Römisches Staatsrecht

Mommsen, Theodor

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511707605

Cited by 5 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the power of office was referred to as potestas or imperium. Consuls had auctoritas before being elected but they gained potestas only after assuming office (Mommsen 1952(Mommsen , 1034 fact that the coefficient for the latent officeholder variable changes substantially relative to that for office suggests that incorporating a broader conception of personal influence into the model will likely lead to a stronger relative impact of personal influence, and therefore the estimated degree of deinstitutionalisation.…”

Section: Further Analyses and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Office or Officeholder? Regime Deinstitutionalization and Sources of Individual Political Influence

Baturo¹,

Elkink²

2014

The Journal of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to separate the office from the officeholder is one of the most difficult questions in the empirical study of institutions and leadership. We argue that provided there is an indicator for the overall individual influence among members of the political elite and there is sufficient variability among individuals taking the same office, being promoted and demoted into different offices over time, we can separate latent individual and institutional components of influence at an aggregate, regime level. Our latent variable model thus provides a new tool to measure the degree of regime deinstitutionalisation.Using expert surveys that assess the ranking of the top political actors in Russia from 1994-2011, and restricting personal effects to those that are constant over time, we find that on average office dominates individual by the order of two. We discuss regime deinstitutionalisation in comparative perspective; demonstrate the generalisability by analysing Ukraine; account for patronage networks.Key Words: leadership, deinstitutionalisation, latent factor model, Russian and PostSoviet politics Does the political office that an individual occupies primarily determine one's overall political influence, or can the same office be strengthened or weakened depending on the officeholder? Recently, there has been a surge of scholarship that examined with new rigour whether leaders matter (e.g., Dewan and Myatt, 2008;Goemans and Chiozza, 2009;Horowitz and Stam, forthcoming;Jones and Olken, 2009). Nonetheless, it remains extremely difficult to attribute causality to particular officeholders, discern the effects of leaders from other factors, or disentangle the office from the individual officeholder (Ahlquist and Levi, 2011;Shamir, 2012;Sheffer, 1993). This paper directly confronts the empirical difficulty of separating the effects of leaders on policy, thereby addressing a centuries-old conundrum in political science. We do this through a novel measurement tool for the separation of different sources -or components -personal (officeholder) and institutional (office) -of the individual's influence. This approach largely permits us to side-step assumptions about the relative effects of individual traits, followers and contextual factors, and to identify the effects of leaders and institutions in a non-experimental setting. The expert survey we rely on provides one observed variable measuring the perceived policy influence for the most important actors within a political regime over time and thus the data itself cannot, at first sight, provide information on the relative importance of individual and office. 1 However, because over time different actors can hold the same office and the same actor can hold different offices, we can capture the corresponding changes in influence scores and use this variation to gauge the relative importance of the person and the office. We therefore measure, at an individual level, the relative attribution of influence to office and individual, and, at an aggregate level, the 1 An onl...

show abstract

Section: Further Analyses and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Office or Officeholder? Regime Deinstitutionalization and Sources of Individual Political Influence

Baturo¹,

Elkink²

2014

The Journal of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Theodor Mommsen noted, 'auctoritas was more than a piece of advice and less than a command-a piece of advice that cannot easily be disregarded.' 39 The reasons why it cannot be disregarded connect to social expectations and to the dynamic construction of semantic authority. This dynamic process is best explained with reference to the working of precedents.…”

Section: Tradition Not Truthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic authority

Venzke¹

2019

Concepts for International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Chapter introduces the concept of semantic authority, defined as an actor's capacity to find acceptance for its interpretative claims or to establish its own statements about the law as content-laden reference points for legal discourse that others can hardly escape. In order to both clarify its heritage and its novelty, The Chapter first provides an account of the theoretical context in which the concept of semantic authority is embedded-the lines of thinking in whose wake the concept starts making sense (II.). The concept is above all indebted to understandings of (international) law as a product of its communicative practice. In contrast to similar past and present voices, however, it purports to highlight the powerful actors in legal discourse so as to anchor critique and normative inquiry. Second, the Chapter clarifies the nature of semantic authority and the dynamics that sustain it (III.). While persuasiveness can increase an actor's semantic authority, it is a constitutive feature of such authority that it must persist in the absence of agreement in substance. What is more, while semantic authority thrives on sociological legitimacy, it is a separate question of whether it is indeed well justified. Among the factors that sustain it, it is the capacity to link up with tradition that stands out. Third and finally, the chapter summarizes the concept's trajectory-what has been done with it and how it might still develop further (IV.).

show abstract

“…A.,Epidaurus,p. 21. no earlier than the sixth century B. C., (1) and uninterruptedly visited by numerous pilgrims from many various Greek cities, who were suffering from physical and psychological pains and diseases. (2) The Greek cult of Asclepius was so quickly carried into Rome, especially after the break out of the death-causing pest and its spread among the Romans about 293 B. C. ( 3) Moreover, the Greek art of healing and its many various scientific methods of Hippocrates, the most celebrated Greek physician of Cos (flourishing about 430 B. C.) were brought by the Greek wanderers into Rome; (4) in the beginning it could not easily and quickly find its way into the Roman society because the whole Roman medicine was represented by the different Etruscan religious arts of healing, (5) and also by the Greek slaves and freedmen who were mere sorcerers and magicians; (6) in the beginning of the third century B. C. the earliest educated Greek physicians had arrived into Rome, and most of them were slaves.…”

Section: The Arrival Of the Educated And Skillful Greek Physicians Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Romans deeply believed that transcendental practices such as superstitions, rituals and a belief in spells would rid them of diseases which came from the anger of the gods. Therefore, the priests used to read the liver after examining it carefully to reveal good or bad omens from it (1) because the Romans thought that the gods responses were communicated through the liver and other internal organs of a sacrificed animal. They sought healing in the temples of the healing gods where sacrifices were made to them in hopes of receiving emphatic and complete healing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Roman Physicians in

علام¹

2007

Bulletin of the Center Papyrological Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The major aim of this paper is to illuminate the healers and their art of healing (ars medicinae) at Rome from the beginning till the time of the emperors with the help of some different private funerary Latin inscriptions. It is a contribution into the broader context of the epigraphical and funerary culture of the Romans; it also emphasizes the importance of regarding epitaphs as integral elements within a network of ritual and social contexts. It will mainly pioneer and open up the following topics and try to scrutinize them separately: the historical development of the art of healing and healers at Rome; the various specialities of the Roman physicians; the role of the Roman woman as a physician; the efficiency and skill of the Roman physicians; the ways of payment for the Roman physicians. Thanks to some Latin epitaphs and literary sources we could know the effective and vivid role played by medicine and physicians of both ancient Greece and Rome. The sources, whether graphic or written, which have recently reached us, ensure that it had existed among the physicians a multitude of healers who were mere sorcerers, magicians and quacks than artists. (1) The ancient Romans derived their medical knowledge from the Greeks, the Etruscans, the Persians and other conquered peoples. Ancient Roman (*) I am very indebted to my professor Theodor Pékary (Münster University) for his remarks and valuable advices in examining the inscriptions dealt with in this paper. (1) Cic. Divin. I. 132: Cicero mentioned that Ennius had criticized the fraudulent practitioners and complained about an abundance of religious quacks in Rome, including harioli, who were driven by poverty, madness or lack of any other skill, to promise wealth for a drachma. Plaut. Mil. 692. Plautus told us that some of these religious quacks were women.

show abstract

Römisches Staatsrecht

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Office or Officeholder? Regime Deinstitutionalization and Sources of Individual Political Influence

Office or Officeholder? Regime Deinstitutionalization and Sources of Individual Political Influence

Semantic authority

The Roman Physicians in

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About