fact.  That fact is non-existent.  I think that Mr Famelis would agree.  However, if anyone is disposed to disagree, why doesn't Mr Famelis contact a Professor of Church History at a Greek University and ask.  I am sure what the answer will be.  The point is that 'caloyer' does not refer to an Athonite monk.  It was a Western usage for 'Greek monk'.
Now, to the content of the 'caloyer' article.  It's just plain wrong.  Addhoc changed the tenses of the verbs in the article on the understanding that Gardner was referring to a historically existent special group of Greek monks with special characteristics.  As anyone with any experience of Orthodox monasticism would understand immediately from the article, what Gardner (and Strong-McClintock) were referring to was Greek monks in general, using a common term of the day, 'caloyers', and making a hash of it.  There are archarioi, mikroschemoi and megaloschemoi in every Orthodox monastery in the world.  There are hermits (even today, Addhoc), recluses and all that sort of thing in Orthodox monasticism.  But the article is just plain wrong on how those things work in Eastern Orthodox monasticism.  Please see the very detailed argumentation above.  Of very good value would be the foundation documents--if anyone has the appetite to read all five volumes.  It would be very clear from them just what the structure of Eastern Orthodox monasticism was.  So my argument is this: yes, make the Eastern Orthodox monasticism article and stub.  Put a redirect from 'caloyers' to there.  Explain in the article what the meaning of 'caloyer' is.  But don't include the content of the article.  It's wrong. 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point and I agree. As far as the present content is concerned, I'm pretty sure that by the moment the new article starts gaining size, it will become irrelevant, swallowed by the mass of information about eastern monasticism, not viewed as something exotic, but as a very real and historical situation. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response