Talk:Phelonion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Oriental Orthodoxy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Phelonion and Chasuble articles SHOULD be gathered in one.

1. If you don't, then you should write another article pilon for the Armenian one, and so on. In all iconography there is one chasuble: that you've called "modern", wore by the Anglican priest in the photo. 2. In most languages, you haven't, but one word for it. 3. Old Eastern rite books use "chasuble" also for Byzantine and Armenian rites. - Waelsch 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly we should, except that the phelonion and chasuble diverged a very long time ago and are now even used differently. It's not true that iconography knows only one phelonion; they very often show them cut away in the front. (Certainly there are icons based on older prototypes where this is not true, but there are numerous counterexamples.) In any event it is not the same as the Anglican example, which is more or less identical to those worn in the RC church today. In the picture it's clearly cut away at the sides, but the ancient phelonion on which the icons are based aren't cut away at all; they're are fully circular garments. The "old" Eastern rite books you mention are clearly in English, and we need not be bound by the choice made by the translators for obsolete editions. Maybe, maybe not for the Armenian vestment. If there's enough to write about it that's distinctive from both the chasuble and phelonion then certainly we should -- but I ought to point out that it's clearly the same word as "phelonion" under Armenian phonology and has a longer shared history with the phelonion than the phelonion with the chasuble. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The same argument was posted at talk:chasuble, where I responded. I think the arguments seem a little spurious. --Gareth Hughes 23:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I take it you mean Waelsch's arguments and not mine?

Anyway, I dug up some examples of icons where the phelonion is clearly in the modern style, against his claim that there's only "one chasuble" in iconography: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

These are all 20th century icons, whereas the "modern style" has been around for quite some time. Here is an earlier image: [6] (1708). JHCC (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Waelsch said "all iconography" so I didn't think an old example was strictly necessary, but it does make the point more forcefully.

Not that the Church has forgotten what the phelonion was originally like. There are still directions in the Chinovnik for the priests to raise and lower their phelonions at certain points in the Liturgy, as if they were still long in front and needed to be raised so as to free their hands. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)