This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lactantius' account of Constantine's vision doesn't say anything about the labarum. He probably meant, in fact, that Constantine was instructed to inscribe the shields of his soldiers with a staurogram.
Part of this article shamelessly quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia. Recommend rewriting it.
(not a user: March 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.170.69 ( talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If he died 320, Constantinople did not yet exist. The Constantinople project was started in 324 and the city was inaugurated in 330. -- 77.7.132.246 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The Copernicus section seems kind of odd to me. Copernicus isn't saying that there will be very many religious scholars attacking him who are so ignorant of astronomy - look at all the qualifiers like 'perhaps'. If they are exceptions, then it's fair to oppose to them another exception, Lactantius. The section seems to be about attacking Copernicus's statement. (Really, assigning blame? That's not very NPOV.) -- Gwern (contribs) 03:01 11 November 2009 (GMT)
- But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on false subjects. But I should be able to prove by many arguments that it is impossible for the heaven to be lower than the earth, were is not that this book must now be concluded, and that some things still remain, which are more necessary for the present work.
I agree with the recent editor who deleted this section. The passing reference that Copernicus makes to him does not justify a whole subsection with a block quote. A passing mention to Copernicus with a reference is all that is needed, if, indeed, even that is needed. Rwflammang ( talk) 22:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Whilst interesting, that the only significant secondary sources are dated to 1950 and 1913 is disappointing. Constantine's 1700 anniversary is attracting a fair amount of academic attention to this period, and L is accepted as a worthwhile chronicler - especially given the relative paucity of primary sources. It would be great to see a complete rewrite - it would make a great undergraduate project for someone!! Ender's Shadow Snr ( talk) 23:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This quotation strikes me as polemical: "The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture." How could a renowned Christian apologist be utterly ignorant of scripture? He might not be an Augustine, but still, this seems a bit much to cite as though it were a neutral, scholarly assessment. -- Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.53.99 ( talk) 21:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The caption reads: "Mural possibly depicting Lactantius" that means "Mural possibly NOT depicting Lactantius" is equally true. Not a NPOV> Also, what does this image actually add to this article? Hskoppek ( talk) 18:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It's good to see that the long Copernicus digression is gone, but it's a shame to see that Lactantius is still being scape goated for flat-eartherism, this time by citing Blavatsky (!?) of all people. Blavatsky is not a reliable source since she had no expertise at all in patristics or Lactantius.
The article as it reads now says that Lactantius taught Crispus that belief in a round earth was "heretical". The source cited is a polemic comparing Oxford dons who dismiss Theosophy with Lactantius, alleging he dismissed a round earth, but references nothing by Lactantius himself. I will delete this assertion and its disreputable source unless I hear any objections. Rwflammang ( talk) 03:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lactantius' account of Constantine's vision doesn't say anything about the labarum. He probably meant, in fact, that Constantine was instructed to inscribe the shields of his soldiers with a staurogram.
Part of this article shamelessly quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia. Recommend rewriting it.
(not a user: March 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.170.69 ( talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If he died 320, Constantinople did not yet exist. The Constantinople project was started in 324 and the city was inaugurated in 330. -- 77.7.132.246 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The Copernicus section seems kind of odd to me. Copernicus isn't saying that there will be very many religious scholars attacking him who are so ignorant of astronomy - look at all the qualifiers like 'perhaps'. If they are exceptions, then it's fair to oppose to them another exception, Lactantius. The section seems to be about attacking Copernicus's statement. (Really, assigning blame? That's not very NPOV.) -- Gwern (contribs) 03:01 11 November 2009 (GMT)
- But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on false subjects. But I should be able to prove by many arguments that it is impossible for the heaven to be lower than the earth, were is not that this book must now be concluded, and that some things still remain, which are more necessary for the present work.
I agree with the recent editor who deleted this section. The passing reference that Copernicus makes to him does not justify a whole subsection with a block quote. A passing mention to Copernicus with a reference is all that is needed, if, indeed, even that is needed. Rwflammang ( talk) 22:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Whilst interesting, that the only significant secondary sources are dated to 1950 and 1913 is disappointing. Constantine's 1700 anniversary is attracting a fair amount of academic attention to this period, and L is accepted as a worthwhile chronicler - especially given the relative paucity of primary sources. It would be great to see a complete rewrite - it would make a great undergraduate project for someone!! Ender's Shadow Snr ( talk) 23:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This quotation strikes me as polemical: "The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture." How could a renowned Christian apologist be utterly ignorant of scripture? He might not be an Augustine, but still, this seems a bit much to cite as though it were a neutral, scholarly assessment. -- Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.53.99 ( talk) 21:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The caption reads: "Mural possibly depicting Lactantius" that means "Mural possibly NOT depicting Lactantius" is equally true. Not a NPOV> Also, what does this image actually add to this article? Hskoppek ( talk) 18:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It's good to see that the long Copernicus digression is gone, but it's a shame to see that Lactantius is still being scape goated for flat-eartherism, this time by citing Blavatsky (!?) of all people. Blavatsky is not a reliable source since she had no expertise at all in patristics or Lactantius.
The article as it reads now says that Lactantius taught Crispus that belief in a round earth was "heretical". The source cited is a polemic comparing Oxford dons who dismiss Theosophy with Lactantius, alleging he dismissed a round earth, but references nothing by Lactantius himself. I will delete this assertion and its disreputable source unless I hear any objections. Rwflammang ( talk) 03:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)