Talk:Sator Square/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Sator Square. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Latin an artificial language???

The most plausible explanation for the sator square's existence is that the Latin language was likely originally built around it rather than vice versa

Is this seriously suggesting that Latin is an artificial language?? I find that extremely difficult to believe. Is there serious support for that claim? -08:39, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think what the above is trying to say is that the phrase didn't exist until somebody managed to put it into the square. Rick K 04:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Palindromes are usually constructed as exercises in clever wordplay. No doubt this is true of this sentence as well, and in fact it is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course when you are dealing with anagrams and palindromes, sometimes they do not use proper nouns and thing like that. You should try making one yourself if you doubt the fact. Sehorn (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Latin is not an artificial language, but it is somewhat artificial. It was a language that was corrected and made regular. Gingermint (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

oh dear

The following is certainly novel, but it betrays a certain lack of familiarity with Latin. (William Whitaker's program is an excellent aid to Latin translation, but one has to know the first thing about the language and its grammar in order to use it effectively.)

begin removed text

S A T O R: sower, planter; founder, progenitor (usu. divine); originator
A R E P O: creep/move stealthily towards, steal up; feel one's way, worm one's way (trust)
T E N E T: holds, keeps; comprehends; possesses; masters; preserves; supports 
O P E R A: work, care; aid; service, effort, trouble; fortification
R O T A S: (as a noun) wheels; or (as a verb) whirl round, revolve, rotate

(Translation courtesy of Words by William Whitaker)

This becomes broadly transliterated as:

SATOR, AREPO: I the creator god, stealthily advancing toward, am

TENET: he who holds

OPERA: the world stage (or "work of care") which

ROTAS: you spin.

Loosely, this could mean: I, the creator god, subtly nearing you as you grow older, am he who holds the cycle of life you live.

[. . .]

The most plausible explanation for the sator square's existence is that the Latin language was likely originally built around it rather than vice versa. Because Latin dates as early as 75 BC and Old Latin even older, the sator square apparently is older than the Christian religion.

Breaking it down, with the help of Mr. Whitaker's excellent program:

sator is a nominative singular noun and nothing else; this makes it, of course, the subject of the sentence. It means 'sower, progenitor, originator'. So we have our subject:

The sower

What's he doing? If this is a proper sentence there must be a verb in here somewhere. All the other words in the sentence might be verbs, so let's take them one by one. arrepo can be a verb, but it comes from ad, 'toward', and repere, 'creep'. Its ending indicates that it's in the first person singular, so it translates to 'I creep towards'—but we already have a subject, sator, so the speaker can't be the subject of the sentence. So this is not our verb, and as it has no other possible meanings, we guess that it's a proper name:

Arepo the sower

What about tenet? This is a third person singular present indicative active verb, which is a long way of saying that it means 'he holds'. (Other translations are possible, but all are similar enough that 'hold' will do for now.) Do we have our verb? Maybe. It matches the subject in number, and it's an indicative active verb, which is what usually goes with the subject of a sentence. Let's look at the others first.

opera, when it's a verb, is second person singular present imperative active. It's an order, telling someone to 'work'. Could it go with sator, our subject? It could, but then we're left with tenet hanging around doing nothing, because there's nothing for it to do: it's a verb and nothing else. So this isn't our verb.

[rotas, when it's a verb, is similar to opera, only it's indicative instead of imperative, describing instead of commanding: 'you rotate'. But again, if this is our verb, what are we going to do with poor old tenet? This can't be it either.

Having eliminated the other possibilities, we are left with only one choice: tenet is our verb. So we have:

Arepo the sower holds

What's he holding? Let's find a noun that's in the accusative or dative case (direct object and indirect object, respectively). We have two words that might be accusative nouns: opera, 'works', and rotas, 'wheels'. So, he's either holding the works:

Arepo the sower holds the works

or the wheels:

Arepo the sower holds the wheels

Run with the first one. If he's holding the wheels, what are the other two words doing? arepo is a proper name, so it's not doing anything. If rotas isn't a noun, it must be a verb—and we already have our verb, and this is a simple sentence, so we're not getting into multiple clauses here. It looks like opera is not the object of this sentence, which leaves only rotas:

Arepo the sower holds the wheels

Now we're getting somewhere. We just have to fit opera into the sentence somewhere. We've already tried and rejected opera as a verb and an accusative noun, so let's try its remaining meaning. It might be in the nominative, but that role is already fulfilled by sator, so it's not. The only meaning left is the ablative form of opus, which means 'work', 'care', 'effort', and a number of other things. In English we translate the Latin ablative using 'from', 'with', or 'by', so:

Arepo the sower holds the wheels {from/with/by} {work/care/effort}

and from there we just need to find something that reads well in English; I like:

Arepo the sower holds the wheels with care

In summation, if you're going to do original research here, please try to have some idea of what you're talking about.

As for this bit:

The most plausible explanation for the sator square's existence is that the Latin language was likely originally built around it rather than vice versa.

show me one source that says this, and I'll show you a source that says I'm the Grand High Emperor of Venus. There's no need to postulate that this phrase holds the secret of some esoteric origin for Latin when we have a simple and reasonable explanation right here: that it's a clever piece of Latin wordplay, no more. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 11:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

p.s. the postulated translation

I the creator god, stealthily advancing toward, am he who holds the work which you spin.

simply doesn't work: while it's theoretically possible to form a noun from the stem of tenere, it would be formed with the ending -tor (cf. orator, operator, interlocutor), so he who holds would be something like tenetor, and that doesn't fit. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 11:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A problem here is that "opera" cannot be the ablative of "opus". The ablative of "opus" is "opere" in the singular, and "operibus" in the plural. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The literal meaning of SaToR is SeeDeR as T&D are dental sound-shifts, as DEWnada teaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4002:82FE:3C82:5B9:3478:82F4 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The above "editors" likely never took a single course on Latin. They are phoney authorities.

Fellas,

Go to college. Take a course on Latin.

You'd probably find it easier to find a Latin Professor who can show you the way.

Then, come back and fix this.

Apparently we can't fix it correctly without you guys reverting it to the old way again.

So, it'll just stay the way it is. -Roylee

When you discuss content on its merits rather than attacking the qualifications of anyone who disagrees with you, you are much less likely to make a fool of yourself. As for me, I took Latin throughout primary and secondary school, and am now in my third year of a degree in classical studies. I could easily show my translation to a professor of classics, since I know one or two, and I don't doubt he would confirm it. Can you say the same?

On the other hand, if you disagree with any part of my suggested translation, if you think it could be improved, you are welcome to explain why and how. Be specific. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know it's not much, but I minored in Latin/Ancient greek (plus 4 years of secondary school). yep. Graduated 01. But then, I'm not really an editor of this article. Lethe | Talk 08:43, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ya'll are all wrong!!! I HAD a Latin Professor 2 decades ago as a Latin teacher. She said that Latin students usually make mistakes translating the Sator Square, because it is written in Old Latin. Arepo is NOT a common name!!! You are all wrong, because you have not studied ***Old*** Latin. The Latin you are studying dates no earlier than 75 BC!!! The person who wrote the above is correct: You ARE PHONEY AUTHORITIES!!! YOU NEED TO FIND A LATIN PROFESSOR WHO ***KNOWS*** (as opposed to is only **familiar with**) OLD LATIN!!!! 209.150.67.45

The article says, and in this it agrees with reputable authorities, that the oldest known sator square dates from the 1st century CE—a time in which Old Latin had definitely become Classical Latin. Several authorities agree that arepo should be taken as a proper name, and thus come up with translations similar to mine. Here are a few (emphasis mine):

"Across and down": R. P. Austin, Greece & Rome, Vol. 8, No. 24. (May, 1939), pp. 129-138.
Takes arepo as a proper name (in fact, says "To get a translatable Latin sentence out of the inscription it is necessary to take Arepo as a proper name"), translates the sentence as "Arepo the sower carefully guides the wheels."
"'Arepo' in the Magic 'Sator' Square'": J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Classical Review, New Ser., Vol. 21, No. 1. (Mar., 1971), pp. 6-8.
Takes arepo as a proper name, suggests that it is Egyptian in origin: "It may be submitted with some confidence that 'Arepo' is a proper name and that it originated in Alexandria, deriving from the Egyptian Hr-Hp." (Note from me: The Hs in Hr-Hp have dots under them in the original, but I don't know what they are called, nor how to produce them in HTML.)
"Reviews and discussions": Hugh Last, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 44. (1954), pp. 112-116.
In a review of Jérôme Carcopino's Études d’histoire chrétienne. I, Le christianisme secret du "carré magique": Les fouilles de Saint-Pierre et la tradition, he says: "[. . .] that AREPO was put in for the sake of any meaning it might have and not merely because it results from reading OPERA backwards I do not find it possible to believe."
"The Sator-Acrostic": J. M. McBryde, Jr. Modern Language Notes, Vol. 22, No. 8. (Dec., 1907), pp. 245-249
Reports "In a brief communication to the Verhandlung der Berl. Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, 1880, p. 42, Treichel describes a curious 'Toll-tafel' [. . .] inscribed with the acrostic. [. . .] For the word 'Arepo', which he takes to be a proper name, he can find no satisfactory explanation. [. . .] In a later communication [. . .], Treichel suggests another interpretation: [. . .] . He still finds, however, no satisfactory explanation for the word AREPO."

If the assumption that the text is Old Latin would significantly change the translation, feel free to demonstrate that. Substantiate it with reference to reliable texts. arepo may have some meaning in Old Latin of which I'm not aware, and if you know that, please do share it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As should have been clear, but apparently was not, when I said Griffiths "takes arepo as a proper name [and] suggests that it is Egyptian in origin", it referred to arepo rather than the square. This has been corrected, but please try to read sources before citing them. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Anyone who has had a mystical experience with the Sator Square is an authentic authority able to share their personal meanings and associations. Grammar scholars and scholars in general will never understand the numinous power of the Sator Square until they meditate upon it contemplatively. It is a contemplative tool for connecting with Nun (the central deity in the central square) and not some puzzle to be solved or code to be deciphered." -- DEWnada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.136.193 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4002:82FE:3C82:5B9:3478:82F4 (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Working On It Charles.... This is what I've found so far....

According to the Royal Irish Academy: Dictionary of Medieval Latin from Celtic Sources, arepere is a verb. It's a form of arripere.

Their dictionary says, "arepere = arripere."

More information is on the way, but it hasn't reached me yet. I'll let you know if what else I get is substantial.

--Roylee

Quite apart from the fact that it's medieval, not classical, Latin, arripere is a third (-io) conjugation verb, so the first person singular present indicative active would be arripio. I don't think it's relevant. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Charles: I don't believe that's what the dictionary says.

If you take the time to study how to use the dictionary you will find that "* means "frequent, Late Latin."" In other words, in Old Latin, arepere has a different meaning than its use in Late Latin. Otherwise, the dictionary would put an asterick "*" by the word.

Maybe there aren't enough Old Latin sources to know for sure, but your assumption about what form the first person singular present indicative active would look like is exactly that ... an assumption. No one knows for sure what the first person singular present indicative active, in Old Latin, for arepere exactly is. Perhaps it is arepo; that assumption about Old Latin is equally as valid as your assumption.

Your response to Roylee, I'm sorry to say, is irrelevant. Please learn how to use the dictionary before you say something wrong.

If you take the time to study how to use the dictionary you will find that "* means "frequent, Late Latin."" In other words, in Old Latin, arepere has a different meaning than its use in Late Latin. Otherwise, the dictionary would put an asterick "*" by the word.

The marking means that the word is frequently used in Late Latin, i.e., medieval Latin. Nearly all the terms marked with asterisks—like angelus, episcopalis, and so forth—are religious terms, as you can plainly see just by going over the As: ab(b)as ('abbot'), ab inuicem ('from one another'), abyssus ('abyss', i.e. Hell), aeternaliter ('forever'), an(a)choreta ('anchorite', 'hermit'), angelicus, ('angelic'), angelus ('angel'), antichristus ('Antichrist'), apostolus ('apostle'), archangelus ('archangel'), and archiepiscopus ('archbishop'). So no, the asterisk does not mark a different meaning in Old Latin; it just marks something that came into more frequent use with the rise of the Christian church. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there aren't enough Old Latin sources to know for sure, but your assumption about what form the first person singular present indicative active would look like is exactly that ... an assumption.

I was not making any guesses about the Old Latin form of the word; I was demonstrating the Classical Latin form. I don't know what the Old Latin form is; do you? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No one knows for sure what the first person singular present indicative active, in Old Latin, for arepere exactly is. Perhaps it is arepo; that assumption about Old Latin is equally as valid as your assumption.

Does anyone know if the word even exists in Old Latin? I don't. Since the earliest examples of the square—and thus of the word arepo—are in Classical Latin, I don't see how this is relevant. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this article makes no sense to a phd teacher :/ pls update it

Please elaborate. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Since everyone else seems to be deeply offended by this article for some reason or another, I'd just like to say that it's quite good. -Silence 06:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You guys need to check the Oxford Latin Dictionary or Lewis and Short (can be accessed through Perseus). These dictionaries will cite all uses of the words in the Latin corpus, including in extant inscriptions. As to the question of Old Latin, even forms that are not attested can be inferred with a high degree of certainty on historical linguistic grounds. A good place to start might be Woodcock's New Latin Syntax, which looks at syntax (though not really morphology) from an historical linguistic standpoint. Gildersleeve or Allen and Greenogh grammars also have entries on archaic forms. In any case, the differences between archaic, classical, and medieval Latin are not all that substantial. None of the forms here seem to be obviously archaic, and the square is grammatically coherent assuming classical morphology. If there is a Christian connection to be made, then one must assume that the Sator forms are not archaic, given that Christianity did not begin until after archaic Latin had long ceased to be written, and considering the earliest inscription found was preserved at Herculeneum and thus dates 79 A.D., well after the archaic period. With these two points in mind, I see no reason at all to look for Archaic forms.~~PhD student in Classics.

Other anagrams

I think it worthy of note for anyone who reads significance into the sator square and its anagrams that "sator arepo tenet opera rotas" is also an anagram of:

a pot so ornate or rare pets

roast pope treat; east near oro

taste rare eastern rat poo poo

art; to peas ore not to peas; arse

and

tattoos are a rare spot on peer

Teutanic 15:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

what on earth is your point? a collection of nonsensical anagrams in Latin might prove something; a collection of English anagrams means little. —Charles P._(Mirv) 16:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

the point being precisely that any anagram of the sator square should not be given too much significance. Teutanic 15:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some anagrams are very important, others irrelevant. Contemplate and discern. Lets look at the anagrams of SATOR-ROTAS alone to amplify the meaning using DEWnada's magic square amplification method:

SATOR ASTRO TTTTT ORTSA ROTAS

SATOR ARTSO TTTTT OSTRA ROTAS

So using this amplification method we find important anagrams which reveal more fully the meaning of SATOR and ROTAS. They are related to ASTRO and OSTRA which are star-related words. These are heavenly Wheels and a heavenly Seeder that are being referred to. I hope this shows that anagrams have an important place in Sator Square research. Join the Sator Opera on Facebook to learn more and to study with DEWnada and Bhakti Ananda Goswami and other who are exploring the numinous meaning and power of the Sator Square from a contemplative and cross-cultural perspective." -- DEWnada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.136.193 (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

aside from the typo (ARTSA should be ARTSO to be palindrome), What does Ostra have to do with stars? Is there an Oyster constellation? Not that I expect an answer, I just think your statement is reaching. Wcichello (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was a typo which i fixed. Research Easter to see what it has to do with stars. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ēostre ; And sure, OST root of oyster refers to “bone” and it is appropriate to find bones in the square— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4002:82FE:3C82:5B9:3478:82F4 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Got it backwards

You guys seem to have it backwards... Every carving I've ever seen has it "Rotas Opera Tenet Arepo Sator", which also seems to follow the grammatical Latin structure I've been taught over the years... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.153.182.52 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Accuracy, does not matter to their reality. That is why they destroyed my original article by stealing even the Reference (Removing reference from their article...). My article, is, and was still accurate: Graffito (archaeology). ..from the SonoranDesert of Arizona. (But since they destroyed the original intent of the article, I had to put the "Christian Magic Square" on its Talk Page. Talk:Graffito (archaeology)--Mmcannis 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, here it is sator arepo ....: wa:Image:SATOR_NAYOME_2.jpg

Commercial Link

Just got rid of a commercial link. Just a site selling an over-priced sculpture. --75.57.112.160 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Numerology

Does anyone know of any sources to verify the Sator square's numerological significance, i.e. each row/column digit summing to 1? I can't find any on the web, but surely there must be something out there.. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I did write a short article about adding rows and columns and diagonals on the 5e of feb. This was not about adding to 1 but about the curiousity that all the digits from 2 to 8 apear. Missing the numbers 1 and 9. I tried to compose a square with different letters with the same totals and then the last diagonal to ad up to 91. I did not succeed although I tried to use lineair algebra. Anyone who tries this will find out that it is not easy and thus remarkeble. (sorry for my English)

I would like to put back the following :

                 82
      S A T O R  73
      A R E P O  55
      T E N E T  64
      O P E R A  
      R O T A S 
                 88

And then write something about the appaerance of the digits 2 to 8 and the lack of the 1 and the 9. It's just mathematically interesting.

Hans Blom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans blom (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SATOR+AREPO = 128 = 2xTENET. So, it is possible to combine rows (and columns) in ways that make 1x64; 2x64; 3x64; 4x64 and 5x64. The sum of 4xA and 4xO (letter 'O') is also 64. An afterthought: 55 is a triangular number, 64 is both a square and cube, while 73 is a hexagram (Star of David)--DStanB (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What is meant by "adding to 1" is that using digit sum on the results it adds to 1. eg. 7+3=10, 5+5=10, 6+4=10, 5+5=10, 7+3=10, and 10's digit sum is 1+0 thus resulting in 1. But the problem with this numerology is that since the first sator squares were made in the 1st century AD, the makers probably used the classic latin alphabet, and if you then assign numbers to the letters according to that alphabet, the results are:

      S A T O R  69 = 15 = 6
      A R E P O  52 = 7
      T E N E T  61 = 7
      O P E R A  52 = 7
      R O T A S  69 = 15 = 6

--196.209.165.164 (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Paternoster

No mention is made of the fact that the Sator square's components, unravelled renders Paternoster,'Our Father', in the form of a cross with the 'n' centred with an a and o standing for alpha and omega at the top and bottom and this leads to assertions that it acted as an Early Christian symbol in the same fashion as the ichthus. Jatrius 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That was in the article a week ago, and was recently removed as "fiction-cruft". I've readded that part. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

CRYPTOLOGIA, Volume XXVII Number 3 (July 2003)

http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/pubs/cryptologia/ The Sator Rebus: An Unsolved Cryptogram? Rose Mary Sheldon --Steve (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

an alternative translation attempt

we all know about the intrinsic problems of clarity and accuracy in verbal communication, in regard to people that speak the same language. far more confusing things happen if a word, a sentence containing a meaning is translated from one culture, from one language to another. the bible translation from hebrew to latin and greek show this clearly as pointed out in many cases by Pinchas Lapide.

S. Girolamo the translater of the gospels into latin in 3rd century shows as well a factor that is can't to be weighted to much :hybris, lack of humility. he translated as he stated not word by word but sense by sense. so we can imagine whose sense is reflected in difficult translation issues, for sure not the sense of the author.

i translate the

rotas opera tenet

areposator

as follows:

swirling or spining or circling will you understand the work of the areposator

i connected the saying to the tunic of christ that is in the Cathredal of Trier, germany.symbol of the teachings of Jesus. a kind of 3 dimensional work that has no stitches and is not sown together. it must have been woven on a kind of threedimensional weaving frame around a person. i can go into detail about my theory, and experiment set up to reproduce such a cloth. the word areposator could mean something like the profession of someone in the "sa(r)torial" business creating those tunics without a stitch. that sounds now strange, doesn't it, but who knows, the translation i found up to now are a bit strange too.

raphaelRajosta (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean you connected the saying to a tunic? Do you mean you relate an "areposator" to such a tunic? Why? Perhaps areposator is the name of the graffito artist. Can you imagine, writing a silly little saying on a wall and people are debating about it 2000 years later? "What does this 'badmambajambaBK' mean, and why is it on written on a stop sign?!" --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

yet another speculated translation

"The cultivator steadily maintains the cyclic works." It has been nearly fifty years since I had two years of high school Latin, but the SATOR square and speculation on its meaning has stuck like glue. Naaman Brown (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mention of the similar Sanskrit and Hebrew variants of this should be made on this or another page... --V2Blast (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The word arepo is a hapax legomenon, appearing nowhere else in Latin literature. Most of those who have studied the Sator Square agree that it is a proper name, either an adaptation of a non-Latin word or most likely a name invented specifically for this sentence. Jerome Carcopino thought that it came from a Celtic, specifically Gaulish, word for plough. David Daube argued that it represented a Hebrew or Aramaic rendition of the Greek Αλφα ω, or "Alpha-Omega" (cf. Revelation 1:8) by early Christians. J. Gwyn Griffiths contended that it came, via Alexandria, from the attested Egyptian name Ḥr-Ḥp, which he took to mean "the face of Apis". (For more on these arguments see Griffiths, 1971 passim.)

If "arepo" is taken to be in the second declension, the "-o" ending could put the word in the ablative case, giving it a meaning of "by means of [arepus]." Thus, "The sower holds the works and wheels by means of [unknown]."

OR BY REPLACING THE [R] IN AREPO WITH [L] MAKES THE WORD [ALEP] WHICH CAN BE INTERPRETED AS:[ALPHA]AND THE[O]AS OMEGA [A (L) E P] [O] : ALPHA & OMEGA (JESUS MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO DO GODS WORK) BY ROBERT ANDREW UPCHURCH

  (R)              REFERENCES: (THE NAKED ARCHEOLOGISTS)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupchurch444589 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

opera

Someone has written: "the word "opera" in Latin is plural and can be only the subject or the direct object of the verb "tenet"." This claim has no citation to support it. More importantly, it is false. Part of it is true: if "opera" is from "opus, operis" then it really can be only nominative or accusative. But there is another word, "opera, operae", which also means "work" or "effort"; and "opera" from this word could be either nominative or ablative. If it is ablative, then the interpretations repudiated in this paragraph could well be correct. --68.173.49.230 (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"the word OPERA is a pun on the Holy Name Ops who is the consort of Saturnus (SATOR is a pun on the Holy Name Saturnus)... The entire square is full of Holy Names, particularly god and goddess pairings such as Saturnus & Ops..." -- DEWnada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.136.193 (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sator square backwards

Could it be that what we call the Sator square is actually a Rotas square? There are two reasons for me to think so, being:

Apart from the Oppède square, the square in St. Peter ad Oratorium, the one in Cirencester and the oldest one in Pompeii, all start with ROTAS instead of SATOR.
The Oppède Sator square has it's S and N characters backwards, as if it was carved from a (mirrored) reference copy (of clay, for example), where the carver forgot to turn these characters or just didn't know how there are supposed to be (maybe because the carver cannot read or write, but just copied).

By the way, would this change the possible meaning in any way? Virtlink^t•c 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I came across this other image of a Sator square (but I am unable to read the description), and like the Oppède square above, it has it's N character backwards (but not it's S, which seems to be flipped and upside down instead). Virtlink^t•c 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, a "rotas square" wouldn't have a different meaning from a "sator square". Word order in Latin is rather free because the word endings clarify the grammatical role of the words. Sometimes words do have to come in a specific order -- e.g., prepositions must precede the words they modify -- but no such rules are relevant in this sentence. However, "sator" seems more likely as the first word, given that a Latin sentence typically starts with the subject (if one is specified). - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"while the ROTAS square is the earlier form, the SATOR square was the most common later form and I theorize it became so in order to allow the square to begin and end with the letter S, which symbolizes the Holy Serpent who is the first and the last. (See Ananta Sesha Naga theology in Vaishnavism.) This same serpent emanates fully from the central N (Nun/Narayana) as PRSTR, the consonants which spell prester, Latin for poisonous asp serpent. The cow/bull and the lion are other significant animals which can be found in the square by those able to read the Holy Names." -- DEWnada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.136.193 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of the phrase

Two possible translations of the phrase are 'The sower Arepo holds the wheels with effort' and 'The sower Arepo leads with his hand (work) the plough (wheels).'

I'm not clear on how either of these interpretations is possible, because both of those translations seem to assume that "opera" is the ablative, which it cannot be: the ablative of "opus" is "opere" in the singular and "operibus" in the plural. "Opera" is either the nominative or accusative plural. I'm still a beginning Latin student, so maybe I'm wrong somehow, but if so, I'd like an explanation. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: as somebody has since pointed out below, "opera" is also a first-declension noun, not only the plural of "opus", so it is indeed possible for it to be ablative (operā). - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

" When one understands the square is a mandala labyrinth leading to the N at the center, one is able to read it as: SATOROPERATEN or ROTASAREPOTEN ... Play with the spacing yourself. One can read it as SATORO PER ATEN The Seeder Through The Aten, or ROTAS A RE POTEN, wheels of a reality power, and many other ways just as simply SATOR OPERA TEN The Seeder Tends the Operations... The Operations, interestingly are the Gopis of the Circle Dance who are being tantra-ed by the Seeder. Gopi = earth herdess (go can mean cow or earth or other things in sanskrit) Opus from Opis = earth moving in Latin ... If one wishes to read the entire phrase now a SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS one can see the circle dancing gopis being tended by the Seeder" -- DEWnada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.136.193 (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

AREPO, again

Robert Milburn says of AREPO: "Arepo is an outlandish word from Gaul meaning a plough." He gives the translation as "The sower, with his eys on the plough, holds its wheel with care." (Milburn, Early Christian Art and Architecture, Berkeley and Los Angeles : University of California Press, 1988, p. 1; ISBN 0520063260) Perhaps this interpretation should be incorporated into the article as well. Dsmdgold (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"AREPO can be many things. first note the sound change rules. R/L can be substituted. P/Ph/B can be substituted. An aspirate can yield to an initial vowel... So AREPO can be ALEPO, ALEBO, SAREPO, HAREPO, etc. Now look at sacred deity names and ancient place names. AREPO could refer to Harpocrates, Europa/Serabhi, Aleppo (meaning white), Aleph-Omega, Serapis, Apollo, et al." -- DEWnada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.136.193 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian association over-emphasized

I have added to the first few lines, for those readers not acquainted with the date on which Herculaneum was entombed, that the sator square therefore (in all likelihood) predates the Christian era. I have moved the discussion of the christian associations to the section with this title, since it has been assigned too much importance by placing it at the beginning. The sator square in all probability predates the christian era. Many people and groups have assigned different meanings to it. Mentioning only the christian association in the introduction I feel gives far too much importance to this interpretation.

"Christianity itself is pre-Christian, meaning a continuation of ancient Catholic traditions. So it should not be surprising that the Sator Square continued to be used as a numinous theophoric mandala in the Christian era." -- DEWnada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.136.193 (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point?

I wonder if the sator square is indeed a secret christian symbol, and the difficulty in extracting any meaning from it is due to its intentional ambiguity? Maybe the originator of the square deliberately used words that looked like they might make sense at a glance, but on closer examination weren't really a sentence, or were so many possible sentences, each of which not particular meaningful, that no real meaning can be attached to the words. Maybe they were the best option given the tools (the letters of "Paternoster"). Check out the entry for abracadabra for a long list of possible derivations, none of which really explains its use over the past 18 centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.249.45 (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern scholars have definitely missed the point of the SATOR Square. Any contemplative or mystic who has been initiated into reading the Holy Name can see that the square is a theophoric mandala containing names and pairings of deities which were common throughout the Mediterranean world. Saturn and Ops are there, Nun and Nunet, Serapis and Isis and Harpocrates, and many many more. Bhakti Ananda Goswami is a good teacher for those of you seeking to learn how to read and recognize the Holy Name(s)." -- DEWnada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.136.193 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Game Board?

I fear many are over analyzing this. The pattern of vowels and consonants are clearly in a checker board fashion. I'd argue that the letters represent nothing more than a pattern on a game board, which has been over thought into a mystical symbolism which probably never existed. --Razmear (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have included a comment on this in the "Paternoster" sub-section. It is possible that the distinctive positioning of the Latin vowels belongs to a larger pattern that contrasts the Latin and Hebrew languages.--DStanB (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"the vowels are in the arrangement which freemasons claim is the layout of the encampment of the 12 tribes of israel around the tabernacle in the wilderness, forming a maltese cross. those who claim there is no mystical meaning to the square are unable to read theophoric mandalas which is what the sator square is. the sator opera is dedicated to contemplating the sator square as an interspiritual theophoric mandala: http://www.facebook.com/groups/463929096964050/" -- DEWnada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.255.160 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Polyglot purpose

If A and O equate to the Greek Alpha and Omega, it may be possible to take the analogy further. The four copies of T could equate to the Hebrew Tav, which is the final letter of that language. In which case, joining up all the A, O and T sentinel letters completes a full circle

(echos of Carl Sagan's novel: Contact), and all within the word for "wheels". The Paternoster Cross shows the same letters in much the same configuration.

It is possible that the designer of the Rotas square was acquainted with all three of the Latin, Greek and Hebrew languages. Then there may be grounds for suspecting the square was designed to highlight both similarities and differences of the Latin and Hebrew languages in particular. First, Hebrew is written from right-to-left, so the emphatic Sator...rotaS palindrome would be a clever allusion to that difference. Second, Hebrew uses an alphabet consisting entirely of consonants (no explicit vowels), and the Rotas square separates its consonants and vowels in alternating positions, like white and black squares in a chequerboard. Third, the word ROTAS includes the consonants R, S & T, the equivalents of which all occur in the first Hebrew word of Genesis, and are the last three letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Indeed, that word also includes the first two letters of that alphabet, as ROTAS also includes a Latin A.--DStanB (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In the above Section on 'Numerology', one user has shown that all row and column totals (based on each letter's ordinal position in the Latin alphabet) reduce to 10. This happens because: (i) all numbers are expressed in Base-10, and (ii) every total differs from the others by an exact multiple of the significant number 9. Now, the 9^th letter of the Hebrew alphabet is ט (tet) which, in the ancient script, was written as a circle partitioned into four quadrants by two perpendicular diameters. This configuration is much like the latest illustration, in which the two copies of TENET achieve the partitioning. In addition, the simple symbolic meaning of the letter tet (i.e. a basket) also includes concepts like 'to surround' and 'to contain', which are similar to the Latin TENET. This, too, is evidence not only that the designer of the Sator Square was conversant with both Latin and Hebrew languages, but perhaps that the (biblical?) relationship between them was central to his purpose. Of course, his purpose might have needed to remain a subterfuge (see main article). --DStanB (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Remit?

I hope I don't come across as being unconstructive here, but there does seem to be a lot of effort being put into working out what the Sator Square means. Lot of speculation and analysis and linguistic discussions and such.

I'm wondering: as fascinating as the puzzle is, is it really our job to solve it? I'd suggest that it's not - or at least not here. We don't need to argue over the exact type of Latin represented (assuming it is a language at all), or whether it's a Christian symbol or not. We just need to describe what the Square is, summarise what's been said about it, and provide references. - Coldwind139 (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"unconstructive"? Not at all. It seems to me there are lots of contributions in this Talk page that work against each other, and do not help anyone to summarise what the square is. On the other hand, there are some new suggestions for what the Sator Square is that are no less convincing than those already incorporated into the main Article. Of course, referencing could be a problem.--DStanB (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Pompeian graffity

I have added a 'See also' link to the article on Isopsephy, because of a real connection through Pompeii, where both have been found in the form of graffiti. They both reflect a prevalent 1^st Century preoccupation with artistic mysticism. I hope that, as a by-product, ancient 'esoteric' topics may stop being brushed aside by academia, and be recognised as just another facet of its contemporary culture. --DStanB (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Why such scepticism towards Christianity

The statement that it is "not likely that Pompeii had a large Christian population in 79 A.D and the symbolism inferred as Christian and the use of Latin in Christianity is not attested to until later" is speculative. There is no reason to doubt the claim in Philippians 4:22 that there were Christians in Caesar's household in Rome, less than 150 miles from Pompeii, at least ten years before the eruption of Vesuvius buried it. And if they were in Caesar's household it beggars belief to suggest that they didn't speak Latin! Although there may not have been a "large Christian population" how many Christians does it take to put up graffiti. Bristol where I live is the centre of UK graffiti thanks to the work of one prolific graffiti artist "Banksy". I cannot help feeling that the skepticism about the Christian connection (despite the Paternoster connection which cries out Christian) is based on other than academic rigor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BristolPete (talk • contribs) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A fair point. Perhaps there is an unspoken objection that the Rotas Square and Paternoster Cross appear esoteric, or could argue in favour of a Gnostic form of Christianity, as opposed to orthodoxy. The scholarly community have been known to shun topics that touch on the esoteric, when they ought to grab it by the throat and shake the truth out of it.--DStanB (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Pete: I agree it makes no sense. I was under the impression most scholars agreed it was a Christian symbol, since the words can be loosely translated as "as ye sow, so shall ye reap" and it makes no sense to think that a single square is work required by anything more than a single small group of Christians. Coupled with the fact that the catacombs have the same imagery as the Our Father Alpha Omega art its more than a off hand idea that its related. Its the leading idea as I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.236.187.38 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The above comment on 'as ye so, so shall ye reap' is discussed here : http://www.cchahistory.ca/journal/CCHA1959/Fishwick.htm#_ftnref19 but makes use of a double tenet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.217.35 (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Солдат Відпочиває

друзі, перекладати цю гру слів теба не лексично, а за сенсом. Наприклад, аналогічно за змістом прислів,ям: "Солдат Відпочиває - а Служба Йде"31.223.231.219 (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sator Square. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090814012225/http://www.northvegr.org:80/lore/powwow/010.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/powwow/010.php#135

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The real meaning is...

It's Arepo, the sower, who keeps the wheels in motion.

Yet it's put in an ART form, a two-dimensional and symmetric palindrome, that could only be made in early Latin. The meaning is very clear though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:2F15:5B00:8562:EDB3:243C:2208 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sator Squares in other languages

Does anyone know how common "Sator Squares" are these days? And how is it...should new versions also be called "Sator Square" or is that name reserved only for this particular original one? Well, at least Finnish is perfect language for same kind of "word-squares". Here three examples. Two in Finnish and one in English. 1. Finnish Sator Square. 2. Finnish Sator Square.2. 3. English Sator Square -- 04:10, 5 February 2017 Inkcontinent

Using an apostrophe might be considered cheating. It wouldn't go on the article unless it has achieved a certain prominence or "notability"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The links are no good. Can you join The Sator Opera group on Facebook and upload your stuff there please? DErnestWachter (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Way too much original research

There is (was) way, way too much original research on this page. I removed all conjectures not supported by at least one source (or supported by fake sources, like dictionary entries that have nothing to do with this phrase). Please do not add any tendentious conjectures to the article without citing a source in the future. AristippusSer (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we just propose a simple translation for "AREPO"; "AREPO" = "A(space)REPO"?

Might "AREPO" just be "A REPO"? Which (per Google Translate) would be "from sneak/crawl/grovel" and therefore not require fancy research?

If we go with that meaning then the full sentence translation from Latin to English could be: "The sneaky/crawling seeder/sower/farmer holds the toil that turns."

Such a translation clearly resonates with the Christian imagery of Satan (as symbolized in the crawling/sneaky snake) creating the grinding wheels of work that hold humanity out of paradise. To the Latin speaking believer of the time it seems clear that such a translation makes the message an elegantly structured nugget of wisdom that would inspire them to post it as prominently as has been found.

Having a non-word/name translation; claiming "Arepo" to be a proper name, reduces it to interesting yet random wordplay and doesn't explain why it is a prominently celebrated/repeated message found throughout time and place.

It is unclear to me why this translation is not proposed already. Does putting this version in the article require some academic researcher to propose it even though it seems like a pretty simple/clear translation given the inherent meaning of the words?

I just came across this whole thing due to the new Christopher Nolan movie and found the currently proposed "AREPO" translations to be lacking so I don't mean to come off like some kind of know-it-all; just confused.MaxQuark (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

MaxQuark -- In the Latin language "A" is a short form of "AB", a preposition which means "from", "away from". In Latin "A REPO" could only make sense if REPO was a noun in the Ablative case form, whose corresponding Nominative case form would be "REPUS" or "REPUM". However, no such noun is listed in the dictionary. "REPO" is a 1st singular present tense verb form which means "I am creeping, I am crawling". A verb cannot be the object of a preposition, so "A REPO" in that form makes no sense whatsoever (is gibberish in Latin). Sometimes verbs can have prepositions prefixed to them as adverbial prefixes, but in that case it would be "ABREPO", one word (not "A REPO" two words) -- and ABREPO is also not listed in the dictionary. "A REPO" is not listed because it's not good Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the knowledgeable clarification. Yes it's not a perfect sentence but: it does read with meaning to spawn thought so might concessions be made to achieve the pattern? To the mind of the Latin reader "from I crawling" still has meaning.

Perhaps it's literally about farming and how crawling on the ground to sow seeds keeps the world going. MaxQuark (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in the Latin language, inflectional endings have highly specific meanings, and words can only combine in ways allowed by grammar (so that a finite verb -- one inflected for person and number categories -- cannot be the object of a preposition). "A REPO" is not a Latin sentence, but a jumble of words which does not add up to a sentence. You can't learn Latin from Google Translate, and should not even try. AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible Correct Translation

To keep the structure it’s very likely the full spellings of the words were left out, thus the meaning is very likely Arepo has “the power to turn the the wheel of labor” or “the power to turn labor’s wheel.” 2601:483:100:15D0:8AF:9895:9CDC:F940 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

According to whom? What would be the "full spelling" in this case? Furthermore, opera is not in the genitive, and if your suggestion is that this "e" is left out, well, everyone read it wrong, since the ablative singular opera makes perfect sense in the square as "with work". Furthermore, where is "the power" coming from in your translation. Or "turn" AND "wheel" at the same time. The most likely translation, which is perfectly intelligible to anyone vaguely literate, even in vulgarized Late Latin or whatever, is "Farmer (or sower) Arepo holds The wheels with effort". You could do all sorts of things to add letters to those words and get a different meaning, but it already is perfectly grammatically correct and easily intelligible, so in no way is it "very likely". 2601:647:6100:38F0:0:0:0:7F4A (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have inserted the most common translation that appears in most academic papers, as well as a few slight variations that other academics have discussed. Because this topic has been so heavily researched by academics (quote incredible, the volume of papers), if it is not academic sourced (and from a prominent academic), it can't be used. 78.19.234.110 (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious attribution to non-Latin or non-Jewish/Christian sources

The "possible attribution to ancient Greek or Mithraic sources" is completely absurd. It is scarcely believable that it has Jewish origins, but not outside the realm of study as the attributes in the organized "Pater Noster A O O A" configuration could be attributed to the Jewish God. However, there is no good fit for Greek sources, not to mention that the inscription itself is not in Greek, has no real pagan Greek direct equivalent, and no clear indication of to which deity we are to believe it is dedicated. In many ways, we know more about ancient Greek mythology, mystery cults, etc. than we do about early, 1st century Christianity, because we have some one thousand years worth of primary sources on ancient Greek religion, and next to no information about Christianity, despite us knowing it was around in Rome and elsewhere, that comes from a primary source outside of the bible. Even the apostolic church fathers wouldn't date until after our inscription. However, Clement of Rome, one such church father, was born in 35 CE and became a bishop in 88. It is fair to assume that there was some Christian population, therefore, in the city of Rome when the inscription was made in Pompeii. Given it is a Latin inscription, it is unlikely to have come from the East whence Christianity had come to Rome. the Epistle to the Romans was written in the mid 50s, and already then does Paul know a good deal of the Christian population there by name. The Appian way was not far away by any stretch of the imagination, and Pompeii of course is some 150 miles even by foot on Roman roads from Rome to Pompeii. It was an extremely important suburb, if you like, of Naples, and the Appian way itself was a road frequented by those who were headed from Rome to Greece (something early Christian dignitaries were doing a lot of). The Neronian Persecutions (we have placed even by non-Christian sources like Tacitus as killing a great number of Christians in Rome) took place in 64 or thereabouts. So I think we need more sources, at the very least, to be making claims about Mithraism or whatever which are based on nothing but wild speculation. 2601:647:6100:38F0:0:0:0:7F4A (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have added a source and name to the considerations of its Mithric origin (Walter O. Moeller). There seem to be other sources who also refer to these theories (e.g. Magdalene College Librarie). 78.19.234.110 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I am doing a rewrite of this article (slowly) as there is a lot of tightening up needed in this article. For example, the mithraic theory is borderline fringe, and even the Christian origins are not proven (although it is proven that it became a Christian symbol). Good thing is that there is quite a lot of academic reserach on the square so it should not be too hard to update and fix the article. 78.19.234.110 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that we know basically nothing about Mithraism, we've never found a sator square in the context of a Mithraeum or any other such structure (basically the only evidence we have Mithraism was even real) etc. Similar things could be said about random, buckshot associations with Greek mythology.

What we do know is that there was a significant Pompeiian Jewish population, and possibly a Christian one, although there is less evidence for that. There is a graffito (Reg. IX, Ins. I, n. 26) which reads "Sodom Gomor" and another bearing latinized Hebrew (as "Cherem").

Citation below (which includes its own scholarly, verifiable refs):

"Pompeii". Jewish Virtual Library.

This feels important within the context of speculation about the "ownership" of sator wrt dating, that I think the reader should be able to contemplate.

A bit of induction which I'll add, if it was a turn-of-the-millenium Jewish one, it was probably also a turn-of-the-millenium Christian one. Christians appropriated a great deal of Jewish shibboleths, especially in the early christian period, which I think is manifest. 2601:647:6100:38F0:0:0:0:7F4A (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, several academics give weight to it being of Jewish origin (and even the paternoster/Alpha/Omega aspect too) for the reasons you give, even Mary Beard (classicist), in her blog.

We can do a good job of clarifying the main credible theories or origin i.e.: Roman word puzzle (probably greatest support but not conclusive), Christian hidden sign (definitely adopted by Christians, but the paternoster finding and Christians being the symbol's origin are considered less credible now), Jewish symbol (has become more credible but still has failings). There are then the "fringe" theories (Pythagorean, Mitric, Orphic, etc.) that can be grouped under one section as being not widely supported, etc. 78.19.234.110 (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Finished upgrading this article. Yes, outside of Christian origins, the most prominent is either a Roman puzzle or Jewish origins. Everything else is very thinly supported and some, even though proposed by academics, are considered fringe or improbable. 78.19.234.110 (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Clavicula Salomonis

The sator square can also be found in the Clavicula Salomonis, a spell book edited in 1310, it is also known as the second hebraic seal of saturn :

רותצש

ופהרצ

תהנהת

צרהפו

שצתור

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clavicula_Salomonis 90.34.78.161 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/kos/kos25.htm 90.34.78.161 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the Clavicula Salomonis is that there are lots of versions and it is hard to tell when they were written. I couldn't find any proper WP:RS that mentioned the square being in a notable Clavicula? Aszx5000 (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I did find a source and added it. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Image of the 1936 ROTAS square graffito in the Palestra, Pompeii

Would be great to include an image of Della Corte's 1936 photograph of the ROTAS square on the pillar in the palestra square, in Pompeii. My understanding is that Italian copyright ends after 70 years, so it should be free of licensing. He made only one photograph, but it is available online, here, here, and here. Could this be added? 78.18.254.195 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the link to the Pompeii Museum's photographs of the preserved ROTAS square from the column (it is not longer on the column but held at the museum) Il Quadrato del Sator dalla Palestra Grande (Parco Archeologico di Pompei, inv. 20565). Aszx5000 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I worked out how to add this with the help of the copyright notice board, added it to the article. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

SATOR square, Markovich translation

You are completely right, Markovich does not have "the". I added it in the citation ino order to make clear that, obviously, while M. intended "checks" as a verb, he also intended "toils and tortures" not as verbs (the commas suggested that) but instead as the object of "checks": Latin words can only be translated in this sense. I see that you also tried to solve the ambiguity, using "keeps in check" instead of "checks" - but this also is not respectful of Markovich's original text... What do you think of "The sower Horus/Harpocrates checks [the] toils and tortures"? I find this would be accurate enough while not inducing readers in any misunderstanding... Or, "The sower Horus/Harpocrates checks [=keeps in check the] toils and tortures" which is perhaps better English? Signo (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving this here from my talk page. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Signo, I would do the former (add [the]), as it is less open to any claim that you have interpreted it as such? It probably is always open to such a claim as I don't think Markovich elaborated on his sentence, however, it would not be unreasonable imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)