Talk:Novus ordo seclorum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

History of Maths[edit]

I remember there being a theorem involving a pyramid with its top cropped off as a big turning point in the history of mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1A00:6EF:E17C:E69E:8BA1:989F (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Try our article on Frustum (the fancy word for a pyramid with its top cropped off). However, as interesting as mathematical history may be, this article isn't about pyramids... its about a latin motto. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Novus Ordo Seclorum and Freemansory[edit]

What evidence is there that Novus Ordo Seclorum is motto of Freemasonry. I seriously doubt this in light of the information I found and posted on the Eye of Providence discussion page. Loremaster 18:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

present your evidence here.


Anyone have source for this: "Medieval Christians read in Virgil's poem a prophecy of the coming of Christianity." Thx. Nobs 21:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Take your pick [1]. It's pretty standard, and is the the basis of the Divine Comedy. -- Decumanus 21:19, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Ok, here is the explanation coming from someone who has studies latin for three years. seclorum is in the genitive case, plural form. the genitive case is used for the possessive form of a word, therefore, novus ordo seclorum can't mean "new order for the ages" or "new secular order" because each would require a different case, i.e. not the genetive. Furthermore, the latin word seclorum does not translate to "secular", despite the resemblance. It translates to "of the centuries", of the "generations", or "of the ages". Bonus Onus July 9, 2005 02:38 (UTC)

That is academic, and of an earlier period of Latin. It is clear that to the foudning fathers it meant "secular", because by that time the word meant secular even in Latin works, and the word "secular" was derived directly from it !


  • I'll buy that for a dollar. Good edit, BO. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)

--

This was on the article page, but really belongs here:


Possible correction:
Quoted from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition:
secular
ORIGIN - ME (Middle English): senses 1 and 2 from OFr. (Old French) seculer, from L. (Latin) saecularis, from saeculum 'generation', used in Christian L. to mean 'the world'; senses 3, 4, and 5 from L. (Latin) saecularis 'relating to an age or period'.
Therefore, they are indeed all related, so it is not merely an assumption that seclorum has secular in it's meaning.
But it does not mean "secular" in classical Latin. See Lewis and Short. I see this unfact has come back from answers.com, which is a mirror of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Answers.com. Septentrionalis 00:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The all seeing eye and pyramid are Freemason. Washington DC as the seat of the new federal govt is admitted to have been founded by Freemasons and Jesuits in Maryland. The New Order replaced the old order-holy roman empire, as these Freemasons are Rome's Crusading Templar Knights. The same all seeing eye is found on France's Declaration of Human Rights from the French Revolution organized by the same Freemason-Templars, such as Franklin & Jefferson; Napoleon, Jacobins. The thing does not announce the birth of the USA it says the 'New Order'.99.195.110.205 (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow... I am amazed that someone can put so many inaccuracies into one single statement! Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disputed Statement[edit]

The article says, "By circumscribing the 6 pointed Star of David over the pyramid, 5 of the 6 apices (the 6th being the 'All-seeing eye'), point to the letters spelling M-A-S-O-N. (disputed — see talk page)". What part is being disputed, and based on what evidence? If someone doesn't answer soon, I'll remove the disputed tag. Superm401 | Talk 05:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact of the pointing. A six-pointed star points near, but not at the letters; in fact, most of the points miss the letters entirely. Look at a dollar bill if you have one to hand. Also (thank you for reminding me) the order of the letters. Septentrionalis 04:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless one points to a notable third-party description of this conspiracy, which asserts its notability, this stuff must be deleted. mikka (t) 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I think the existence of the theory should be mentioned, whatever its factuality; as long as it is clearly separated from the consensus parts of the article. After all, we describe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Septentrionalis 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I also see no evidence that the Tetragrammaton is 72-fold. If anything, it is fourfold. Septentrionalis 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

See Image:Tetragrammaton-Tetractys.png. AnonMoos 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Galileo?[edit]

There also those who believe that the freemasons were influenced by an ancient brotherhood from the time of Galileo called the Illuminati. The eye over the pyramid is said to be the eye of illumination. References to "New World Order" for the translation of NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM also point to an Illuminati influence in the early freemasons.

The connection between Galileo and the Illuminati appears to be Dan Brown's invention in Angels and Demons, I do not recall novus ordo seclorum coming into the novel. (It would be implausible; Weishaupt knew Latin, he would not have mistranslated it.) Please supply source. Septentrionalis 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Latin[edit]

This has passed unnoticed for quite a long time; though the article states [t]hese theorists assert that the word should be spelt secolorum, and the alleged first o is omitted for occult reasons, the actual term in latin is saeculus (or seculus), -i; the correct form would be seculorum. Taragüí @ 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

as the article says, when discussing actual Latin, rather than conspiracy theorists: "Latin prose would normally spell the word saeculorum". Septentrionalis 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
In such cases, I believe it is customary to add a (sic) notice to the oddly-spelled text. Taragüí @ 10:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The spelling is certainly odd, as Thompson (Thomson?) was a Latin teacher. Given the obvious presence of secret society symbols(Pyramid/Eye) on the dollar bill/Great Seal it is naive to simply swallow the official explanation of the other bits. A hidden alternate meaning is the very stuff of the secret society mentality. The plausibility of theories can be discussed, but to remove them would be inappropriate. --Starlight1955 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel welcome to comment on my Seal Latin post; the occult may be not necessary, https://teresapelka.com/2017/09/19/new-people-come/ The text is free to use, CC 2.5. or 4.0.TeresaPelka 02:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Author's Claims?[edit]

Article states, "The scholar mistranslates the phrase to "New Secular Order", with no indication that it was a mistranslation in the story, despite the author's claim in a foreword that the information in the story is completely accurate." In the book I have, the forward states that "references to all works of art, tombs, tunnels, and atchitecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). They can still be seen today." It doesn't say that everything in the book is 'completely accurate." Obviously, as a work of fiction, there are creative licenses, but this sentence suggests that the author believes the book to be entirely fact when Mr. Brown has stated on his web site (and in many interviews) that "each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations." http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html --66.30.84.242 04:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that New Secular Order is a correct translation. I wouldn't translate Novus Ordo Mundi to what people believe to be the New World Order. Mundi is something physical, such as dirt or Earth, when secular is worldly as opposed to holy. If there were a grand conspiracy, they would control the people of the world, and not the dirt; they also wouldn't want you to translate your own Latin.—Slipgrid 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AH HA! Latin isn't commonly taught in schools today ... they don't want you to translate your own latin. Which must be PROOF of the conspiracy. They don't want you to know! Damn those Masono-communist Illuminati Anti-Christian Democrats and their conspiracy of seclorism!... now where did I put my tin foil hat. Blueboar 21:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (obviously just kidding folks)

>>>>Although latin isn't teached in school regulary, everybody is able to buy a latin dictionary and to translate. So Blueboar, smooth down.

>>>>The latin word for world: there is more than mundi: orbi, terrarum, etc. the word saeclorum can mean time, generation, age, BUT ALSO WORLD. You can find it in every good latin dictionary.

>>>> on the above note - the world mundi means "to clean", wouldnt you use terra? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.34.230 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

See a pretty good Latin dictionary here: That sense is Christian, ecclesiastical, and Vulgar Latin; indeed the first citation is Jerome. Reading that sense into Vergil is an anachronism; asserting that a group of enlightened eighteenth century minds did so is preposterous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

My Latin isn't that good, or I'd fix it myself, but I'm sure that the translation of Virgil's Eclogue does not include anything about the 3 stooges! Could someone help out and fix things?

Conspiracy theory[edit]

I see the section on the conspiracy theory has been removed. While I believe no word of these claims, the section did have the advantage of keeping this stuff out of the rest of the article; I hope we don't need it back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it had no sources or references, not because of what it said. I have no problem with someone returning the information or recreating the section... as long as they include citations to reliable sources when they do so. Blueboar 12:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The advantages of having it were largely tactical; it was a summary of the POV stuff that kept being put in the header, with a few facts mixed in. Although unsourced, I'm sure none of it was OR; someone has said all of it before. But if we don't need it, I shan't miss it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

More on translation of Seclorum[edit]

I have moved the following discussion from the top of the page to the bottom... Note for those who posted: Standard Wikipedia practice is to put new discussion on the bottom of the page... Blueboar 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

( Sorry, I didn't know how to. Satwa)

Seclorum (or saeculorum) does not come from L.L. saecularis as is asserted below; they are two entirely different forms of the word Saeculum. Seclorum, being the nominative plural possessive, means "of the generations," "of the ages," "of the centuries," or if you wish, "of the worlds." Saecularis, being the adjective, means "worldly" or "secular." Thus your citing of the "Secular c. 1290" etc. below is well and good for Saecularis, but has no bearing on Seclorum. Cf. Eric Partridge, A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English, NY: The Macmillan Co., 1963, p. 601: "2. The Go[thic] mana-seths, seed of men, i.e. mankind, hence the world, brings us to L[atin] saeculum, O[ld] L[atin] saeclum, generation ... whence the period of a generation, hence a vaguely longer period, esp a century, finally, in L[ate] L[atin], mankind, the world (of human beings)...3. The derivative L[atin] adj[ective] saecularis takes, in L[ate] L[atin], the sense "worldly, profane," whence ... E[nglish] secular...."

Saecularis, "secular," thus derives from, but differs from, Saeculum, "generation" or "century," and its genitive plural inflection, Seclorum, "of the generations" or "of the centuries." Justme1956 05:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

DISPUTE:

Above you State: "Seclorum, being the nominative plural possessive, means ...(snip).. "of the worlds." "

Thanks for verifying what I have been saying all along.

The online etymological dictionary states:

"sæculum" can mean "world", "Sæcularis" means "worldy", "secular"

SECULAR: c.1290, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state," from O.Fr. seculer, from L.L. sæcularis "worldly, secular,"...Used in ecclesiastical writing like Gk. aion "of this world" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=secular.

THAT MEANS: "sæcularis" means "worldy", "secular".

Again, the online etymological dictionary states:

"WORLD" "Original sense in "world without end", translating L. sæcula sæculorum, and in worldly. L. sæculum can mean both "age" and "world," as can Gk. aion." http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=afterlife

THAT MEANS: "sæculum" can mean "world", "worldly" .

On the main page here on Wikipedia it states: " Saeculum did come to mean "age, world" in late, Christian, Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through secularis"

So, it is most likely that that is the sense that the founders of US meant it.

sec•u•lar- ADJECTIVE: 1.Worldly, rather than spiritual. 2.Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music. 3.Relating to or advocating secularism. 4.Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy. 5.Occurring or observed once in an age or century. 6.Lasting from century to century [2]

And interestingly the word is also related to these: secedo : to go apart, withdraw. secerno secrevi secretum : to separate. seco : secui : sectum : to cut, hurt, wound, amputate, divide, part. securis : axe, hatchet, battle-axe.

ie. separation of religion and state.

Thus the motto Novus Ordo Seclorum can be translated as "The New Secular Order." or perhaps "A new order of the ages." It was proposed by Charles Thomson, the Latin expert who was involved in the design of the Great Seal of the United States, to signify "the beginning of the new American Era" as of the date of the Declaration of Independence.

(Satwa)


No references:

This part of the article needs references or should be stricken:

The word seclorum does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this context) generation, century, or age. (needs refences or should be stricken)

Satwa


Since it seems that Satwa does not know how to do it... I have placed a citation request at the sectons he/she mentions needing one. I suppose a citation to Vigil or something is in order. Blueboar 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a citation showing that -orum is the genitive plural form of Latin's 2nd declension, hence "of the generations" or "of the ages" or (in a Late Latin stretch, dubious at best because of the source's being from the Classical Latin poet Virgil, and because it doesn't in any event make a lot of sense, unless Virgil and the Founding Fathers were envisioning a United Federation of Planets) "of the worlds" -- but certainly not "worldly" by any stretch:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/caseusage/qt/Latin2nddecl.htm

Justme1956 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

convinces me... but I don't think about.com is considered a reliable source. Perhaps a similar page from a standard Latin text book? (Or, even better, a standard Latin textbook used in the late 1700s so we can show how the founding fathers would have translated it.) Blueboar 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
To add a note of rationality to this palaver about possible meanings of the word "secular," consider the modern English phrase "secular trend," still used everyday in such disciplines as medicine and economics. It means, very simply, "long-term, non-periodic variation" -- that is, "variation over time." Here we clearly see that the older, temporal sense of saecularis ("of or pertaining to time [or ages]") has been preserved, as opposed to the sense "of or pertaining to that which is worldly or non-religious," which was undeniably a later development. So in that sense, yes, one could (inelegantly!) translate Novus Ordo Seclorum as "A New Secular Order" -- but it would not mean "A new non-religious order," as hacks like Dan Brown would have you think, but something more along the lines of "A new order for this time [and all times hereafter]." Obviously, rendering the phrase as "for the ages" far better captures the intended meaning of the author than the alternative "for this time." --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

¶ I am cranked that my attempted addition was deleted. I want to call attention to the fact that "sæclorum" is used to mean 'an age that may consist of several centuries', as shown in Cicero, De Natura Deorum (The Nature of the Gods), book 2, ch.2, line 52, wherein Cicero discusses the astronomical movements of the planet Saturn and says that it has been consistent "for eternal ages" (sempiternis sæclorum ætiatibus). This quotation is cited in Lewis & Short's Latin Dictionary, s.v. saeculum, II,B,2 (page 1614). The same quotation in Wm. Short's Latin-English Dictionary (London 1855), s.v. seculum, spells the word "seclorum" (= with an e instead of æ), Exactly as it appears in the Great Seal. I'd be VERY appreciative if someone would work this (to clarify the that "ages" in the motto mean a VERY long time) into the Wiki entry! Sussmanbern (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, but I'm not sure it added all that much. "of the ages" implies a rather long time already. The author of the motto specifically said it refers to the beginning of the American era; I'm not sure we need to elaborate beyond that (and anything else may be original research anyways). That implies a long (but indeterminate) time, and really the motto is more about the start of the era/age, i.e. a significant break with the past, and not about how long it will or might last, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

'Seclorum' means 'secular'. It's irrelevant what it meant in the ancient Latin or by Virgil or anyone else before 18th century America. What is relevant is how people were using it in the 18th and 19th century. They clearly meant it to mean a 'secular' separation of church and state. Any other way of interpreting this is either ignorant or some kind of agenda to manipulate the intention of the founders. Some want it to mean 'World' so they can harp on about conspiracy theories, others want it to mean 'of the ages' so they can insert their religion into the founders intent as this phrase is so imprecise. There is no question they meant 'secular' by this phrase, and looking at how the word was used in the writings of the time is the only thing that counts. All this attempt to translate the perfect ancient Latun version on the page is a waste of space. I suggest that it is all cut out, and this is put in it's place:

SECULAR: c.1290, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state," from O.Fr. seculer, from L.L. sæcularis "worldly, secular,"...Used in ecclesiastical writing like Gk. aion "of this world" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=secular ie. 'New Secular Order'.

Sorry, but no. We have been over this many times, but it is worth repeating. Read the sources... The motto was added by Charles Thomson, who actually left a record of where he took it from, and what it was supposed to mean. He said that he based it on the fourth Eclogue of Virgil. So the ancient roman usage (the latin that Virgil used) actually is quite important. In other words, even if others may have translated the word as "secular" ... the man who actually created the motto did not. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It is adapted from a Virgil quote, thus the meaning is that of Virgil. Charles Thomson also directly indicated what the motto referred to, and in no way was "secular" the intended meaning (it's not an adjective anyways; it's a plural noun). The seal predated the Constitution as well, where the separation was made explicit; nothing in Thomson's description alluded to those concepts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Novus Ordo Seclorum and American Imperialism[edit]

Shouldn't there be some reference to this? 76.23.153.173 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC) R.E.D.

For example? We need a citation to put anything in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No user 76.23.153.173, because American Imperialism dosen't exist. Travis Cleveland (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is a debatable question... many reliable sources say it does exist. The issue for us, however, is: how is its existance or nonexistance tied to the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum"? Without a citation to a reliable source that discusses such a tie, any discussion about American Imperialism is a non-starter at this article. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Guh. Satan is on our dollar without us even realizing it. Yet nobody listens. Anyway, considering what the phrase is, its a good article..... And the translation is quite accurate. I think you all have done a good job on this article, it shouldnt need any more improving. 71.76.153.217 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Actually, that is a debatable question... many reliable sources say it does exist" Quite impossible, as any source which says such a absurd statement would obviously need to revaluate itself. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on you debating it, i would call it a debatable question —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeon82 (talkcontribs) 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

While we can debate it all we want here on the talk page... to talk about it in this article requires citations to reliable sources that make a direct connection between the concept and the motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (the subject of this article). While we could probably find sources that discuss "American Imperialism", I doubt that any of them tie it to the motto. So it is really a moot point that does not need further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Any international imperialism is again Freemasonry, not the US. The Freemasons' next revolution followed 1776 into France, 1789. Freemasons harp in that they know nothing about world revolution. There are doctors and lawyers and shop owners, and there are knighted bankers who organize revolutions and wars with knighted statesmen who hire generals. The US did not found the UN, the Fremason's CFR did. The land where the UN sits was donated by CFR chairman David Rockefeller.

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."– David Rockefeller

99.195.110.205 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You guys are trying pretty hard to make it seem like it isn't saying New World Order. Trying hard = guilt. - a non brainwashed american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Seclorum" as the Founders Understood It[edit]

This obsession with Virgil's Latin is a red-herring. Seclorum meant "of the ages" in Roman times, but the real question is what did it mean in the eighteenth century.

The Founding Fathers were very conscious of themselves as establishing a new political order, as opposed to the old political order of monarchy. They were also very conscious of establishing a secular political order, as opposed to the Old World pattern of church-state entanglement. Also, they knew well that "of the ages" (i.e., "within time" or "temporal") had come to mean secular.

They used the old form because quoting Virgil appealed to them, but it is silly to expect that they slavishly followed Virgil's meaning. Why imagine that they were making obscure references to "ages" when a "New Secular Order" was in fact what they were consciously creating?

70.187.212.62 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Dan Holdgreiwe

Your comments might be worth concidering, were it not for several facts. First, in the 18th century education was heavily focused on studying the classics. Men of that era focussed on exact classical translations, not "modern" meanings. Second, and more to the point, we have the words of the man who added that motto to the seal, telling us what they mean... On June 13, 1782, Congress looked at all the designs the various committees had come up with, and asked Charles Thomson, the Secretary of the Congress to come up with a suitable design for America's Great Seal. Thompson was well-versed in the classics, he was once a Latin master at an academy in Philadelphia. (ie he knew his classics intimately and would have insisted on an accurate classical translation)... He explains the symbolism of the reverse as such:
  • The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: The Eye over it & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause. The date underneath is that of the Declaration of Independence and the words under it signify the beginning of the new American Æra, which commences from that date. (see this web page for sourcing).
In other words... he was trying to say that America would last through the ages, not that it was trying to set up a secular state. If he had wanted to say "secular" he would have used a different word. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The idea of "separation of church and state" wasn't published until a few years after the Constitution was ratified. There is no mention of the idea during the arguments leading up to the Constititution, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was added so the states would be free to establish their own separate state religions without Federal interference. Therefore, because secularism wasn't actually part of the founding documents (in fact, God takes a prominent role in the Declaration of Independence), I seriously doubt that they would promote it on a symbol of the nation. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
New Order republics have been secular, if not the gov't the people within the republic are not force to be Catholic as it was under the old order-holy roman empire. We even see knights of various backgrounds all serving the same empire, not forced to be Catholic.99.195.110.205 (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Bill Gates was knighted, Alan Greenspan knighted, CIA director Petreuas knighted, and several generals; also rock stars for their ecumenical service are knighted. George Bush was knighted at the college frat. Many different backgrounds, not Catholic, yet all knighted serving the empire. That is what's NEW about this New Order. Still ran by Rome. Forcing everyone to be Catholic FAILED in 1773 when the Jesuits and the whole shebang were banned.99.195.110.205 (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nominitive or Genitive case?[edit]

We say it is both... in the same paragraph. So which is it?

It seems to be Nominative possessive plural. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This is unquestionably an oxymoron and absurd on its face. I studied Classical Latin formally for three years (as well as German, which uses a similar case system, for another three), and I never heard of anything called a "nominative possessive plural." The nominative case is used for the subjects of sentences and clauses. The genitive case is used for possessives. Something cannot be both nominative and genitive; it makes no logical, much less grammatical, sense to ascribe both qualities to the same noun. Based on my Google search, the absurd phrase "nominative possessive plural" only appears in discussions of the phrase Novus ordo seclorum (mostly on outlandish conspiracy-theory websites and in mirrors of Wikipedia itself). Therefore, to say that I find this concept questionable at best is a serious understatement. S(a)ec(u)lorum is a plural genitive form contracted for metrical reasons, and it translates as "of the ages." Period. There is nothing nominative about it, and anyone who would allege otherwise has clearly not studied Classical Latin grammar. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. It is good to have this settled based on solid grounds... You are correct in asserting that most of the editors to this page did not study Latin... Most of us are either American History buffs or fans of conspiracy theory (both groups are not know for studying Latin)... it is good to hear from someone who did. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Irony[edit]

I'm no fascist or revolutionary, but the "New World Order" thing, in a sense, is kind of true. I think that its more like a New World Order rather than a New World Order. Opinions? Sirius85 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the conspiracy nuts seem to think it implies a New World Order. All of which are wrong. Read the article. Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to say that perhaps people are focusing on the words New and Order instead of New and World. I theorize that it's not a New Order of the World, but the Order of the New World. Mine is a theory of misinterpretation. Sirius85 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope... I suggest you get a basic Latin text book... because the motto does not translate as "New World Order" no matter how you stress the words. It translates as New Order of the Ages... so any translation of the motto with the word "World" in it is a mistranslation... again, read the article. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The word is plural, so any mistranslation would at least have to have "Worlds", and not "World", in it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, Seclorum is nominative plural... it is posessive... which means that, if seclorum did mean "Worlds" (which it does not), it would be translated as: "of the worlds"... the entire motto should be mistranslated as: "New Order of the Worlds"... or possibly "New Worlds' Order".
However, since Seclorum actually translates as "of the Ages" the entire discussion is moot. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT! I'm not saying the translation is New World Order, I'm saying that it's the social and political system of the New World, New World being the outdated name for the Americas. I even left a link to said page. NOW the entire discussion is moot. Sirius85 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And you are still incorrect. We are not missing the point... Even if it were correct to translate Saecla as "World", because Seclorum is a plural possesive, Latin grammar would tell us to translate it as "of the Worlds".
Combine that with the fact that the correct translation is "Ages" and your theory is doubly incorrect.
That is what we are trying to tell you ... your theory that the phrase referrs to an "Order of the New World" is wrong on two counts... your idea is a) based on a mistranslation, and b) does not take into account latin grammar. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The phrase did signify "the beginning of the new American Æra", according to the person who came up with it (as is stated in the article) -- so you are vaguely correct on the intention. But it has nothing to do with misunderstanding "New World", because the correct translation does not have "World" nor "Worlds" in it at all. You appear to be arguing that "New order of the ages" is not a correct translation and "New World Order" is but only misunderstood, but ... the former is the more accurate translation (and the latter most certainly inaccurate). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not! I'm NOT, repeat NOT, trying to say that's the wrong translation. New World is the archaic term for the americas, not a translation of seclorum as you think I'm saying. I understand that some think it means New World Order, but I don't. I know it translates as "of the times" or "of the ages", so look up New World and you'll see where I'm coming from. As I stated before but apparently you didn't pay attention its the social and political system of the New World, NOT THE TRANSLATION. We were the first to fully implement these ideals, meaning that Novus Ordo Seclorum is a concept of the New World. Sirius85 (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea your right, New World was the Americas, the Ocean Sea was the Atlantic.
Serius, perhaps I don't get what you are trying to say... but it does not belong in the article in any case. so perhaps we should drop it. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, were getting somewhere. It probably doesn't belong in the article, but I'm saying it came to fruition by Freemason George Washington, who made america the basis for this ideal. The United States and the surrounding countries were called the New World long before european settlers came to North America, possibly getting the name from the Vikings who reportedly made it as far south as the coast of my state of Maine, because they originally thought that the earth was flat, so the discovery of the Western Hemisphere was astonishing back then. That's where I got the New World part from. I figured that the Order part referred to social order and jurisprudence.

I confess perhaps this is my personal defintion of "New World Order" as a historical and anti-fascist/anti-conspiracy idea, but I thought I'd discuss this matter and see what others think. It looks like I accomplished just that. Sirius85 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well... I could point out the serious flaws with your theory... but this isn't the place to do that... so I'll just say "thanks for sharing" and leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

- ANSWER: There is a lot of evidence to suggest New World Order is a Freemason motto as on the One Dollar bill seal, if you get certain letters it spells: Mason. Coincidence? The motto is also under the 'All Seeing Eye' - an Illuminati symbol. The Illuminati are the a mysterious and some believe global organization which has connections to Freemasonry and the Occult. The one dollar bill is full of occult symbols including the Ooccult owl. Many of America's presidents (if not all) have mentioned the New World Order or displayed hand signs in connection to the motto. The motto is simply stating a New World is coming under a new organization preferably under the 'Illuminati'. I would be very happy to continue this discussion but i strongly urge you to accept that the motto is off Freemasonry influence. I also have historical evidence linking Crusaders, occultists, George Bush, Catholisism and much more. - If you look closly you will see the symbols' - They are planted everwhere - road signs, company logos, cash notes, rings, churchs - you name it. The Omega symbol, occult own, All seeing eye, the letter 'Y' is a letter in worship of the Devil. I bet you the peace sign has some connection with devil worship - any two pointed symbol has some dirty influence and origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.4.4 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The above I.P has been reading too many Dan Brown novels. Vought109 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but if you connect other letters it spells: RODEO... coincidence? I think not. It's PROOF that the One Dollar Bill and the motto were designed by a conspiracy of rodeo clowns and proves that they are out to rule the world. Why do you think Hollywood makes so many cowboy movies? do you think it is a coincidence that in PAGAN Crete they worshiped the "Minotaur" ... who is described as being "half man half bull" (literally a "cow-boy"!) ... They are everywhere (those evil nasty pagan satanic rodeo clowns!). Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That is all just rubbish... or were you joking? Vought109 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's pretty obvious. (However, Bush senior and junior have been called cowboys a lot, haven't they? Ronald Reagan, too, acted in cowboy movies. Ha!)
By the way, even if we grant for the sake of the argument that s(a)ec(u)la might have been understood as "world" by the Founding Fathers here, nobody who has studied Latin can translate novus ordo seclorum as "Order of the New World". Only in English, New World Order has this specific ambiguity: New [World Order] vs. [New World] Order. In Latin, the case endings make the syntactic connections clear: "Order of the New World" would be novorum ordo seclorum (although Novae ordo Terrae would be more idiomatic, as the New World is rendered as Terra Nova in Latin and never as S(a)ec(u)la Nova). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Seclorum or Saeclorum?[edit]

I am not 100% sure, but I think that "seclorum" does not exists in Latin. It's saeclorum (or more precisely "saeclōrum"/"sæclōrum"). –pjoef (talkcontribs) 07:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And the point is? Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Roman Numerals[edit]

There is nothing in the article about the Roman numerals on the front face of the pyrimid. Vought109 (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of scope... this article is about something specific... a motto... and the numerals are not part of that motto. You might wish to see our linked article: Great Seal of the United States, which does mention the numerals. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And now justice returns, honored rules return[edit]

What is the source of this translation? It is too figurative, if you ask me. The words "iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna" literally mean: "Now the Virgin also returns, Saturn's kingdoms return." I don't see how that turned into justice and honored rules.

Interesting question. I thought it came from the tufts.edu site, which has since been completely reorganized, but it seems their translation (reprinted from another book) is here, which is more along the lines of what you say. Astraea (mythology) has a different translation of "The Virgin and the Days of Old return", also unsourced. The change here was made in this edit by User:Dstlascaux (talk); maybe they could be asked. Searching on Google books give some different translations, some more figurative (like this one, in the footnote), or this one (mentions both justice and a virgin, sort of as synonyms). This one is more literal. It does seem a bit of a stretch, but based on those I could sort of see it. I guess the translation as it stands could be considered unsourced, and perhaps we should find one where we can give an explicit source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the unsourced translation seems not-so-great. Of the sourced translations listed here, I'm keen on this one. I personally would translate it as, "Out of the centuries order arises. She returns as a maiden, as the reign of the golden age begins anew; from heaven on high her children are born unto the world." Shannon 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Semantics and playing with words?[edit]

The article says: The phrase is also mistranslated as "New World Order" by many people who believe in a conspiracy behind the design; however, it does directly translate to "New Order of the Ages"

Uhm, What else is a new world order than an new order of the ages? I think this snippet of POV should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.7.77 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No... you are confusing "translation" with "meaning" and they are not the same thing at all. What the article talks about is translation. It is actually quite simple... The latin for WORLD is "Mundi"... since "Mundi" does not appear in the motto, the motto simply can not be translated as "new WORLD order". More importantly we know from the documents left by the founding fathers who chose the motto what it does translate as ("New order of the ages"). Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


According to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/seclorum , "seclorum" is genitive plural of sēclum; "sēclum" is an alternative form of saeculum; "saeculum" is 1. race, breed 2. generation, lifetime 3. age, time 4. century 5. worldliness; the world
Therefore this phrase can easily and directly translate to "New Order of the Worlds", as "world" itself (through the same channels) can be defined as age, men, humanity, life, way of life, long period of time, cycle, eternity.
In the video "Illuminati - Secrets of the Dollar Bill Occult Symbolism" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pDyfyIx9SQE#t=2059 , Dr. S. Brent Morris, a 33 ° freemason, incorrectly states/implies that it means only "New Order of the Ages" and that "...any other translation than the 'New Order of the Ages' shows an abysmal ignorance of Latin"; Maybe Dr. S. Brent Morris should attempt to translate "Ad hominem" first ;]
You neglect the fact that the founding fathers who created the motto told us how they intended it to be translated. You can quibble all you want, but translating it as "New World Order" is a mis-translation. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion pointless, should consider etymology of the word 'world'[edit]

From the etymology of world we learn that, prior to the existence of the modern concept, it meant age of man and actually is a Teutonic translation of Latin saecula, ages, which in turn is a translation of Greek aiona.

Quoting from the Online Etymological Dictionary, this excerpt:

world (n.), . . . with a literal sense of "age of man," from Proto-Germanic *wer "man" (Old English wer, still in werewolf; see virile) + *ald "age" (see old). . . Original sense in world without end, translating Latin saecula saeculorum, and in worldly. Latin saeculum can mean both "age" and "world," as can Greek aion.

So, much, though by no means all, of the above discussion is pointless. The ancients didn't have our world concept, closest thing available was "ages." And we, today, are able to think in their terms only with some difficulty . . hgwb (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I added the above comment, there has been no change in the article in the substance of disallowing the New World Order translation, despite some editing as late as Oct 7. Indeed the following passage still appears on top: "The phrase is sometimes mistranslated as "New World Order" by people who believe in a conspiracy behind the design." Considering the etymology of "world" and my associated comments, this now should be seen as patently false, despite the official reference [1] cited, which is equally innocent of any real understanding of historical evolution of mankind's thought and language. And my intention here has nothing to do with conspiracy but is strictly based on my knowledge of the history of the subject matter. To further emphasize this point, may I suggest that IMHO the remarks by President George H.W. Bush #41, when he referred to the New World Order in conjunction with the 1st Gulf War, likewise lacking any conspiratorial intent, were inspired by the Great Seal motto. At least we can say, in line with the gist of reference [1], he would have been right to do so, as the translation "New World Order," and the idea that it was initiated by the American revolution of 1776, are deeply ingrained in the American spirit. hgwb (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not a latin scholar, so I will not try to refute the assertion that the latin word Seclorum can, in some contexts, be translated as "World"... but as a Historian I know that in the context of the Great Seal, and the motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum" the word should be translated as "Ages".
Context is important in any translation. The primary issue here is isn't how some anonymous "ancient" might or might not have translated "Seclorum" out of context... the issue is how Charles Thomson. (the man who came up with the motto, and suggested placing it on the Great Seal), intended it to be translated in a specific context (the motto). His own writings show that he intended it to be translated with the meaning "ages", and that meaning was the one approved by Congress. Thus, in the context of the motto, any other possible translation becomes irrelevant and a mistranslation. Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. As in so many cases, your comment is based on a misunderstanding, possibly because you did not consider my initial remark on the etymology carefully. It is not a question of being a Latin scholar, but of the Teutonic (or Germanic) word "world," originally meaning "ages," see above etymology. Now, so much for the main point. However, two further remarks should be added: (1.) When the vocabulary "world" came into existence, Teutonic tribes were still in a pre-civilized condition. They lacked a word like Latin saeculum for age (see etymology of "secular"). So the Roman scribes used a composite, "wer-ald" meaning "as old as a man gets," with wer = man as in werewolf. This later was contracted to "world" over time. (2.) Once the new word world or wer-ald became available, a new concept began to evolve, so you are correct in this regard, world and ages are separate concepts. However, it is also true that the new concept "world" did not exist in Antiquity, see my initial entry. How would you explain it to an ancient Roman if we could time-travel? Probably best say: "Domine, world est saecula." hgwb (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Its not that I did not consider your point.... its simply that I consider it irrelevant... We don't care how the Romans or the Teutons or anyone else might have used the word... In the context of the motto that appears on the Great Seal, the only opinion that matters is that of Charles Thomson. You can try to twist things all you want... but you can not get around the fact that Thomson chose the motto with an intended meaning... and that meaning was not "world". I'm done. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to give this another try after a 30 months hiatus. The National Motto is Latin, no translation can have equal rank or dignity. The Founding Fathers likely intended a connotation most closely resembling what we express today as "New World Order" & used by Pres. Bush 41, as he may have intended to quote the Motto. This also seems to have been the intention of Charles Thomson when he gave his translation, in accordance with antique usage, as a review of the allied term aetas and Greek equivalent aion would show. Wikipedia should report objectively both translations "ages" or "world," perhaps mentioning the etymology cited above, but avoid pointless discussions. In view of other sections of this talk page, I should add this has nothing to do with imperialism or conspiracy, that I am unable to discern any notable distinctionn in the connations of the two translations, and that my main point is that "world" etymologically is identical with "ages." hgwb 20:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Nope... we know exactly how it was translated, and how it was intended to be translated... Thomson himself told us. Ages... not World. Discussion over... see you in another 6 months if you want, but the answer will be the same then as it is now. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The word "seclorum" is plural, so it would have to translate to a plural word -- "worlds" does not make much sense. It is also not the national motto -- that would be the one on the obverse, E Pluribus Unum (and of course a different one by law in 1959). Basically every source we have says "of the ages"; you would need to find an equal number of reliable sources which say something different for us to give another translation equal weight. Any new argument here would be original research. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too difficult to understand our disagreement hinges on a subtle aspect of translation: It's a question of semantics & vocabulary all rolled into one conceptual challenge. Wikipedia editors ought to have these issues at their fingertips. The two competing vocabularies "ages" vs. "world" as well as their semantics have a long history in which they went through a process of evolution. The most ancient times did not possess the modern semantics of "world," but they nonetheless expressed similar concepts, as we, living today can tell by examining their writings using our modern, more powerful, outlook. As I hope to have convinced you, the etymology of "world" proves it arose as Teutonic translation of Latin "seclorum," which itself was translated from Greek "aeon" (in its Latinized spelling). Because the U.S. national motto "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" is in Latin, we should attempt to understand its vocabulary items in their ancient environment, accessible only in a dim and partial way. Then we must concede, that the two concepts merge in a common ancient semantics, that presumably was the aim of Charles Thomson. Very possibly the preceding, my attempt of explaining to you a matter of great subtlety, may help us to reach agreement. hgwb 01:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


Translation of Virgil[edit]

Translation is a tricky thing... and to comply with our WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research policies, we should probably use a published translation (ie not translate it ourselves)... something that we can cite. I note that greatseal.com gives two possible translations. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

oversight[edit]

The peace apparently being quoted does not contain the quote itself, this may be explainable but it is not explained, also can we get a philologist to call up management and get something set in stone for this and others like it (popular with conspiracy theorists) so we have a reputation to back whatever turns out to be the case. sovos 12/12/14 AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.136.67 (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The motto is based on Virgil's poem (a paraphrase of it)... bit is not a direct quote. Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Translated vs mistranslated?[edit]

I know we have discussed this multiple times... and each time the consensus has been to say "mistranslated". However, consensus can change and (based on recent edits) I think it is time to find our whether consensus has changed or not. Shall we continue to say "mistranslated"? Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes - continue to say "mistranslated". The arguments for this have not changed since the last time we discussed the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. The arguments have not changed; the Latin is a plural word and needs to be translated that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

recently added Templates[edit]

I note that the templates for {{US currency and coinage}} and {{List of official United States national symbols}} were recently added. I do understand why the templates were added, but I have to question whether the addition was really appropriate.

First, as to the currency and coinage template... Yes, the motto "Novus ordo seclorum" does appear on the dollar bill ... but only because the Great Seal of the United States appears on the dollar bill, and the motto is part of the Great Seal. It is unlike (say) the motto "In God We Trust", which appears on coins and currency on its own (and not as part of any other emblem).

I suppose it might be appropriate to add these templates to the Great Seal article (although even there I have concerns)... but I don't think it is appropriate to take the association down to the next level, and add the template to articles about the component parts of the seal (and especially since we seem to do so in an inconsistent manner... I note that we don't add the template to our article on the olive branch or to our dab page on Unfinished Pyramid ... and yet those symbols are equally important component parts of the Great Seal.)

I am also concerned that we are inconsistent about what articles we add these templates to - for example: the Lincoln Memorial appears on both the 5 cent coin and the five dollar bill (thus, appearing on two pieces of coinage and currency - as opposed to the Great Seal, which appears on just one: the one dollar note) - yet we don't add the templates to the bottom of our Lincoln Memorial article.

I have similar concerns about adding the national symbols template. The motto is not really a national symbol in itself... again, it is a component part of a symbol (the Great Seal). It's like the olive branch or the unfinished pyramid. The motto Novus Ordo Seclorum does not stand on its own as a national symbol... but as a component part of a national symbol.

Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the currency template. I think that is too far away. The national symbol one... hrm. The motto on the coat of arms is normally the national motto; that typically has significance apart from the seal it appears in. The reverse is not the coat of arms, so the mottos there are not as significant, but they still might have separate significance. Not sure. I wouldn't object either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
OK... I have removed the coinage template (if someone disagrees, they can revert and we can discuss further). As for the symbols template... yeah... I am not quite sure of that one myself. I suppose it really depends on what the definition of a "symbol" is... and whether a motto really qualifies as a symbol or not. I will leave it for now, while we discuss further. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Medieval Christians[edit]

Not sure why we have this paragraph. It seems to be a nonsequitor about how Dante (and other poets of his era) viewed Virgil's poetry in general, and not specifically related to the motto. Should we remove it? Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)