Talk:Cross potent

Origin

The earliest use of the Cross Potent was as the core component in the Jerusalem Cross, given as a papal banner for the First Crusade, by Pope Urban II, in the late 11^th Century. The adjacent illustration shows how the exact form of the Cross Potent and its name could have been inspired simultaneously by the Rotas Square, which some authorities believe has Christian connotations.--DStanB (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "crutch" explanation appears in standard reference works, and is much less esoteric... AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, your first observation is an important one. It has the potential to negate my 'hypothesis', though I am not yet convinced that it does so. Of course, standard reference works are built from a position of best available knowledge, which is often a moving target. New ways of seeing things can help in making progress, until a matter has been 'put to bed' once and for all. I still think the provenance of the Cross Potent is open to debate, and I am not aware that a potential link with the Rotas (or Sator) Square has ever been considered. Any idea how the "crutch" came by the name "potent"? It helps when two or more reliable sources agree with one another. But in this case, an origin in the Rotas Square would be unlikely to have been recorded explicitly. Therefore, my suggestion, though plausible, is unlikely to be reliably verified.

As for the 'esoteric' label, if you mean 'occult' then I have a long-standing issue with that. Time and again, I have seen sober scholars step back from engaging with a supposedly esoteric topic, when the real need is to take it by the throat and shake the hidden truth out of it.--DStanB (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, did you mean 'tenuous'?--DStanB (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED, the Latin word potentia "power" was borrowed into Old French as potence with the meaning "strength", and was then applied to physical objects which serve the purpose of strengthening or supporting, apparently at first parts of military fortifications, but also eventually crutches. In modern French, potence mainly means "gallows", but can also refer to certain kinds of architectural supports. "Potent" is a variant of "Potence". And what I meant was that if a simple and standardly-accepted explanation seems sufficient, then an elaborately-convoluted and unaccepted explanation seems unnecessary. The Sator-Arepo-Tenet square shows up in a few surprising places, but it was hardly a basic organizing principle of ancient or medieval societies -- and your theory only gives you the word "Po-tenet" (not "potent") anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful, thanks. Especially the fact that potentia is ultimately a Latin word, in keeping with the Rotas Square and the medium preferred by the Mediaeval Church. On the point that my proposal is not an accepted explanation, it is, after all, only a proposal that does take into account new knowledge. The Rotas Square was unknown to modern scholarship until relatively recent times, but may easily have been known to Pope Urban II. I'll grant that we do not (and probably never will) have documentary evidence for the "Po-tenet" origin of the Cross Potent but, in the Rotas Square, we are dealing with a creation that has proved to be susceptible to word-play. I am content for my hypothesis to sit in this Talk page, accessible to anyone who may subsequently find it useful.--DStanB (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have much interest in continuing this conversation in its current form. The crucial Wikipedia question is: "What's your reliable source?" Some true facts and meritorious explanations have been kept off of Wikipedia articles due to lack of sources, and I don't know that your theory is either. AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm the cross potent within the Sator Square. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministryofdew (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Bronzeware script for wu 巫

The Chinese Bronzeware script for wu 巫 is identical with the medieval cross potent:
File:巫-bronze.svg
Regards, --Stefan Bach7777 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a pure visual coincidence, without any significant discussion in external sources, then it would appear not to belong on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the Chinese bronze script for wu is dated back about 800 BC. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was 1099–1291 AC. So the use is historical more rooted in the Chinese culture as in the European culture.

The American sinologist V.H. Mair provides archaeological and linguistic evidence that Chinese wu was a loanword from Old Persian magus "magi, magician". He connects the Chinese Bronze script for wu and Western heraldic cross potent, a symbol of a magi or magician, which etymologically descend from the same root.

The discovery at an early Chou site of two figurines with unmistakably Caucasoid or Europoid feature is startling prima facie evidence of East-West interaction during the first half of the first millennium Before the Current Era. It is especially interesting that one of the figurines bears on the top of his head the clearly incised graph ☩ which identifies him as a wu.

These figurines, which are dated circa 8th century BC, were discovered during a 1980 excavation of a Zhou Dynasty palace in Fufeng County (Shaanxi Province).

V.H. Mair connects the ancient Bronzeware script for wu 巫 "shaman" with the Western heraldic symbol of magicians, the cross potent ☩, which "can hardly be attributable to sheer coincidence or chance independent origination."

Reference:

Mair, Victor H. 1990. "Old Sinitic *Myag, Old Persian Magus and English Magician,” Early China 15: 27–47

Regards, --Stefan Bach7777 (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's not really the Cross Potent as such which is associated with Jerusalem, but rather the cross with four smaller crosses between its arms. (The largest of the five crosses of the Jerusalem cross is sometimes potent, but often not.) And given the large number of visual elaborations of the cross which are found in European heraldry -- see http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossc.htm#Cross to start with -- I can very well believe that the similarity in shapes with the archaic form of the Chinese character can easily be a coincidence, especially given the date discrepancy between 800 B.C. and 1100 A.D. (By the way, before 500 B.C. and the subsequent "closure of the Eurasian ecumene" there was no regular trading route between China and the Mediterranean area, such as the Silk Road of later times, and the only real influences which could be transmitted were small portable precious objects handed off across a long chain of neighboring primitive peoples...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's your opinion that it is coincidence, but not a general finding.

Regards, --Stefan Bach7777 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but given the vast geographical, chronological, and cultural disparity between China in 800 B.C. and developing European heraldry ca. 1200 A.D., and the very geometrically simple form of the basic Cross Potent shape (which could easily lend itself to independent reinvention), the burden of proof is really on you to show that there was any meaningful long-distance influence involved. The Mair article sounds interesting, but it appears to be largely about Zoroastrianism, and I would have to see it myself before I could evaluate it in any detail. In any case, if Mair is an expert on ancient China, then he probably isn't an expert on medieval European heraldry. AnonMoos (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika reference

The reference to this cross being called a swastika is wrong. It is in the intro and should be removed. No source is given and later in the article its use is specifically noted as being as opposed to a swastika. A swastika is simply a different symbol, one more ancient and widely used than as the statement implies (not just by Nazis). Unless a reason or source for it exists, I’d recommend deleting the text as misleading at best and just plain wrong as very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemistic description of the Fatherland Front

Engelbert Dollfuß' Austrian Fatherland Front is described as "Catholic traditionalist organisation" in this article. This is a incredibly euphemistic way of describing it, when it really was a political movement, that installed a dictatorship in Austria from 1934 onwards, was heavily backed by various far-right paramilitary groups ("Heimwehren"), operated a concentration camp, persecuted its political opponents, and thusly is widely considered a Fascist movement. 178.115.76.54 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]