Jump to content

Talk:Vade retro satana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholic or Christian?

[edit]

Is this phrase only used in catholic christianity? Thanks in advance for the some-what fast response.

I take issue with the use of the term 'Medieval Catholic'. For this prayer was before the Protestant Reformation. 'Medieval Christian' would be a better description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.100.207 (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can say "catholic", as "catholic" was used at this time to give difference with "orthodox church". I agree this term was used to call "papist" christians after the Reformation. But since centuries, the word was still in use in the 2 Creeds : The Church was said Unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam. 13:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwalarn (talk • contribs)

Vade retro Satana or SatanaS ?

[edit]

When I ask St Google, a lot of entries are written without "s" at the end of Satana (55600), and an other part with (45800). In my mind, the vocative requires an "s", so it should be "Vade retro Satanas", as I have been learned when I was at school. In the Vulgate Bible (see the source in Wikipedia in Latin here, there are 2 references for this sentence (in 2 different contexts) :

  • Jesus speaking to Satan, in Matthew, 4:10 : "Vade Satanas", etc.
  • Jesus speaking to Peter, in Mark, 8:33 : "Vade retro me Satana".

Even the Bible seems to differ. Some specialists about this point?
Incidently "Satan", in that context, is a name, not a noun. So why not a capital letter? Gwalarn (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can also find "Vade Satanas" (or "Sathanas") in other old mevieval Catholic texts, such as in the Carmina Burana. For example, put this string into google, without quotes:
Vade retro quia non sapis ea que sapiunt nummi
It will come back with "Vade retro Sathanas (or Satanas) quia non sapis ea que sapiunt nummi".
(However, I'm not saying this article should be changed - there were clearly varying traditions and usages). Jimhoward72 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blow me. This is a traditional prayer that has been used for hundred of years, do you lot think you know better than the thousands of people who've used it? Merkin's mum 00:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I think I am completely missing what you are trying to say (except for your sexual expletive). The question (posted by user Gwalarn) was whether it is "Vade Satana" or "Vade Satanas". The answer is that both usages can be found in Latin literature. Is this what you are contending? I'm not saying "I know better", I'm saying people need to look at the sources, and the sources show both forms can be found.Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Latin, but I suspect Gwalarn is right --- for this sentence, "satana" seems to be the only grammatically correct choice. back when I researched the article, the more reliable sources all said "satana".
The Matthew 4:10 example with "satanas"is probably a different grammatical case. I think that the Carmina Burana exampel translates to "may go back to Satan those who ..."; if so, it is a different case too. (As for capitalizing proper names, that was not usual in Latin texts of that time and place.)
Unfortunately, someone rashly moved the page to "Vade retro satanas" and changed the lead parag title before we sorted it out. This is bad, since undoing the move requires administrative intervention. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin vocative forms normally lack the final -s. The wrinkle that makes this a little ambiguous is that Satanas is not a Latin name but Hebrew. Authors may have differed on how to render it vocative because of that. By analogy however, since Aenea is the vocative of Aeneas, you can expect Satana to be the correct vocative form of Satanas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.188.51 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ne inducas in tentationem—Vade retro, Sathanas!—Amen

[edit]

This phrase appears in Sir Walter Scott, the Fortunes of Nigel, ch. 31. If this article is going to talk about other uses for the phrase besides the formula (poem) for exorcism, then material such as this could be incorporated into the article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)(I just added to the article in a footnote)Jimhoward72 (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Translations

[edit]

I've seen this translation of the Vade. Anybody seen others? 

   Crux sancta sit mihi lux / Non draco sit mihi dux
   Vade retro satana / Numquam suade mihi vana
   Sunt mala quae libas / Ipse venena bibas

   "Sanctified Cross be my light / Foul Satan be not my blight
   Satan begone away / Tempt me not by night or day
   The evils that you offer / To thyself, thyself proffer"

Anyhow, truer words were never spoken... Douglemeister (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This translation is indeed better, as poetry. However the translation in the article seems to be more accurate. AFAIK, "dux" is "leader", "draco" is "snake", "numquam" is "never", "libas" is "(you) pour drink as an offering", "venena" is "poison","bibas" is "(you) drink". (Oops --- just fixed "draco" in article). --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone rashly moved the page from "vade retro satana" to "Vade retro satanas". Unfortunately "satanas" here is wrong; "satana" is the correct Latin according to authoritative sites. Would some administrator please swap the article with its redirect? Thanks... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

URLs for these authoritative sites? Andrewa (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Andrew Abbey Homepage - The Medal of St. Benedict
Catholic Encyclopedia > S > Medal of Saint Benedict
Encyclopedia of Catholic Devotions and Practices, p. 350--351
The Medal of St. Benedict
... and many more. I got those upfront when googling for '"vade retro satana" abbey'. The pages fetched by the 'satanas' version were fewer and did not seem authoritative to me. Ditto for ´ exorcism' instead of 'abbey'. Oh, and also:
Me monk. Me meander. Backup files. 8-)
Hope it helps, Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. At the risk of being pedantic, those all seem to be religious sites rather than authoritative Latin sites. But that's actually for the better, this is English Wikipedia; If we simply wanted the correct Latin we'd look first to Latin Wikipedia, see la:Vade retro Satana. Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, I admit that the "satanas" version is common enough (especially in non-religious contexts) that it should be mentioned in the article too. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although before reading around the subject, I would have thought "Satanas" was correct. It seems Satanas declines like Aeneas: -a in the vocative. Vade retro Satanas? Google returns a lot of hits for 'et tu Brutus' as well. Aille (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: first of all, Wikipedia is not a democracy so it's all very well and good holding a straw poll but at the end of the day...
Second, I agree with the move. Third, this was all discussed previously, I believe, and the consensus then was to move to satanas. The argument, if I can summarise brutally, went along the lines of:
In support of move: the article should represent the phrase as used in the texts to which the article refers, not its correct grammatical form (i.e. the article should reflect usage, not modern day grammar);
Against move: the article should reflect the proper grammatical usage of this phrase regardless of whether there are instances of it appearing as 'satanas'.
Note that at the time I opposed the move and wanted to keep the article at Vade retro satana. I would support a move back if consensus has changed. ColdmachineTalk 08:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lack of references before 14th century

[edit]

The sentence

"There is no evidence that the formula was composed by Saint Benedict, or even that it is older than the 14th century"

was recently deleted. The editorial comment for that deletion says says "phrase implies lack of veracity".
I'm not sure what it was meant by this comment. The sentence is a factual statement, to the extent that all the references that discuss this issue seem to agree on it. If there is some evidence that the formula is older than the 14th century, please let's have it. (The reference to the Journal of the British Archaeological Association, added by another editor, does not support that. It basically says that a mysterious medal described by A in a previous meeting of the Socieety had been indentified by B and C as being a typical St. Benedict medal. No claims are made about the origin or antiquity of the formula.) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast my friend. You did not answer the question I left on your talk page. Here it is again regarding the sentence that there was no mention prior to the 15th century, do you:
  • a. Have solid references that say that?
  • b. Deduced that yourself from as a fact because you see no mention.
If case a), please provide a few references that say that. if case b) that is your own deduction and amounts to WP:OR and can not be included.
Please answer the above question with a clear, clear answer. Is it a) or b). It seems to me that it is b) else you would have provided the reference. Please answer a) or b) before we go further on this topic.
Regarding the Brit Arch. society it says that an 18th century document attests to its appearing as such. I will modify that sentence to that effect. The medal is not mysterious, it is a real medal.
Anyway, is it case a) or case b)? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Case a: Catholic Encyclopedia:Medal of Saint Benedict. It repeats the story told in the Italian reference. The story implies that in the 15th century no one knew what the initials meant, until they were foudn in a book from the 14th century. Apparently that book does not have any information on the source of the prayer. If any earlier referenece had been found later, surely the Cath. Enc. or one of the other sources would mention that. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that reference just says: "It is doubtful when the Medal of St. Benedict originated" which is almost the sentence I added there and which you added a reference to. It is a minor issue and not worth debating really, but technically speaking that is not equivalent to the fact that there is no evidence, as attested to by your use of the phrase the story implies which means that someone performed a deduction. Alas Wikipedia does not like logical deductions - although being a non-profit organization, I guess they like donation deductions. So puns aside, although logical deductions herein may be viewed as WP:OR, I think the article is in a form that makes it clear that the origin of the phrase is unclear and we should clearly leave it as such. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non draco sit mihi dux

[edit]

Methinks that the second verse "Non draco sit mihi dux" is more correctly translated as "Let not the snake be my leader". This version also has the meritof echoing the first verse "Let the Holy Cross be my light". Of the other recently proposed alternatives, "be leader to me" sounds awkward, "lead me" is OK but not as close to the Latin as it could be. But my Latin is almost nihil and my English is not much better. What do you think? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real solution: Let us not translate it ourselves and see what reliable references have translated it as. The Raccolta would have been the best, but this formual has no indulgences and is not therein. Apart from being "close" to the Latin, it needs to be good English. History2007 (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Jorge, you changed it and your rationale was "in my humble opinion"... As you well know, that i snot a Wiki-policy... How about a good reference instead of imho...? Imho is really not going to work. History2007 (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the references do leave us some options:
But I admit that these references should be viewed with caution. There seems to be only one or two original translations, which were copied over and over again, and possibly reworded along the way.
However, a bone even harder than "sit mihi dux" is "draco". Latin dictionaries and professional translators seem to concur that Latin "draco" meant simply "snake"; and obviously "snake" is a biblical metaphor for the Devil. The English word "dragon" is derived from "draco", but has got a fairly different sense (fantastic monster). I would think that the correct and natural translation of "non draco sit" is "let not the snake be". Translating "draco" by "dragon" is a gross error; translating it by "devil" gives the correct sense but is technically inaccurate and loses the original metaphor. Unortunately, it seems that all translations on the net have either "dracon" or "Devil".. 8-(
all the best, ---Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the references. But then the problem is this Jorge: You and I have both been "trained to think" all our lives. But in Wikipedia we are not supposed to think, reason or translate ourselves, but use references. Of the references above, the most solid one from a religious viewpoint is the last one: The Catholic encyclopedia. The next solid one is EWTN. The first references is St. John's Benedictine Abbey but not the final Benedictine authority in the world. Several other sites there are forums (not usable) or websites run by unknown groups. Catholic encyclopedia is by far the most reliable reference, followed by EWTN. Personally, I do not prefer the Catholic encyclopedia translation with the word Dragon, for the exact reasons that you provided. But my opinion of their translation has exactly the same value as yours, namely zero. We just need to use the Catholic encyclopedia version, which is close to the EWTN anyway. I will just do that, I hope you agree. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not supposed to think? If it were so simple... But this very example shows that references are often contradictory and unreliable. Obviously, including *every* version of the tale that can be found in *every* reference, on equal footing, would quickly turn Wikipedia into a Trashipedia. So one must, unfortunately, think, and think hard, when editing WP articles. The references must be selected, filtered, chopped and reordered, regrouped, interpreted, condensed, reworded, etc.. When using references in other languages, in particular, one must inevitably translate them.
For example, among those refs, you picked the Catholic Encyclopedia, for it being the most authoritative "from a religous viewpoint". But WP articles, even on religious subjects, are not supposed to favor a religious viewpoint. It does not matter which of thse sources is most likely to be aligned with the opinion of the Church on religious topics. What matters is which source has the most correct (or, most likely to be correct) translation of that Medieval Latin text. To decide that, unfortunately, we must look at the translations and try to figure out which -- if any -- seems more correct.
We seem to agree that all are probably wrong on "draco". I also happen to believe that those which say "be my leader" or "be my guide" are more correct than the others...
By the way, note that the Catholic Encyclopedia article was probably written in French and then translated to English.
Finally, note that we must count among the "authoritative references" also those dictionaries and translations of the classics that say "draco=snake" and "mihi dux" = "my leader/my guide". How could we justify ignoring those references?
But I will not fight you any more on this nit --- unless I forget all this discussion a few months from now (as it happened yesterday). Please have it your way. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am glad it is settled. But we were not fighting, just discussing. And anyway, it is a Benedictine/Catholic prayer, hence the Catholic encyclopedia might have had more relevance. But I have a feeling we could have discussed this for 2 centuries. So it was best to settle it and move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: Let us think, let us think... This conversation just reminded me of the joke: Rene Descartes goes to a bar and asks for a beer. Once he has finished his beer, the bar tender asks him: "would you like another beer?" Descartes answers: "I think not" at which point Descartes just evaporates away….. So let us think, let us think. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

[edit]

History2007 and I haven't agreed about how to translate "Vade retro me, satana," as quoted from Mark at the top of the Origins and History section of this article. I suspect History2007 accidentally didn't see that what is being translated here is the Vulgate, not the Benedictine exorcism incantation; so the Gospels ARE a reference for this, since the passage in question says that the incantation "was probably inspired by a phrase said by Jesus to Peter in the Vulgate New Testament, Mark 8:33." If that's right, then feel free to just change it back and delete this section.

Otherwise, I can only point out that (1) "behind" is an appropriate translation of the word retro, (2) me does appear, since we're talking about the Gospel of Mark in this passage, and (3) as I said in my edit summary, the NAB, NIV, and RSV all translate the phrase as "Get behind me, Satan," and the KJV and ASV have "Get thee behind me, Satan." Is there something I'm missing? -Glenfarclas (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the translation, all you need to do is look up the 3 words "Vade", "retro" and "Satana". Vade/vado means "go". Retro means "back/behind/reverse". Satana is the obvious item. Hence there are 3 words here, not 4. The actual translation is "go back Satan" as 3 words that is sometimes translated as "step back". There is no "go behind me" here. Where does the "me" come from. That would make it 4 words, as the Gospels have it. The Gospels have 4 words, here there are 3 words. There Gospels have a different phrase.
Moreover, from a "common sense" point of view, as a speaker of common English, I would understand the item: "Go back Satan", or "Go away Satan" but try to make sense of "Get behind me"? what does that mean in this context? Is this a line or a queue that Satan has to get behind in? That just doe not fit.
As for Mark, a reference to that is a "hypothesis". It is not at all proven that this is the same phrase, and is just a conjecture. History2007 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry our edits crossed there. I didn't come up with the idea that the vade retro incantation was inspired by Mark 8:33, I just normalized the translation this article gives of Mark 8:33 to match every single Bible I've checked. I can agree that "Get behind me" is a little harder to understand, but I just don't think it's our job as WP editors to be coming up with new translations of the Vulgate at this point. The crystal-clear consensus on the translation of Mk 8:33 is "Get (thee) behind me," so unfortunately I'm having a tough time seeing where you're coming from on this one. -Glenfarclas (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we agree on:

  • Mk 8:33 is usually translated as "Get (thee) behind me,"

I actually added that translation now to the place that refers to Mark, further below in the article.

What we need to agree/disagree on:

  • Are these the same set of words as in Mk 8:33 ?

I see 3 words here and 4 words in Mark. This is NOT the same set of words as in Mark. The Catholic encyclopedia translates it as "Begone Satan" and as a Catholic exorcism item, that is the most relevant source. History2007 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about this. On one hand, I can't find a source saying that the incantation's "Vade retro, Satana" was inspired by Mark's "Vade retro me, Satana." On the other hand, like the editor who first made this point, it strikes me as highly likely that this was the inspiration, especially since Mk 8:33 is the only place in all the Scriptures where the words "Vade retro" appear. So it seems to be original research to say that this "was probably [the] inspir[ation]," yet I think the article loses some of its encyclopedic value if the potential connection isn't explained so that the reader can draw his own conclusion if he wants.
So I'm fine with leaving the translation of the incantation as is (though I think "Get back" is better than "Step back"; "step" carries a level of meaning that "vadere" does not"). I would change the passage about Mark to say that it "may have inspired" the Benedictine incantation, which strikes me as an understatement but entirely fair, and give the translation per the NAB, i.e., without "thee." -Glenfarclas (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I looked more carefully. Now I see what happened. You did 2 different edits. The second time ONLY to the Origins part of the article. Hence thee is "no problem". This is an empty debate now. Sorry, I will revert to your last version. History2007 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, the first time I may have overreached, sorry I wasn't clear the second time that I had stepped back a bit. -Glenfarclas (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope, hope, hope, there was no pun therein. History2007 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL that was really unintentional! But good job with your last edits; I feel I can get behind the page as it now stands. (OK, done now.) -Glenfarclas (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that Latin uses declensions where English would use prepositions. I don't really know Latin, but I would guess that "vade retro me" is best translated as "step back FROM me", "get away from me", etc. (the "from" being implied by the grammatical case of the Latin pronoun "me", which by my refs is either accusative or ablative; and ablative most often means "from X". Eg insula(nominative) = the island, insulā(ablative) = from the island). Does this make sense?
    As for English translations of the Vulgate saying "behind me", well, it wouldn't be the first translation error in a Bible (cf. the camel and the needle, for example). All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's right. "From" is not necessarily implied by the accusative or ablative (cf. "ad me," "in me"). Retro didn't become a preposition until late Latin, so it's not in my dictionary in that sense, but the mere fact that it or any other preposition takes the accusative or ablative for its object doesn't connote anything in particular -- only a very small handful of prepositions take anything else.
At any rate, I guess it's better to look at the Greek, and the Greek preposition ὀπίσω does seem to carry connotations of "behind" more than "backwards" or "away." I don't think translation error is very likely when essentially every translation, most of them done independently, has "behind me." If anything, the error should be ascribed to St. Jerome for selecting a somewhat ambiguous translation of the Greek. -Glenfarclas (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caption and description of St. Benedic's image

[edit]

Is the caption and descrption of the St. Benedict image accurate? Please see my objections in the file's talk page.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 14th century Austrian version

[edit]

The article should also give the text of incantation as it appears in the 14th century Austrian manuscript; it seems to be longer than the "official" version. The book is available online as scanned images, and the formula is clearly visible below an image of Satan offering a cup to a monk, who keeps him at bay with a cross-topped staff. Unfortunately the formula is not quite readable from that image. Is there any secondary source that discusses that manuscript and has an authoritative reading of that portion?
By the way, if the rights on the digital book allow it, that illustration should be added to the Commons and to this article. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vade_retro_satana&oldid=1205882241"