In this chapter, I will investigate the various meanings of auctoritas through the works of Latin authors. The theme of my chosen vocabulary is the language of power and thus it is necessary to compare actual power to the air or appearance of power. The word derives from the Latin agent noun ‘auctor’ which is itself derived from ‘augeo’ meaning to ‘increase’ and the suffix ‘-tās’ which forms abstract nouns (LS 1879). I will be contrasting the use of auctoritas with that of imperium from the previous chapter.
Personal Influence or Ascendancy
Firstly, we shall investigate the sense of auctoritas which connotes personal influence or ascendancy. Ter. Hec. 47 states: “facite ut vostra auctoritas meae auctoritati fautrix adiutrixque sit.”, which …show more content…
Pis. 8 he states: “id, quod nondum potestate poterat obtinuit auctoritate” and here employs auctoritas in the sense of personality. From the context of the work, Cicero is deriding the ability of a tribunus plebis to accomplish his goals (allowing the masters to put on the Compitalician Games which had been forbidden through senatorial decree) not through the virtue of magisterial power or office but by means of his personality. It is interesting to note that Cicero contrasts ‘potestas’ power, with ‘auctoritas’, personality or personal power. The verb ‘obtineo’ is used to convey the idea of grasping or achieving something as though one could actually grab one’s personality. In contrast, ‘potestas’ is portrayed as a more abstract quality which is inherent to political office and cannot so easily be …show more content…
2.54.1 states: “regis eorumque, quorum is auctoritate regebatur, fides”, using auctoritas to denote influence and placing together the passive verb ‘regor’ with the abstract noun ‘fides’ meaning faith or loyalty. We can see that one can be ruled and controlled by influence and personality to the extent that this can help a person win other people’s loyalty and trust. This line implies that the king, whilst technically holding power, is guided and controlled by the influence of others. Since this does not specifically connote regal or imperial power, such influence may be deemed as traitorous or scheming. However, the actual context of the text states that this king’s loyalty toward Caesar was just like Pompey’s, which is to say that the king did not trust either of them. This indicates that in some cases influence alone was sufficient to overcome ties of
Personal Influence or Ascendancy
Firstly, we shall investigate the sense of auctoritas which connotes personal influence or ascendancy. Ter. Hec. 47 states: “facite ut vostra auctoritas meae auctoritati fautrix adiutrixque sit.”, which …show more content…
Pis. 8 he states: “id, quod nondum potestate poterat obtinuit auctoritate” and here employs auctoritas in the sense of personality. From the context of the work, Cicero is deriding the ability of a tribunus plebis to accomplish his goals (allowing the masters to put on the Compitalician Games which had been forbidden through senatorial decree) not through the virtue of magisterial power or office but by means of his personality. It is interesting to note that Cicero contrasts ‘potestas’ power, with ‘auctoritas’, personality or personal power. The verb ‘obtineo’ is used to convey the idea of grasping or achieving something as though one could actually grab one’s personality. In contrast, ‘potestas’ is portrayed as a more abstract quality which is inherent to political office and cannot so easily be …show more content…
2.54.1 states: “regis eorumque, quorum is auctoritate regebatur, fides”, using auctoritas to denote influence and placing together the passive verb ‘regor’ with the abstract noun ‘fides’ meaning faith or loyalty. We can see that one can be ruled and controlled by influence and personality to the extent that this can help a person win other people’s loyalty and trust. This line implies that the king, whilst technically holding power, is guided and controlled by the influence of others. Since this does not specifically connote regal or imperial power, such influence may be deemed as traitorous or scheming. However, the actual context of the text states that this king’s loyalty toward Caesar was just like Pompey’s, which is to say that the king did not trust either of them. This indicates that in some cases influence alone was sufficient to overcome ties of