Search

This paper explores alternatives to analysing the political impact of Augustus in terms of the establishment of a new constitutional structure, the Augustan Principate. It starts by showing how the wordprincipatuschanged over time and explores the significance of the termstatio. It considers how contemporaries viewed the political changes that occurred during Augustus’ lifetime, analysing the ways in which power at Rome became increasingly embodied in the person of Augustus himself. It suggests that there was an increasing recognition that Augustus was an exceptional individual, whose position in the state was supported by powers granted formally by senatorial decree and popular vote as well as informally by acclamation, but whose authority was ultimately a personal quality, supported by the gods, and predestined by birth. It traces the ways in which Augustus’ rule became increasingly personalised, with the result that one of the main challenges faced by Tiberius ina.d. 14 was how to take over Augustus’ personal role asprinceps.

In this essay, the Rosh Hashanah Shofar service poems by the Jewish poet Yose ben Yose (fourth or fifth century CE, Land of Israel) are read through the lens of the Late Antique practice of acclamation. Yose's surviving body of works is limited, but he was influential within the Jewish tradition, and his poems have long been noted for their use of formal features such as fixed-word repetitions and refrains—features which align not only with poetic norms from the biblical period to Late Antiquity but also with the practice of acclamation. Jews attended (and performed in) the theater and games; they were familiar with rhetorical and oratorical training and related literary norms; and they were integrated socially, commercially, and politically into diverse and varied communities. The affinity of Jewish liturgical poetry from antiquity for other forms of poetic composition reflects Jews’ general embeddedness in Late Ancient culture. Reading Yose's poetry as shaped by the conventions of acclamation highlights how Yose and his congregants were not only distinctly Jewish but also thoroughly Roman.

When on October 13, 2016, the General Assembly appointed by acclamation António Guterres of Portugal as the United Nations’ ninth secretary-general, there was a sense of excitement among the organization's 193 members. For once, so it seemed, they felt they had played an important role not only in choosing the secretary-general but also in appointing a man generally considered to be an outstanding candidate for a position memorably described as “the most impossible job on this earth.” The five permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council (Perm Five) still exercised the greatest power in the selection process, as they always had in the past. Yet the candidate chosen appears, surprisingly, not to have been the first choice of either the United States or Russia, two of the Perm Five that until then had effectively chosen the secretary-general between them in an opaque and outdated process. It is doubtful that António Guterres would have been appointed if the General Assembly had not embarked on a novel process to select him.

The Uffizi in Florence and the Castel Sforzesco in Milan each possess one panel of a consular diptych that identifies its honorand as follows: Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius v(ir) c(larissimus) et inl(ustris) ex com(ite) dom(esticorum) pat(ricius) cons(ul) ord(inarius). The offices and titles listed are: ex-count of the domestics, patrician and ordinary consul. The top register of the front (Florence) panel shows Basilius in full consular regalia holding mappa and cross-surmounted sceptre, with Roma to his left placing one hand on his right shoulder; the lower register shows racing chariots, a scene from his consular games (fig. 1). In contrast to this thoroughly conventional iconography, that of the rear (Milan) panel is unique (fig. 2): a winged victory seated above a spread eagle, holding up a shield that bears the consul’s portrait together with an acclamation no less unique: bono rei public(a)e et iterum (‘for the good of the state again’).

Competition came to Mexico's new democracy with unexpected fury in the nation's 2006 presidential election. Until recently Mexico was the bastion of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), where opposition parties could rarely hope to gain half as many votes as the PRI. But in the July 2 presidential election, Felipe Calderón of the National Action Party (PAN) edged Ándres Manuel López Obrador of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) by a mere 233,831 votes, or 0.58% of the more than 41.5 million cast. The PRI's candidate, Roberto Madrazo, finished a distant third. Calderón took this razor-thin margin after a fiercely competitive campaign marked by lavish media spending and the use of negative attack ads. López Obrador has contested the outcome from the time the polls closed until the present, calling his supporters into the streets on several occasions to put pressure on the electoral authorities to recount the votes; staging an “election by acclamation” in which those present at a rally on Mexico's Independence Day “elected” López Obrador by a show of hands; and holding an “inauguration” ceremony on November 20, the anniversary of the onset of the Mexican Revolution. While López Obrador challenged the preliminary outcome, Calderón had to wait patiently until the Federal Electoral Tribunal (TRIFE) declared him elected on September 5, fully two months after the ballots had been cast.

The Midyear Council Meeting of The Paleontological Society (PS) was called to order by President William I. Ausich on 15 March 2003 at 8:05 hrs in Room 308 of the Fogelman Center on the campus of The University of Memphis. Attending were Council members Patricia H. “Tricia” Kelley, David J. Bottjer, Mark E. Patzkowsky, Carl W. Stock, Robert A. Gastaldo, Steven M. Holland, Alycia L. Rode, Ann F. “Nancy” Budd, John M. Pandolfi, Mark A. Wilson, Russell H. “Tim” White, Ralph Hitz, Lance L. Lambert, and Reese Barrick. Minutes of the 2002 Annual Council Meeting were approved by acclamation. Bill Ausich presented his President's Report, first thanking Lance Lambert for making meeting arrangements. President Ausich then reported on the meeting of the presidents of Geological Society of America (GSA) Associated and Affiliated Societies, which took place February 2003 in Boulder, CO. GSA's financial situation has improved. They have a new, part-time person in their education and outreach position, Gary Lewis. Ausich also attended the American Geological Institute (AGI) meeting in Washington, DC in December 2002. One topic of discussion was “Paleontology in the National Park System.” Paleontology appears to be a high priority for the Parks. There is a Parks' Paleontologist, who is preparing a report on known paleontological resources in the National Parks. The Parks are going to hire a Visiting Chief Scientist to come to Washington for a couple of years, and they would not mind that being a paleontologist. Returning to the meeting with GSA, President Ausich noted that they were very responsive to our concerns—he noted what a good job Lisa Park and Rowan Lockwood are doing for the PS on the Joint Technical Program Committee (JTPC). It is not unusual for paleontological sessions at GSA meetings to be held in rooms that are too small …

The Midyear Council Meeting of The Paleontological Society (PS) was called to order by President Patricia H. “Tricia” Kelley on 13 April 2002 at 8:15 hrs in Room 291 of Mendenhall Laboratory on the campus of The Ohio State University. Attending were Council members William I. Ausich, Thomas W. Kammer, Carl W. Stock, Steven M. Holland, Gregory S. Herbert, Jonathan M. Adrain, Mark A. Wilson, Dale A. Springer, Russell H. “Tim” White, and C. Frederick Lohrengel, II. Timothy Hazen and Rodney M. Feldmann were also present. Minutes of the 2001 Annual Council Meeting were approved by acclamation. Tricia Kelley presented her President's Report, first welcoming Steve Holland, Fred Lohrengel, and Tim Hazen to their first Council meeting. She reported writing several letters, including one to the Geological Society of America (GSA), protesting their withdrawal of $5,000 support for the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Jack Hess, GSA Executive Director, replied that they had made this contribution only twice, and instead offered to assess a 10–15% surcharge on future volumes of the Treatise, to help support its future production. She also wrote to Guy Dresser at Allen Marketing and Management about some issues of concern, one of which was the poor quality of illustrations in the May 2001 issue of the Journal of Paleontology ( JP ). We have also been experiencing problems with subscriptions, and the aborted 2001 election of officers. President Kelley wrote an article for the March 2002 issue of GSA Today, publicizing the activities of the PS. She worked with Peter Harries on Priscum —the spring issue is about to come out. She attended the GSA Associated Societies meeting in Boulder, CO on 23 February 2002. Among the topics discussed were GSA's budget problems—some programs will have to be cut. Prominent attention was paid to GSA's electronic geoscience journal aggregate. …

The Midyear Council Meeting of The Paleontological Society (PS) was called to order by President Peter R. Crane on 31 March 2000 at ca. 9:15 AM in the Cooper Room of the US National Museum of Natural History. Attending were Council members Karl W. Flessa, Patricia H. Kelley, Thomas W. Kammer, Carl W. Stock, William I. Ausich, Nigel C. Hughes, Kate Lyons, Ann F. “Nancy” Budd, Scott L. Wing, Douglas H. Erwin, Mary L. Droser, Dale A. Springer, Russell H. “Tim” White, and Donald G. Mikulic. Susan Kidwell, Tammy Dickinson, and Joanne Kluessendorf were also present for parts of the meeting. Minutes of the 1999 Incoming Council Meeting were approved by acclamation. Peter Crane presented his President's Report, thanked Carl Stock for his work as Secretary, particularly for trying to straighten out the PS committees, and thanked Tom Kammer for his continued good work as Treasurer. He also welcomed the new Special Publications Editor, Tim White, to the Council, and thanked him for his willingness to serve in that position. Crane noted that at the previous AAAS meeting he had given a presentation as part of a symposium on evolution. This symposium was part of an effort by several societies to produce two booklets that are intended to improve public understanding of evolution. Lastly, he suggested that voting on financial decisions should he held until near the end of the meeting. Tom Kammer presented his Treasurer's Report. The Society is in sound fiscal shape. We have now reached the desired allocation of financial resources, as 39% of our investments are in SP at the end of 1999 they were …

I refer to the health of millions who spend their lives in manufactories. . . I ask if these millions enjoy that vigour of body which is ever a direct good, and without which all other advantages are comparatively worthless? (The Effects of Arts, Trades, and Professions, and of civic states and habits of living, on health andlongevity, C. Turner Thackrah) [Factory reformers] wrote in the newspapers, and circulated pamphlets - they petitioned Parliament - exhibited diseased and crippled objects in London - and made such an impression on the public mind, that their measures were carried in the House of Commons almost by acclamation, notwithstanding the testimony of facts of a directly contrary nature. (Exposition of the Factory Question)THIS ARTICLE SEEKS to explore the significance of the injured working-class body in debates about the nature and meaning of industrial capitalism in the first half of the nineteenth century.1 It will argue that a growing awareness that the comforts of middle-class existence depended on processes that maimed working-class lives was profoundly unsettling to the bourgeois conscience as it threatened one of its most important narratives of legitimation. Finally, it will trace the emergence of the “accident” (as both concept and fictional trope) as a response to and resolution of this ideological crisis.

This essay examines the tension between agenda-setting and majority rule in the writings of one of the earliest and most original theorists of participatory democracy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Exploring Rousseau's views on lawmaking and the complexities associated with legislative initiation, specifically, this essay challenges the notion that representatives or legislative experts in a democracy inevitably reduce popular participation to acclamation. Contrary to authors who believe that Rousseau surreptitiously devolves political power to an elected elite who predecide a legislative agenda for a passive majority to vote upon later, I argue that the philosopher delegates authority to initiate the laws to representatives without undermining either the sovereignty or the robustness of citizen self-rule. This argument reveals, in part, why contemporary participatory democracy is not inherently “immobile” owing to the self-reinforcing benefits of democratic participation within a well-balanced constitution.The author wishes to thank Mads Qvortrup, Benjamin Wong, and APSR's Reviewers.

This report of opened tombs and risen saints is conventionally deemed to mark Jesus’ death as the dawn of the new age. However, this understanding obscures Matthew's studied climax in v. 54. Defending the theory that vv. 51b–54 are a Matthean creation, it is argued here that Matthew drew his scene of risen saints from 1 Enoch 93.6, where ‘visions of the Holy Ones’ accompany the gift of the Torah. Matthew utilized this motif from the Mosaic era not to infuse Jesus’ death with eschatological significance, but to provoke the centurion's acclamation of Jesus as ‘son of God’ as the climax of the crucifixion narrative.

The Midyear Council Meeting of The Paleontological Society (PS) was called to order by President Patricia H. “Tricia” Kelley on 10 March 2001 at 8:10 hrs in Room 291 of Mendenhall Laboratory on the campus of The Ohio State University. Attending were Council members William I. Ausich, Thomas W. Kammer, Carl W. Stock, Christopher G. Maples, Nigel C. Hughes, Seth Finnegan, Ann F. “Nancy” Budd, Mark A. Wilson, Dale A. Springer, Russell H. “Tim” White, Jed Day, and Elizabeth “Liz” Nesbitt. Steven J. Hageman, and Peter J. Harries were also present. Minutes of the 2000 Annual Council Meeting were approved by acclamation. Tricia Kelley presented her President's Report by first thanking Peter Harries for becoming the editor of the Society's newsletter, Priscum , and by thanking Bill Ausich for taking care of meeting arrangements. She noted that this was the first time Council has tried a one-day Midyear Meeting. Tricia reported on a number of things that she has done since our meeting last fall in Reno. She talked to Ian Francis about the PS cooperating on Geobiology subscriptions—she will see him at the North American Paleontological Convention (NAPC) this summer to work out details. She sent a letter of condolences on behalf of the PS to G. Arthur Cooper's widow. She e-mailed Wendy Van Norden, saying that we are supportive of the geology advanced placement proposal. She finalized an agreement with the Boucots on their contributions—it previously read in part, “Prior contributions made to the PS by the Boucots and now in the Society's Boucot Fund shall remain with the Society to defray future expenses related to the awarding of the Boucot Research Grants.” To this was added, “Any remaining funds in excess of those needed to administer the program may be awarded to support taxonomic, morphologic, and biostratigraphic …

By all accounts the premiere of Puccini'sMadama Butterflyat the Metropolitan Opera on 11 February 1907 was a triumphant success, with the presence of the composer adding special lustre to the brilliant performance of a distinguished cast. Amidst the general acclamation, however, a foreign visitor named Jihei Hashiguchi raised a dissenting voice in a letter to a local newspaper:I can say nothing for the music ofMadama butterfly. Western music is too complicated for a Japanese. Even Caruso' celebrated singing does not appeal very much more than the barking of a dog in faraway woods.

A.W. Gomme wrote on the Athenian embassy to Sardes (Hdt. v 73): ‘Athens, whether by decision of the demos or of the governing class with the backing of public opinion or of a ruling clique did not, after the overthrow of the tyrants, give earth and water to the King.’Since Gomme dated the embassy to Sardes to 506, he did not believe that the form of the Athenian government was still unsettled after the recent disturbances but was uncertain as to how Athenian politics worked at the beginning of the period with which he was concerned, 510 - 483. Where Gomme was doubtful, F.J. Frost is prepared to be positive:‘I think most modern scholars would now agree that Athens in the first third of the fifth century continued to be manipulated by an aristocratic elite. Although the nobles were now constrained to operate within the confines of the Cleisthenic constitution, that instrument, like most successful and enduring institutions of its kind, was permissive and designed to be a reflection of tempora and mores rather than of doctrine. We would assume that most far-reaching questions of domestic and foreign policy were settled informally by discussion in the houses of the great, that the final decision was written up pro forma by the Boule and given perfunctory acclamation by the Ecclesia. Only when there was irreconcilable disagreement among the clans (or such aporia that it was felt best to spread responsibility for a decision) would the Demos be invited to take sides.’

At the age of twenty-five, Gn. Pompeius acquired the spectacular cognomen of Magnus. According to Plutarch (Pomp. 13), the name came either from the acclamation of his army in Africa, or at the instigation of Sulla. According to Livy, the practice began from the toadying of Pompeius' circle (‘ab adsentatione familiar’, 30.45.6). The cognomen invited play. At the Ludi Apollinares of July 59, Cicero tells us, the actor Diphilus won ‘a dozen encores’ when he pronounced, from a lost tragedy, the line ‘nostra miseria tu es magnus’. Four or five years later Catullus scored a fine hit, filching Pompeius' cognomen and giving it to his zealously competitive father-in-law: ‘Caesaris uisens monimenta magni’ (11.10). In Lucan's Bellum Civile such plays on the cognomen are elevated into something of considerable power, testifying to a consistent controlling design, of the sort which many still deny the poem.When Pompeius first appears he is compared with Caesar, to his detriment: ‘nec coiere pares’ (1.129). So much for Pompeius' vaunted intolerance of an equal, of which we have just been reminded: ‘nec quemquam iam ferre potest Caesarue priorem | Pompeiusue parem’ (125f.). Many of the images in this introductory section have a programmatic power, and will recur. With ‘nec coiere pares’ Lucan presents the two as an ill-matched pair of gladiators. The metaphor is ubiquitous. Note, in particular, 5.1–3, and 6.3, ‘parque suum uidere dei’. We are further told that Pompeius seeks ‘fama’, is a ‘popularis’, indulges the people, basks in the applause he receives from the mob in his theatre: ‘famaeque petitor | multa dare in uolgus, totus popularibus auris | impelli plausuque sui gaudere theatri’ (131–3). We will return later to this complex of ideas.

Origen's fullest statement on the selection of church officers occurs in his Homily in Numbers 13.4. The following is a fairly literal translation of the passage:At the end of his life he prayed to God that He would provide a leader for the people. What are you doing, O Moses? Are not Gersom and Eleazar your sons? Or if you distrust any one of these, are not the sons of your brother great and distinguished men? Why do you not pray to God for them so that He might appoint them leaders of the people? But the leaders in office of the churches should learn not to designate by testimony nor to deliver the leadership of the churches as an inheritance to those who are related to them by blood or are associated with them by fleshly closeness, but to submit to the choice of God and not to choose that one whom human affection commends but to grant entirely to the judgment of God the choice of a successor. Was not Moses able to choose a ruler for the people by a true judgment and to make choice by a correct and just sentence, to whom God had said, “Choose elders for the people, whom you know to be the elders,” and he chose such in whom immediately God's “spirit rested, and they all prophesied.” who therefore is able to choose a leader of the people unless Moses was able? But he did not do it, did not choose, did not dare it. Why did he not dare? That he would not leave to posterity an example of presumption. But listen to what he says, “Let the Lord, the God of spirits and all flesh, provide a man over this congregation, who shall go out and come in before them and who shall lead them forth and lead them back.” If therefore such a one as Moses gives not his judgment in choosing a leader of the people, in appointing a successor, what man would be he who dares to do so, whether of the people who are always accustomed to be moved by shouts for favor or perhaps excited for money, or of the priests themselves who will there be who would judge himself equal to this task, except only him to whom through prayers and petitions it is revealed by God? And just as God says to Moses, “Take to yourself Joshua the son of Nun, a man who has the spirit in him, and lay your hands upon him; and stand him before Eleazar the priest, and command him in the presence of the whole congregation and commission him from yourself before them; and give your honor to him that the children of Israel may hear him.” You hear obviously the ordination of a leader of the people clearly described, so that there is almost no need of exposition. Here there was held no acclamation of the people, no regard of kinship, no consideration of friendship.… The government of the people is delivered to him whom God chose.

Kαλós in acclamation has a continuous life throughout Hellenic, Hellenistic, Roman and early Byzantine times. The history belongs, for the most part, to the fields of ancient pagan culture, with Christian materials accruing to its later stages. The interest of the following study, for the author at all events, has lain as much in the subject-matter itself as in inferences that may be drawn from it. Readers bent on the severe pursuit of a thesis will not find it here.

On November 20, 1681 the cathedral bell of Lima announced the official arrival of the new Viceroy of Peru, Don Melchor de Navarra y Rocafull, Duque de la Palata. The streets were decked with bunting and flowers and many people crowded windows and balconies to catch a glimpse of the new Viceroy. Palata, astride a white horse, led a procession of town councilmen, lancers, footmen, and coaches through the capital to the main plaza. There he was greeted by an artillery salute that shook the entire city. Thanking the officials who had accompanied him, Palata entered the viceregal palace and appeared at a window to the acclamation of the multitude.

At the beginning of its nineteenth session the General Assembly of the United Nations decided by acclamation that Alex Quaison-Sackey, the permanent representative of Ghana, should preside over the session. This was only the second time in eighteen years that this, the highest honor in the Organization, was accorded to a representative of an African state, and the first time that a Negro African was thus chosen.

The practice of acclaiming the Emperors with certain set forms of words is mentioned by the Byzantine chroniclers in their account of the court ceremonies. Both Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the writer of the handbook which goes under the name of Codinus Curopalata give the proceedings in some detail, whereby we learn the names of the court officials, their gorgeous robes, and symbols of office, the various sections of the Imperial guard and the solemn pageantry enacted by them on state occasions, and can easily imagine the pomp, tiresome perhaps, but certainly impressive, that surrounded the Eastern Throne.

The main exegetical difficulties of Mk. II, 1–12 are considered to be: (a) the awkwardness of the wording of 10b and 11a. With the statement “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins” Jesus is held to be addressing the scribes, but the text proceeds with an abrupt transition to “he saith to the sick of the palsy, I say unto thee….” (b) The public use of the title “Son of man” so early in the Lord's ministry, (c) The open avowal to the scribes of the Son of man's power on earth to forgive sins, (d) The observation in verse 12 that “they were all amazed and glorified God,” as though even the critical scribes joined with the crowd in the approving acclamation.