Talk:Labarum

message: A couple of considerations on the translations from Latin:
*In hoc signo vinces has been translated as "In this sign you will conquer". Even if vinco -is, vici victum vincere has also the meaning of to conquer, it should be translated as you (Constantine) shall win, since it is a promise of victory in the battle of the following day. So it should be translated In this emblem/sign you shall win;
*Sol Invictis is uncorrect. The name of the god (a solar cult bound to both Apollo and Mithras) is Sol Invictus; it is probable (but I don't know the coins) that Soli Invicto was embossed on the coinage, since it means To the invincible Sun.
--Panairjdde 10:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch on the barbarism, Sol Invictus is of course the proper form, and Soli invicto. On the translation of IHS Vinces, translations are always a matter of art: the most literal translation of the Greek is "In this you will win", and in Latin (which supplies the extra word signo) "In this sign you will win"; the traditional form in English is "By this sign you shall/will conquer". I'm in favor of the traditional form, after all it's quite clear what's being meant; but If we must explicit things, the Latin version contains an astrological reference, as is made clear by in rather than sub. Be all that as it may, it's really much simpler to leave the attractive traditional phrasing, I think? I've made no change to your translation, mind you: up to you to do it. — Bill 11:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If "in hoc signo" rather than "sub hoc signo" suggests an astrological allusion, notice in the two illustrations how the modern labarum is subtly adjusted to form a cross (90 degrees), whereas all the early examples suggest instead the 23.5 degree crossing of the ecliptic with the celestial equator, even though that meant squashing alpha and omega into the resulting  narrow angles. The Water Newton Treasure votive tablets also illustrate this quite clearly. --Wetman 01:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Could have been my slip. A priest in this cult, referred to at Sol Invictus is referred to as "pontifex solis invictus". Shouldn't this be "pontifex solis invictis" in this particular case (a possible source of the error)?: "pontiff of the unconquered sun". --Wetman 11:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another good catch, sort of. Neither one: "pontifex solis invicti". I'll make the edit. — Bill 12:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: On the translation: I am Italian, therefore I am not used to the traditional English form. I am just afraid of the different meaning of the traditional and of the actual translations: not by this mean, but being in this sign you shall win. However, this is the English version of Wikipedia, therefore, if you feel comfortable, change it! As regards the meaning: I am not sure about the astrological meaning. My interpretation of the IHSV sentence is: "you shall win, if being within this sign". Note that, putting the labarum on the insigna of the army, Constantine and his soldiers were within the signa! However (again), I am not sure of this, therefore feel free to change the translation. --Panairjdde 18:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article says that in Vita Constantini the vision and the dream are said to occur on the eve of the battle of Milvian Bridge. This is false, and probably the result of a conflation with Lactantius' report. Reading the relevant chapters in V.C., it is very clear that both the dream and the vision were said to occur prior to his campaign in Italy--thus he was converted fully to Christianity long before said battle. I'm probably not going to come back here again to argue the point, but suffice it to say that this has been recognised by the majority of scholars who have published commentaries on the discrepancies between Lactantius and Eusebius. For a few examples of why this is the correct reading...
1.32) "Moreover, he made the priests of God his counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him with all devotion. And after this, being fortified by well-grounded hopes in Him, he hastened to quench the threatening fire of tyranny."
- i.e., he goes on campaign after he has found his god.
1.37) "Assuming therefore the Supreme God as his patron, and invoking His Christ to be his preserver and aid, and setting the victorious trophy, the salutary symbol, in front of his soldiers and body- guard, he marched with his whole forces, trying to obtain again for the Romans the freedom they had inherited from their ancestors.
And whereas, Maxentius, trusting more in his magic arts than in the affection of his subjects, dared not even advance outside the city gates, (1) but had guarded every place and district and city subject to his tyranny, with large bodies of soldiers, (2) the emperor, confiding in the help of God, advanced against the first and second and third divisions of the tyrant's forces, defeated them all with ease at the first assault, (3) and made his way into the very interior of Italy."
- i.e., he has converted (as per the story of the conversion in the chapters directly prior) before he campaigns into Italy - not at the end of the campaign.
Besides this, one can also deduce that it didn't occur at any time near the battle, thanks to the description of him calling together council and learning of Christ from bishops, and also getting smiths to build the labarum out of gold and jewels; and finally the fact that his deliberations on which God to ask for aid come whilst he is getting ready to campaign against Maxentius.
And while I'm here (i'm not going to edit this myself), I'll also suggest that some references be made... first to the claimed account in Eusebius' History of the Church, but also to the relevant chapters in V.C.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.66.53 (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A mistake

message: This page should probably be split into subsections... AnonMoos 22:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What would the titles of the split-off pages be? (Mystified --Wetman 00:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant sectioning the page with various informative sub-headers in bold font. AnonMoos 05:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh goodness! But exactly! Set it into well-defined blocks, and you'll sharpen our thinking. --Wetman 05:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were a quick and easy job, I would have already done it myself -- but I don't think it is.... AnonMoos 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: It is alleged that Nicolas Poussin features the Chi-Rho symbol over the subject's bed in his painting "Extreme Unction" 1644 -owned by the Duke of Sutherland and on loan to The National Gallery of Scotland
It is alleged that this is NPOV-speak for "I don't know and I don't want to bother checking": it ought to be easy to tell whether the painting does or does not include a chi-rho above the bed. 
A Google image search turns up no copies that include the chi-rho, but this thesis (PDF) seems to imply that there are two versions of the painting extant, one of which (not the one in the National Gallery) did include the symbol. Unfortunately the accompanying illustration is missing. I haven't been able to find anything else; if anyone can rewrite the sentence with a solid grounding in the facts and without the nonsensical weaselry, that would be great. —Charles P._(Mirv) 17:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV as a cover for ignorance 

message: The custom of being baptised only shortly before death was usual at the time, and in itself does not prove that "he did put inclusive politics before any religious sentiment". --Aethralis 19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence "In fact, Constantine was only baptized...etc" is unrelevant to the labarum, I suggest removing it.-- Aethralis 11:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantine's baptism 

message: Hi, I am Flamarande and I have doubts about the proper name of this article. Granted, I don´t know much about this subject (I have always heard and read about "In hoc signo vinces"), but I have always heard about the "Chi-rho" and I never once heard the word "Labarum" before. Is "Labarum" really a widely known term? If it isn´t, it would be better to move this article to "Chi-rho". But, hey I won´t force this move, I am just proposing it. 
2)Other proposal: Shouldn´t article at least mention the "fish"? Granted, I remember it more vividly in the movie ":Quo Vadis (novel) " but I have heard and read, here and there, that in (ancient) Greek :Ichthys - "fish" leads to the initialism "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour" and because of this it was the original symbol of the christians. :Henryk Sienkiewicz, the autor of "Quo Vadis?" always tried to be as "true" as possible. 
3)This article must mention "the cross" the most widely known symbol of them all. Flamarande 11:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of this article 

message: There almost certainly should be an iota subscript in the Greek under the omega in the demonstrative in the phrase "in this, win!".  Hopefully this inacurate representation is not necessary due to limitations Wikipedia has in accurately displaying Greek text.  Also, there is no basis for the exlamation mark.
*"labarum is also used for any ecclesiastical banner, such as those carried around in processions" Is this true? Any banner, or just those with the chi-rho? --Wetman 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Greek Mispelling 

message: Readers should be aware the following text has been deleted:
:"Constantine himself, however, continued to hold the title of Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of the classical pagan Roman religion. Many take this to mean that he was not a Christian, though he had an interest in the politics of Christianity, which has led some scholars to the conclusion that the labarum was not intended as a Christian symbol. In fact, Constantine was only baptized as a Christian on his very deathbed, which suggests that he did put inclusive politics before any religious sentiment he might have harbored. Previously the labarum was the monogram of Chronos, the god of time, and an emblem of several solar deities. In Hebrew, Chi-Rho equates to Tav-Resh. The chi rho was used in alchemical texts to denote time."
Is there anything of value lost here? --Wetman 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the explanation of the :Category:Alchemy tag, which i am removing.  --Jerzy•t 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted text

message: "In Hebrew, Chi-Rho equates to Tav-Resh."  What exactly does this mean and where is the support for this statement?  If the discussion here is phonetics or transliteration, then Chi does not equal Tav.  It is a Kh or H sound, better represented by Heth, although not accurately represented by any of the Hebrew constanants.  If the reference is numerical, Tav-Resh is Hebrew for 600 (Tav-400 + Resh-200).  Under Herodianic (or Attic) Greek numeration, Chi represented 1000 and Rho was not used as numeric symbol.  With the advent of Ionic Greek numbers, Chi alone is 600, whereas Rho is 100, so Chi-Rho would be 600,100 (which makes no sense, since there was a symbol for 700 - psi).  Anyone able to provide a better explanation than that written in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.230.103 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 October 2006
:I commented out that whole paragraph... AnonMoos 01:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tav-Resh 

message: The illustrations make it notably clear that the modern "chi" in this symbol has been adjusted in its angles to more  closely approximate a cross. The ancient examples show that the lines were those instead of the ecliptic crossing the celestial equator... "reflections on Plato’s discussion in the Timaeus of the world-soul made manifest by the intersection of the two great circles of the astronomers, the “heavenly chi”  formed where the ecliptic and celestial equator invisibly meet.  Rahner states that these otherwise invisible lines “become for the Christian eye a heavenly cross,” and that through Justin and Irenaus’ seminal doctrine of recapitulation a long meditation on the cosmic symbolism of the cross entered Christian tradition. By the fourth century the converted astrologer Firmicus Maternus declares, “The sign of a wooden cross holds the machine of the firmament together, strengthens the foundations of the earth, and leads those that cling to it towards life." (David J. Ross , "The Bird, The Cross, And The Emperor: Investigations into The Antiquity of The Cross in Cygnus", Culture and Cosmos 4.2 (Autumn/Winter 2000) On-line text, but with  the references of the original withheld Some mention needs to be made of this well-studied phenomenon, in the interests of completeness. Would this be forbidden territory? --Wetman 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The adjusted, cross-forming chi of the labarum already appears in the Christian mosaics of the Basilica di San Vitale, Ravenna, recently illustrated in a pan-shot in the BBC documentary "The Face". --Wetman 02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "heavenly Chi"

message: This article seems to me to have some serious factual problems:
* I haven't found anywhere in the Church History anything about a vision; it does mention (HE ix.9) a statue of Constantine in Rome with him holding a cross in his hand (I suppose this is what 'trophy of Saviour's Passion' and 'sign of the Saviour' mean), with the inscription 'By this saving sign, the true proof of courage, I saved your city from the yoke of the tyrant...'
* Labelling Vita Constantini as "hagiographical" is hardly NPOV. And that is not what VC says either. Instead, it says (VC i.27-29) that 'when the sun was beginning to decline, he saw with his eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, By this conquer. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which happened to be following him on some expedition'. Eusebius had introduced the theme of Constantine's war against Maxentius, but this appears to be a separate incident. Then Constantine has a dream in which Christ advises him to make himself a standard 'made in the likeness of the sign' not for protection in a particular battle, but in any war. And Constantine needs further explanations about Christianity before he becomes a Christian himself. Perhaps the private dream enforces the public vision?
This is quite a serious confusion. And, by the way, since when do scholars agree that there is "no firm evidence either way" about Constantine being a Christian? What about AHM Jones, TD Barnes, TG Elliott, Robin Lane Fox, etc? They all think Constantine considered himself a Christian. But this discussion doesn't belong here anyway. The most important thing is that you cannot even imply that Lactantius or Eusebius were writing mythology.
-- Agreed... the vast majority of modern scholars agree that he very probably was a genuine Christian, or at least that the sources definitely suggest that he was sincere. I wont go into details why--though its very obvious if you look at the sources--and in any case this isn't the right article for such things to be said.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.66.53 (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: The etymology of the word before Constantine's usage of it is unclear.Nevertheless, see H. Grégoire, "L'étymologie de 'Labarum'" Byzantion 4 (1929:477-82).
This sentence is not right, perhaps the author means the usage of the word other than Constantine's usage. Because a word is of a certain stem, an etymology in the sense the author writes can not be unclear before a certain period, either the stem is unknown or the entire etymology is vague. I don't know if I've put my thought correct enough in English, so correct me where necessary. Mallerd 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word being labarum of course, and not the chi-rho. Mallerd 15:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Different point. How can a word used in Roman times be derived from a modern Welsh word (llafar)? That just doesn't fit timewise. Marking for ref. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I found various Celtic versions of the Welsh word, including Old Irish, online. They were referenced but only by an abbreviation, WP II 383 f, which I could not discover the full version of. However, there clearly exists a family of Celtic words, which would have had ancestral forms in Antiquity. Urselius (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point. Welsh as a language has only existed from the 6th century onwards-ish. Before then, the group of languages it stems from is referred to as Brythonic. The only thing you could indiscriminately call Celtic is Common Celtic and which a) won't have had the word llafar and b) won't have existed in the right period either. IF the Romans borrowed this word, the source language would have to be a contemporary Celtic language such as Brythonic, Gaulish or Lepontic. Otherwise it's like saying that Caesar (way earlier) got his tactics from Eisenhower (way later). And if the source only states Celtic, it really doesn't sound like a reliable source. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Let me see if I can dig something up first. But I think I'll shift it out of the lead and into its own section if i do. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Right, I've done "it". I've left a vague allusion to Celtic but stubbed it hard because I can't find anywhere which actually links labarum with a celtic root. Where did you find that? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't find anything Celtic in those dictionaries with respect to Labarum, but in general, Latin was influenced by Continental Gaulish more than by insular Celtic.  For example, the Latin word carrus (which gave rise to a number of English words) is thought to have been from Gaulish. AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed but we're not supposed to put guesswork in the articles :) Akerbeltz (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That Latin was influenced by Continental Gaulish more than by insular Celtic is not "guesswork", but a fact which may be relevant to evaluating some things discussed above in this susbsection... AnonMoos (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: True but just on the basis that Latin borrowed "some" words, we cannot therefore state that this one has to be one too. That would be guesswork. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an incorrect syllogistic inference.  But I never said any such thing, did I now? AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: "It is widely believed that after the Edict of Milan many legionnaires also were tattooed with the labarum on their right forearm." Nonsense. Furthermore, when every commonplace of cultural history is challenged at Wikipedia by those who read nothing, how is it that a statement like this, on the other hand, passes muster? Whenever generic sources are indefinitely referred to ("widely believed" where?), our doubts should always be raised. --Wetman (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Widely believed" eh?

message: I read Lactantius and I found no "in hoc signo vinces" in his text. 
Then I read the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius and I didn't find it there either.
Our accounts of both texts are therefore totally wrong and the comments on the "pious christian legends" are quite inappropriate.
I suppose that in hoc signo vinces is simply a translation from Eusebius Life of Constantine, where legends abund but are not really supported by Eusebius.
Please correct the text. Pinea (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lay Legends 

message: The quoted reference actually refers to an unreliable Gehovah witness source: it is available in the web here so it can be checked that no information about the original source is given. I believe it s better to omit such dubious and rather inconclusive information. Pinea (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decius coin 

message: Could I please direct anyone wishing to add more information about the Chi-Rho symbol to the page on that symbol.  The addition of more information solely relating to the symbol rather than the military standard, which is after all the subject of the labarum page, to this page is merely confusing for the reader.
The Chi-Rho page is in dire need of additional information and editing. 
Please add information to the labarum page only if relates directly to the labarum standard itself. Urselius (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labarum versus Chi Rho 

message: :Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.2.56 (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duchy of Parma and Kingdom of Naples and Sicily 

message: Found this
[img]http://i53.tinypic.com/2r7a71l.jpg[/img]
The labarum or better the Chi Rho or Monogram, has been used long before Christitianity.
It had original nothing to do with Christ or its roots.
You can find the cross thousands of years before Chr. It is the mandala or sunwheel introduced into the Chi Rho.
Even the Celtic cross predates the Christian one.
On this examples you can find that on coins from Ptolemy the III, the Chi Rho is clearly visible.
It belonged to the sungod and even older out of egypt. Also with Cronos the god of time (Alfa and Omega)
It has to do with Ptah and Re or Ra and even Osiris or the constellation of Sirius.
Before it became the monogram of Christ, the chi rho was the monogram of Chronos (whose name also begins with a Chi-rho), the god of time, and an emblem of several solar deities.
[img]http://i54.tinypic.com/4ryqyw.jpg[/img]
Greek coins, Ptolemaic kings of Egypt, Ptolemy III, 246 – 221, Bronze ca. 246-221, Æ 70.80 g. Diademed head of Zeus Ammon r. Rev. BASILEWS - PTOLEMAIOU Eagle standing l. on thunderbolt, with  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brnrds (talk • contribs) 14:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A pre-christian use of chi-rho is covered in the Chi-Rho article, it was short for chreston, meaning "good."  The above is relevant to the article on the chi-rho symbol, if you can get textual support from a reliable source, the usage on the coins you have alluded to is also mentioned in the chi-rho article.  It is not particularly relevant to this article which is primarily about the labarum as a military and religious standard, not the symbol as such.Urselius (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chi Rho monogram 

message: Please reread the source for note 7. It speaks of the Chi-Rio, not the Tou-Rho.
"He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of Christ. Having this sign (xP), his troops stood to arms." Icvigil2 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The original editor to write this paragraph made an obvious mistake in his/her interpretation of what Lactantius was describing. I have changed the wording accordingly. If you want to add anything about the staurogram, as an alternative Christogram, please do so. Urselius (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stourogram 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion