From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some parts are not yet translated:

directly read:

• Gott (Sämann) beherrscht (hält) dies Schöpfung (Räder), die Werke der Menschen und die Erzeugnisse der Erde (arepo = Pflug).
• Die Schöpfergottheit hält ihre Schöpfung in Bewegung.

Partial read backwards:

• Creator conserves his opus ...
• Der Schöpfer erhält seine Werke, erhalten tut seine Werke der Schöpfer. (Wenn man bustrophedon und 'tenet' doppelt liest.)

[edit] 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. RickK 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)

[edit] 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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)