From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


I don't understand why this article is entitled 'Orthros' when 'Matins' is both the accepted and proper term in English. Can someone enlighten me? -- Pistevo 14:22, December 13, 2005 (CST)

Early on we had a discussion and elected to go with the Greek Orthros rather than the Latinate Matins as the standard for this article. This follows the pattern used elsewhere on OrthodoxWiki of preferring the Greek form of a name as the main article, with variants redirecting to it (see, for instance Diakonissa and Shamassy, Presbytera and Matushka, etc.). —Dcn. David talk contribs 14:47, December 13, 2005 (CST)
cf. style manual and previous conversation regarding use of Greek terminology —magda (talk) 14:49, December 13, 2005 (CST)
Thanks. I knew that was somewhere, but couldn't find it quickly. You are always rescuing me. I appreciate it. ;-) —Dcn. David talk contribs 15:18, December 13, 2005 (CST)
As far as I can see, the relevant part of the style manual says: "Thus, the preference for OrthodoxWiki will be to use Greek terms where no standard English word is predominant among Anglophonic Orthodox writers". The critical difference between Matins vs Orthros and Presvytera vs Matushka is that Matins is an English word, and is unquestionably predominant. -- Pistevo 03:02, December 14, 2005 (CST)
Is it? At least in the US (can't speak for y'all in the Global Deep South), Orthros is the preferred term among Byzantine tradition churches (which are in the majority). —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 07:37, December 14, 2005 (CST)
*greatly surprised*. If Orthros is predominant in North America, then I agree that it's probably best as it is (since most English translations - and most web-surfers - are from there anyway). In my neck of the woods, I'd have to pronounce Orthros with a Greek accent (like, say, Pistevo), because it'd sound like I was using a technical term. -- — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 16:46, December 14, 2005 (CST)

Using the Google Method -- Orthros vs. Matins

Orthos: 57,500 hits

Mattins: 60,400 hits

Matins: 3,990,000 hits

I think "Matins" wins by a long shot.  :)

Frjohnwhiteford 11:20, April 16, 2007 (PDT)

Indeed. (No doubt your millions of voters there are mostly heretics, however!) However, this is not a spelling issue. This instead falls under the "Do we use Greek or Russian or Arabic or English technical terms"? "Matins" is clearly not favored by a massive amount of Anglophonic Orthodoxy, so the standard we've long used is to use Greek terminology for technical and theological terms, since it is original and universal.
See: OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual#Technical Terminology. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 14:22, April 16, 2007 (PDT)
I can live with Orthros, although I disagree that this represents the largest part of Orthodox English-speaking usage.
You can do more limited Google searches, such as "+Orthodox +Orthros" vs. "+Orthodox +Matins" and Matins wins by a 110,000:28,700 ratio. You can also do site searches, which are very interesting:
The two jurisdictions most likely to use "Orthros" are almost evenly split between the two: +Orthros =197 +Matins =205 hits +Orthros =608 +Matins =513
In the Slavic Churches in America, it is not even close: +Orthros =17 +Matins =609
site:/ +Orthros =0
site:/ +Matins =23
site:/ +Orthros =0
site:/ +Matins =1 +Orthros =0 +Matins =1 +Orthros =0 +Matins =3
A big Orthodox site: +Orthros =6 +Matins =42
An important Greek, New Calendar web site with liturgical texts: +Orthros =1 +Matins =109
And then if you go across the pond, to the mother land, you find the following: +Orthros =2 +Matins =246 +Orthros =2 +Matins =13 +Orthros =1 +Matins =12 +Orthros =0 +Matins =6
And so in Great Britain, it crosses all ethnic boundaries.
Then, if you look at the major English translations, you have Nassar, Hapgood, Ware, Boston, Jordanville, and St. John of Kronstadt Press, all using Matins. In fact, I am unaware of any widely used Orthodox English text that uses "Orthros". I know what "Orthros" is, but honestly, I think far more people don't... and at least Matins rings a bell with most. But while this is my opinion, I am partly just yanking your chain here.  :) I can live with "Orthros".  :) Frjohnwhiteford 17:11, April 16, 2007 (PDT)
FWIW, my vote is Matins. I won't push for it too hard though :-). — FrJohn (talk)

Et tu Papadeas?

I keep my copy of the ever popular Greek/English text for Holy Week, Holy Week and Easter Services in the Orthodox Church, by Fr. George Papadeas at Church, and so I checked it this weekend. It uses Matins too. Frjohnwhiteford 13:53, April 22, 2007 (PDT)

Is the sarcastic header really necessary? Anyway, we hashed this out long ago, and Orthros is what was decided. (I'm almost amusingly surprised you'd prefer to let the Latins tell us what to call our services!) If, as you say, you can live with Orthros, please feel free to begin doing so without the sarcastic jabs. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 18:48, April 22, 2007 (PDT)
I meant it to be humorous, not sarcastic. It just means "You too Papadeas?" I wasn't able to check this when noting the major translations that I mentioned previously, and was actually expecting that this text would be the exception, and use Orthros, since it is after all a Greek/English text. I was surprised that it too followed the pattern of all the other standard texts in English, and I thought it was worth noting. "Matins" is a pre-schism Orthodox term, and this is the term used in English for this service. I said I could live with Orthros, and I can and will... I didn't say I would prefer to live with it. I don't know what the decision making process is with those in charge of the web site. I just thought that this was another bit of information worth considering. I'll let it drop now.Frjohnwhiteford 19:07, April 22, 2007 (PDT)
"Et tu...?" is a quote from Julius Caesar, being Caesar's dying words referring to the betrayal by Brutus. It is used colloquially to refer to a betrayal from the least likely source. That's why I took this as being something of a jab. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 11:40, April 24, 2007 (PDT)
This is one Latin phrase that just about everyone knows, and I did have the unlikely source part of it in mind, but since Papadeas was agreeing with me, I didn't think anyone would take it quite as far as you did. I honestly did not mean to offend. I apologize for having done so. Frjohnwhiteford 13:15, April 24, 2007 (PDT)
It's okay. Let's just say that my internal hermeneutical engine was influenced at the moment to interpret things in darker possible shades. Forgive me. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 14:26, April 24, 2007 (PDT)
Hey Guys. Just a note of pause to say that, as you know, it's important to be cautious in internet correspondence, since writing online lacks most of the non-verbal clues we rely on in interpersonal communication. This goes both ways -- e.g. in making statements which can be construed as sarcastic, and in assuming a particular meaning when there are other possibilities.
Second, this is a difficult one. There seems to be a substantial difference for "feel" here - not just between Frs. John and Andrew, but between Pistevo, Me, and Fr. John on the one hand and Fr. Andrew on the other. I believe these differences aren't just personal opinion but are rooted in the sensibilities of different Orthodox communities in America. It's hard to know the best way to arbitrate between these.
In terms of the Style manual, I see things here the same way Pistevo does. Yes, we prefer Greek to Slavonic usage, but it does seem that Matins is the commonly accepted English term. In fact, in my mind - rightly or wrongly - "Orthros" is a "marked" subterm for Matins, denoting particularly Greek usage. (I don't think I've ever heard it referred to an Orthros in the OCA, except when a Greek happened to be chanting.) :The Google stats are interesting here, too - thanks for the research. Perhaps we need to institute some kind of more formal voting/arbitration policy, but for now, I'm going to just make the decision (as the bdfl) to change the title to Matins. I hope this doesn't trouble anyone too much! — FrJohn (talk)
I think you're wrong, but okay. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 11:40, April 24, 2007 (PDT)

Deacon's and Litanies at Matins

A question for Fr. Andrew on his recent corrections. I don't have my books with me, but I think you are correct about the short litany after the royal psalms, before the 6 psalms being done by the priest only -- and I suspect that this is true regardless of Byzantine or Slavic variations. However, some of the other litanies you also tagged as being done by the deacon only in some liturgical practices. Are you sure about that? I know in Russian practice, this is not the case. And the times I served in Greek parishes as a deacon, they were done by the deacon just as in Russian practice. Frjohnwhiteford 13:21, April 24, 2007 (PDT)

I can't speak to the standard Greek practice on those litanies (not having any books with me), but I can say that the Antiochian Liturgikon has all the litanies before the Gospel sequence being done by the priest. Anyway, perhaps the wording should be "the deacon (or in some traditions, the priest)." (I also know that one Antiochian bishop in the US has instructed that deacons are to do those litanies.)
I'm not sure what the actual Greek practice is, not having their Liturgikon on hand, but it may also be the case that deacons are "allowed" to do them, despite it not being explicitly their practice. That is of course assuming that their practice is officially the same as what I can document from the Antiochian Liturgikon. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 14:23, April 24, 2007 (PDT)