Talk:Auctoritas

Untitled
I don't think this page is at all well written, and it is quite inaccurate in some ways. It misses the main use of auctoritas during the republic and the principade, the auctoritas of the jurist. The jurist isn't some kind of king, but simply a private person who makes it his business to inquire on the just. So it seems strange to link auctoritas to charisma, it is rather linked to the socially recognized knowledge, especially of the prudents. Note the consent of the patterfamilias (and most other forms of consent) receive the name iussum.

A second opinion: I agree that this is not well-written. It also ignores the less legal, intangibled quality of auctoritas in the Roman Republic as a respect and deference recognized as belonging to one by virtue of achievement. Julius Caesar had a great deal of auctoritas long before he became dictator. Pompeius also had it. It is more than just a legal construct.

Third opinion: This does seem like a poor introduction to the concept of auctoritas. Presentation of Agamben's theory might belong in an extended discussion, although it sounds at best tangential, as he seems to speak more to a specific abuse or failure of authority than auctoritas as such. I'm also not sure why Arendt is cited in the bibliography--the article does not really get into her more basic and relevant insights into the nature of auctoritas/authority, or the significance of its etymology (augere). For that matter, Mommsen--mentioned only in passing--could probably provide us with a more adequate account of the term's historical significance. --mmori

O.K., I did something about it! Agamben's argument was copied straight from Agamben article, so I removed most of it. I added a treatment of "auctoritas" from Arendt. Tried to round out the article in general. Also applied some basic categories, linked to "Classical Civilizations" portal, and added many other internal links, specific to Ancient Rome wherever possible. (Many were not originally specific to Ancient Rome, such as "magistrates" instead of "magistratus" etc.) Hopefully, I haven't damaged the Roman law portion of this article. An interested party should probably fix up the Agamben article, which seems to be full of grammatical errors, as well as fairly specialized legal language. At the very least, the Agamben article link to this article ought to be updated. --mmori

Your addition to the section on the Roman context misses a great deal of the use and scope of auctoritas. It suggests that you misunderstand which it is in the context. Auctoritas was more than a legal concept. In the abstract, the amount of clout and respect someone had. It was one's ability to mobilize support and have his will enacted by the consent of one's peers. It was an unspoken ability to lead, a level of prestige, etc. A quick look in the Oxford Latin Dictionary would tell you this and more about its original uses.


 * Please sign your comments (with four tildes (~)), so we can better follow the discussion. Thanks. - Fils du Soleil 20:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of the page
As said before, the page was quite poorly written and often obscure to the point of being confusing. I reorganized it along two axes :

- Cleaned the introduction, which was very long, tedious and unclear, to leave only the basic definition of the concept (which is what the intro should be anyway). - Created two new sections, Etymology and origin and Political meaning in Ancient Rome and moved the corresponding content there.

I also added the concept of auctoritas principis (Roman Empire), and made a few other modifications here and there (mostly intended towards more clarity).

- Fils du Soleil 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that nobody has made mention of the concept of "auctoritas" as applied to medieval epic poetry, since it is the closest literary device to Wikipedia's own demand that nobody submit "original research". Sylvia Huot (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-7134(199001)65%3A1%3C177%3AFSTBTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G) and Bill Burgwinkle (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_lesbian_and_gay_studies/v010/10.4burgwinkle.html) among others have published on the matter. 81.156.71.111 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Shuffled things around a bit again, but it seems like this article is still pretty awkward, and seems to still be missing a full "dictionary" definition. Despite Fils efforts, I still get a kind of "contentious" feeling from the intro. I came to this article in the course of an Arendtian investigation (guilty!) so while moving Arendt and Agamben to the back of the line, my contributions to what I hoped others would expand and correct to become the historical/classical "meat" of the article were also limited to the more political theoretical. (I know, I know, excuses, excuses.) Anyway, I don't think the article has fulfilled Fils's good charge to include a more broadly idiomatic, "man on the ancient Roman street"-type understanding of the term. A more descriptive classical/lexicographical discussion should head up the article, (instead of a gripe about phenomenology hijacking the term in the 20th century!) (JOKING! Ha, ha, ha.... o_o;) As the etymological section merely suggests, the theoretical significance of auctoritas--ancient or modern--most certainly grows from a broader "vulgar" usage that still needs to be fleshed out a bit.... FWIW! --Mkmori (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Grammar/syntax issues
(This is my first time on a talk page so I apologize if I've gone about this the wrong way)

I had great trouble reading this page. The grammar and syntax seem to be all over the place. I've read some paragraphs over and over and can't quite grasp what is trying to be said. For example,

"Traditional imperial Roman exception to declare any legalistic concept and rule of law null and overrule prior decision making, in some military and political circumstances overrule fundamental body of law within a constitution, whether it is or isn't codified. Imperial prerogative is to protect the state from harm and its peoples. During the overruling of Roman Constitution body of fundamental laws and rule of law, a dictator may be chosen by the senate in Imperial Rome."

The first sentence, and the last sentence make no sense to me. "During the overruling of [the] Roman Constitution [or] body of fundamental laws, a dictator may be chosen by the senate." Would that not make more sense?

--Shadda (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Lede
I see that this article has forever vexed editors. Here's one thing about the lede. Where is "the beginning of phenomenological philosophy in the 20th century expanded the use of the word" coming from in the actual article? This may be quite valid, and there is a citation, but it is not in fact discussed in this article nor in the Phenomenology (philosophy) article to which the link takes us. If it isn't a significant enough aspect of that topic, should it be even be mentioned here, much less in the lede, with no discussion? Thoughts? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)