Talk:Edict of Milan

Suppression of paganism

Even after the Edict of Milan, didn't the Roman government continue to use government funds (taxes) to support pagan temples and so on? I thought that that government funding of paganism continued until 380-something when Christianity became the official religion of the empire. But I could be mis-remembering. Also, I hope the details I added about the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste aren't too disconnected from the rest of the article. It's a great story with a great icon to go with it. I think the names of at least most of those martyrs are recorded somewhere as well. Wesley 16:58, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As I understand it (it's not a complicated document in itself), the intent of the Edict was to grant toleration, not to dick sponsorship. However, sponsorship of paganism diminished rapidly as a result. So, its effect was to detach paganism from its official privilege. Mkmcconn 20:47, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I think it's Theodosius I, circa 390-395, who went after paganism. Between Constantine and Theodosius was Julian the Apostate. Constantine himself was a Sol Invictus worshipper, the "legend" is that he converted to Christianity on his deathbed, which may or may not be true. However, he and Licinius did end "Diocletian's Massacre" of Christians of 303-312.

Mkmcconn is right. The edict was about toleration. Licinius went back on it in his last years, but then Constantine conquered the East too. As for Emperors who "went after paganism", you have Constantius II, under whom many temples were destroyed, and especially Valens. Gratian ended the sponsorship for the imperial cult by resigning the title Pontifex Maximus. Theodosius prohibited all public or private pagan cults. As for Constantine, he was a Christian since the Milvian Bridge, though he wasn't baptized until his death bed (a not so uncommon thing in those days) and for some time tolerated pagan iconography regarding himself. In how far he was a worshipper of the artificial Sol invictus is unsure, he wasn't really after his conversion 312. Str1977 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Diocletian's Persecution ended in 311, 6 years after Dioceletian's retirement. It was ended by its main perpetrator Emperor Galerius in 311. MnJWalker 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Council of Arles was a more immediate consequence of the Milan declaration than the subsequent dynastic struggles developed in the article----Clive Sweeting

AD vs CE

Please choose and use one in the article, do not use both AD and CE. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The form CE has been used in this article since 25 August 2003. --Wetman 19:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As I write this, the article uses the AD form. Since I'm not sure if this should be changed, I have decided not to change at the moment. 173.68.190.221 (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed Licinius' stuff

I just rewrote some parts, removed Catholic POV and deleted at all the parts relative to Licinius' fate (they should be written in the dedicate entry). They looked a bit like as a pro-Catholic sermon, probably present in some old Cath. encyclopedia having no separate entry for Licinius.

Surviving copies

I'm pretty sure a fragmentary copy of the edict survived from somewhere in Egypt. I'll make the change after I source that. Dppowell 23:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

?Mediolanensium?

Ugh. Surely that should be Mediolanense? (The adjective is of the Third, of two endings).

64.89.246.203 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was just going to comment on that as well, unless it is supposed to mean "of the Milanese". All the Google results are from Wikipedia mirrors though. Must be a mistake. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Last Paragraph

The last paragraph needs some work. I left it largely as it is, but added some CNs. It may just be a problem of imprecise wording. I hope someone will fix it. JKeck (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Eusebius translations

This is a minor issue, but I came across an article in a peer-reviewed journal, where the author of the article argues that Eusebius didn't translate the Edict of Milan himself, but had someone else translate it for him. There's obviously no way of knowing for certain, but Eusebius himself also never expressly claims to have translated the document if you check his text in Greek. Should this be reflected in the text here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonasvanhala (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

An awkward sentence

"The Edict of Milan gave Christianity a legal status, but did not make Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire; this took place under Emperor Theodosius I in AD 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica."
1. Quite relevant information, but the wording makes it seem irrelevant.
2. Mentioning it as a state church before the notion of state church is even coined is weird.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The state religion

@Dhruva Gamerx: Stating that the Edict of Milan made Christianity the state religion is highly deluded WP:CB. And the rest of your edits are value judgments based upon WP:OR.

Name one bona fide history department which teaches that Constantine made Christianity the state religion. WP:CITE a WP:RS for it, and bingo, you win this dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Edict of Milan 2601:C2:700:B410:881D:E2B3:F12C:EF37 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)