Search

European legal systems are tributary, to a greater or lesser extent, to Roman law, according to stages of reception in different historical eras. It is, more precisely, about Roman law as conceived by Justinian - a mass of norms elaborated and imposed for application by the autocratic emperor, which Savigny considered a manifestation of decadence. The present article aims to analyse the singular model which, ensuring the overcoming of the conservatism-pragmatism antithesis, led, in the classical era, to the evolution of Roman civil law towards the peak of intellectual sophistication whose shadow can be glimpsed in the Corpus iuris civilis. We are referring to the joint action of two mechanisms: on the one hand, the edict that the judicial magistrate (praetor) published by virtue of his power (imperium) and which contained the formulas according to which the judicial procedure was carried out according to the lex Aebutia (iurisdictio contentiosa) and, on the other hand, to the activity of the prudent, whose consultations (responsa) provided them with the necessary authority (auctoritas) to interpret the civil law (interpretatio). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de História da UEG is the property of Revista de Historia da UEG, Editora UEG, Universidade Estadual de Goias and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Studia Islamika is the property of Center for the Study of Islam & Society of UIN Jakarta and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper examines the notion of region as they figure in certain literary texts of the medieval and early modern north India across diverse linguistic archives. The idea is to look at and beyond how these compositions understood and represented the region. What were the constituent factors of the region, and how do they manifest themselves? As an imagined, lived, constituted and contested idea, what are the varying set of traits associated with regions? Is it possible to make a repertoire of such traits outside of contemporary and temporally-spatially specific discourses available within particular literary cultures? No less important is the question of how modern historians might fruitfully relate to, and deploy, the fraught category while researching any aspect of pre-modern past, and not just while dealing with local/regional/vernacular. The paper argues that the question of what constitutes region and what constitutes a grander totality, of which a region is but a part, is a matter of contesting claims to power that are settled as much in the domain of cultural representations and resources as in actual political might. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that Cicero laid down his imperium in Brundisium in September 47 after Caesar had, in a meeting between the two men, granted Cicero permission to retain his imperium and title of imperator for as long as Cicero wished to do so. Instead of accepting Caesar's offer, Cicero instead immediately repudiated it, laid down his imperium in the city of Brundisium, and went immediately to Tusculum to begin a second period of political retirement. Caesar's offer and his return to Italy in the autumn of 47 gave Cicero an excuse to consider expired the SCU of 7 January 49 and, by immediately renouncing his imperium , perform, under the cover of his now-fulfilled obligation to the Pompeians, a calculated personal statement of political independence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

El presente trabajo pretende ser una nueva contribución y puesta al día sobre una interesante cuestión que ha intrigado a la historiografía durante siglos. Las incógnitas sobre la naturaleza del régimen instaurado por Augusto una vez se hizo con el poder en solitario han atraído la atención de los historiadores desde el siglo XIX (Mommsen, 1876-1888; Puchta, 1882; Kromayer, 1888; Pellham, 1888; Abele, 1891; Gardthausen, 1896; Bonfante, 1902; Betti, 1915; Dessau, 1924; Von Premerstein, 1937, y un largo etc.). Tradicionalmente se ha considerado que la posición imperial estaría constituida por una serie de elementos individuales que, en conjunto, darían unos grandes poderes a su poseedor, sin por ello crear una nueva institución como tal. Entre los principales poderes detentados por Augusto y sus sucesores se han señalado especialmente el imperium, el control de una serie de provincias y la tribunicia potestas. En este trabajo la atención se dirigirá hacia el primero de estos elementos, pues, dentro del amplio tema, un lugar central lo ocupa la definición de las características del imperium del primer princeps. La confusión en los acontecimientos que siguieron al 31 a. C. y las acciones y disposiciones de Augusto no ayudan a clarificar los hechos, siendo extremadamente complicado atribuir intervenciones imperiales a un poder concreto. Mi intención es exponer los acontecimientos que siguieron a la toma del poder en solitario explicando, a través de las distintas percepciones de los principales autores expertos sobre la materia, las interpretaciones dadas a la conformación del imperium de los príncipes. Aunque mi análisis sea profundamente historiográfico, ello no excluye que también se intente aportar una visión particular sobre el tema a tratar, lo que contribuirá a mantener vivo este tema centenario que está lejos de ser concluido.

The notion of 'postimperial formalism' accounts of the interconnectedness of Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish variants of formalism, whose distinctive character is contingent on the dialectics of liberation and subjugation (or autonomy and heteronomy) operating in the multinational entity of the Russian empire. Specifically, the theory of poetic language – the pars pro toto of early literary theory – carries with itself the survivals of the conditions of the multinational empire. This is most eloquently expressed in the writings of Polish and Jewish-Ukrainian populist activists turned ethnographic researchers, who prepared a theory of poetic language to which the formalists could have recourse. I first map the dimensions of the Ukrainian investment into the formulation of the theory of poetic language. Secondly, I describe the role of the constructed Ukrainness – under the guise of the so-called Ukrainian school of Polish romanticism – in the emergence of Polish formalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Wschodnioznawstwo is the property of Jagiellonian University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Prudentia Iuris is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Neue Politische Literatur is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Empires are usually born through political recognition and extensive military successes. The ruler’s personality and the activities of political and military advisors and generals are crucial for the emergence of an empire. The authors argue that in the case of Peter the Great (Peter I), the political recognition and military successes were achieved simultaneously in the east and west, however, in different contexts. The authors make a series of comparisons between Peter I and other monarchs of the epoch, such as Carl XII, August II, Frederick I, Carlos II, Willem III, Leopold VI, and others, relying on three main categories, namely education, “vices and virtues” and political views. This comparison is necessary to highlight the essential prerequisites in Peter’s personal development that might have determined his political actions. In addition, the article carries out an evaluation of the geopolitical significance of the military campaigns and victories achieved by the tzar and his commanders. These achievements are substantiated to correlate with Russian rise as a great power directly. After the Peace of Nystad, the geopolitical interests of the Tsardom were finally met, with the territorial dominium of the Empire being outlined for a century ahead.Furthermore, the territorial expansion was accompanied by the exercise of the “imperium” as a political authority exclusive to the Russian monarchs. The authors try to highlight the connection between the personal development of monarchs, their achievements, and imperial ambitions. The comparative analysis of these factors in various imperial cases provides additional considerations for understanding the historical period.

Im Aufsatz werden die literarischen Bilder der Kleopatra VII analysiert, der Königin des antiken Ägypten, welche die Verbündete des Antonius in seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Oktavian war. Oktavian hat Antonius und Kleopatra in der Schlacht bei Actium im Jahr 31 v. Chr. besiegt und Alexandrien im drauffolgenden Jahr erobert. Er propagierte Antonius als den verweiblichten Ehemann der Orientalin Kleopatra, der vermeintlich in Ausschweifung und außerordentlichem Luxus gelebt und eine drohende Gefahr für das römische Imperium und den Westen verkörpert habe. Darüber hinaus werden die Transformationen untersucht, die Kleopatras Bild in verschiedenen literarischen Gattungen in der Antike unterlief, seine Rezeption in der Renaissance-Malerei und im modernen Film. Dabei wird der Orientalismusbegriff von Edward Saïd in Bezug auf Aischylos’ Perser nuanciert, um herauszustellen, dass er die Perser nicht nur als mit griechischen Sitten vertraut darstellt, sondern auch als Barbaren. Weiter wird diskutiert, wie Oktavian durch seine politische Invektive gegen Antonius das Bild von Kleopatra beeinflusst hat. Augusteische Dichter arbeiteten in ihre Gedichte einige Reflexe von Oktavians Bild der ägyptischen Königin im Einvernehmen mit den Tropen ihrer jeweiligen literarischen Gattung ein. Horaz stellt in der Epode 9 Kleopatras Ehemann Antonius in einer der Invektive ähnlichen Weise als ihren Sklaven und Eunuchen dar. Im ersten Teil der Ode 1.37 suggeriert Horaz, Kleopatra sei ein Monster und eine verruchte Königin, wohingegen er im zweiten Teil betont, dass sie ihre Niederlage mit der Würde einer guten Herrscherin angenommen habe. Römische Elegiker schildern Kleopatra passend zu den Tropen der Liebeselegie als elegische Herrin und Antonius als ihren Sklaven. Vergil inszeniert in seiner Aeneis den Zusammenprall zwischen Kleopatras Osten und dem Westen, welcher durch Augustus repräsentiert ist, aber der epische Erzählrahmen der Episode, die Ekphrasis von Aeneas’ Schild, betont ihren fiktiven Charakter und hebt die Fluidität der stereotypen Zuschreibung von Fremdheit und Weiblichkeit hervor. In der europäischen Malerei und in Filmen eignete man sich stereotype und orientalisierende Kleopatra-Bilder an. Seit der Neuzeit ist Kleopatra zu einer konstruierten Figur geworden, die häufig im Dienste der orientalistischen Machtdiskurse, des nationalstaatlichen Imperialismus und im letzten Jahrhundert auch der Käuferlenkung steht.

Summary: Diodorus Tuldenus (1594-1645) as a professor of the Digest at the University of Leuven is one of the most representative figures for legal academia in the Southern Low Countries in this period. After a brief biography, this article deals with a classic subject in the field of public law as discussed by Tuldenus in his works: jurisdiction and its attribution. In chapter one, the genealogy of the terms iurisdictio and imperium is traced until Tuldenus' treatment of the subject, situating his position vis-à-vis the state of the art. In the second chapter the same is done for the conditions under which this jurisdiction can be attributed. In the conclusion, a tentative link is drawn between Tuldenus' positions and their broader political ramifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Stylos is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ars & Humanitas is the property of Ars & Humanitas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Our purpose in this study – which stands at the crossroads of contemporary philosophy, anthropology, and religious studies – is to assess critically the plea for radical contingency in contemporary thought, with special attention to the work of Meillassoux, in light, among other things, of the symptomatic presence of Pauline motifs in the late twentieth to early twenty first-century philosophical arena, from Vattimo to Agamben and especially Badiou. Drawing on Aristotle’s treatment of τύχη and Hilan Bensusan’s neo-monadology (as well as on the network biology of David George Haskell, Scott Gilbert’s holobiont hypothesis, and Terrence Deacon’s teleo-dynamics), we ask what is missing in such plea, from a theoretical standpoint. Next, we examine the relation between radical contingency and worldlessness in dialogue with Leroi-Gourhan’s theory of biocultural evolution, Lévi-Strauss’s structural anthropology, Pierre Clastres’s ethnography, Heidegger’s philosophy of language, and contemporary authors like Eduardo Viveiros de Castro and Patrice Maniglier. These two parallel lines of inquiry help us explore what radical contingency, in turn, prevents us from thinking: the intersection of ontology, cosmopolitics, and modality.

Copyright of Arcadia -- International Journal for Literary Studies is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Having defeated all his political enemies and expanded the rule of Rome enormously, Octavian, from 27 BC known as Augustus, ended the civil wars which had plagued the Late Republic and founded the system known as the Roman Principate. The Res Gestae purports to be a retrospective survey by Augustus of his own public achievements in restoring the res publica and conquering the world. It was published in Rome but the only surviving copies were found in the new and distant province of Galatia. In this paper I will try to explain how Augustus, as the founder of the new era known today as ‘the Roman Empire’, envisages and presents Roman rule under his leadership by analysing the content of the Res Gestae. From it we can see that there indeed emerges a concept similar to our ‘empire’. The narrative structure of the Res Gestae shows that Roman imperial rule is conceived of by Augustus in a scheme of core-periphery, in which the core is composed of the provinces under direct Roman control, while the periphery is an area of more vaguely subject people or places maintained by threats and intervention, or more weakly by ‘friendship’ (amicitia), which vary according to the historical specifics of contact between these areas or peoples and Rome. In both cases, whether subjection is in the name of the ‘rule’ or the ‘friendship’ of Roman people, it is Augustus’ personal authority that appears to matter the most, which indicates that Augustus’ institution of a monarchic system was a decisive element in the development of this new holistic concept of Roman imperial rule.

The article analyses the issues in question by means of a method used in the legal sciences which in the Polish methodology is called “the historical and legal method.” It involves presentation and analysis of selected legal institutions and of their evolution in time. The following issues—identified across the pages of the Gospel—are analysed in this article: political and systemic context of evangelical events (section 1), the role of censuses in the implementation of Roman administrative and systemic principles (section 2), Roman tax law in the context of tax burdens resting on residents of Judea (section 3) and the Roman judicial procedure in the context of the trial of Jesus (section 4). In the summary the author answers the research question asked in the introduction: to what degree does the historical and legal significance of selected institutions of Roman law, inspired by the description of these institutions in canonical gospels of the New Testament, determine the contemporary understanding of the gospels themselves?

Public law as a discipline of legal science which considers public matters –in confront with private matter, is established in ancient Rome and influenced deeply the European history. In the first step, its basic concepts, such as Imperium and Jurisdictio, and its outlook toward the relation of power and law, gave way to the concept of sovereignty as a monopoly of approving, changing and abolishing of statutes. It leads to the establishment of authoritative governments. In the second step, it provides the proponents of absolutism with legal arguments against their traditional and new rivals. At the end, it were the constitutionalists who promote Roman law with some principle of roman private and corporate law and reinterpretation of old concepts in shadow of new needs of era to apply them against their oponents. Finally, these disputes resulted in our understanding of modern state and representation and Roman law, despite to its flexibility, leaved its lasting impression, i. e. formulation of political conflicts in the legal language.

The author of the article treats the novel of contemporary Russian prose writer Vladimir Makanin as an example of anti-colonial creativity, which deconstructs the imperial way of thinking and contesting colonial domination. Asan is a text devoid of imperial textuality, criticizing the prevailing political system and showing the complex Caucasian reality. The place of the described events (Chechnya) was recognized as an area where the life of the inhabitants is still shaped by colonial experience. The inevitable effect of this kind of works is the deconstruction of the world’s imaginations made from the imperial point of view. It is accompanied by deconstructing one’s own language and recognizing the structures of violence in it.

Sarah Davies leads us through an examination of the conceptual boundary of Roman imperium, and changes brought to Rome by the establishment of Roman military authority in Carthage and Corinth. As the expansion of the Republic attained a sort of critical mass, feedback from the frontiers brought change to the center. In Borderlands Theory, the idea that the inscription of the borderland itself begins the process of change is a fundamental concept. Engaging heavily with core-periphery models, and studies of ethnic change in the Hellenistic world, Davies examines the rhetoric of the center, in order to understand how Rome was able to cope with its new status and imperial boundaries as it renegotiated its own identity in the Mediterranean world. Likewise, Davies also makes explicit the link between the internal transformation of the conceptual boundary, defined by the Roman idea of imperium, and the real political ramifications of the year 146 BCE.

The development of Administration from the pre-modern „Empire" to the modern „State" is analyzed in three steps. Firstly, this paper examines 12 characteristic elements which distinguish the distinct, modern bureaucrat as a type from the multifaceted „servants" of pre-modern rulers. Secondly, the paper compares 13 typical differences between premodern empires and modern states, which also ultimately reveal plurality or unity. Thirdly, on the basis of this double typology a three-level theory of state building has been developed. The micro-level concerns the individual and collective will for power, whereas the socio-cultural macro-level refers to the capitalist marketeconomy, to the cultural heritage of the ancient Roman Empire and in that context to Latin Christianity. The meso-level of political systems is characterized by the rise of competing power centres in wars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the transformation of the epistemic status of rule as for the essence of law. As a result of a profound change in the anthropology of the 13th century, which has continued up to Kant (and beyond) including Suarez, the rule ceases to be understood as an act of intellectual and prudential nature and starts to be regarded as an act of volitive and spontaneous nature. Mainly due to the Augustinian-Scotistic thesis about the clear predominance of will over intellect, such anthropological change gives rise to a new theory about the human being and the law that Suarez will receive in its essential aspects. On the other hand, a new metaphysics of causality, which makes its way in the Augustinian tradition by the end of the 13th century, confines causality to efficiency at the expense of finality, which will now start to be understood as an unusual or metaphorical form of causality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The so-called Aristotelian defense of enslaving the americans, which Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda supposedly yielded in the 16th century, is, as I shall try to prove along this paper, a misunderstanding produced by careless and simplistic interpretations which do not consider the Sepulveda's approach to Aristotle's Politics, the Latin translation he published, the political and social context on Hispanic Monarchy during that century and some key concepts of Roman Law. Besides, the preconception, created by Menéndez Pelayo, maybe unintentionally, by translating a part of the title of the treatise Democrates alter, sive de iustis belli causis apud Indos, by "against the indians", printed a serious brand on Sepúlveda like a slavery defender since 19th century. With this text, I want to show the reading and interpretation Sepúlveda made about Aristotelian work in the light of textual and contextual conditionings, which make clear the way the spaniard humanist deals with the philosophical and political question of indigenous conquest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of German Language & Literature / Istanbul Üniversitesi Alman Dili ve Edebiyai Dergisi / Studien zur Deutschen Sprache und Literatur is the property of Istanbul University, Faculty of Letters and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the genesis of U.S. neoconservatism – understood primarily as intellectual movement and political pressure group – and its foreign policy positions from the 1970s to today. It offers a definition of the movement centred on the liberal and universal nature of neoconservatism, and its ensuing rejection of the limitations to the sovereignty of the United States caused by the many interdependencies that have characterized the global order of the past fifty years.

Das Reich war seit dem Mittelalter eine zentrale Kategorie deutschen juristischen und politischen Denkens. Vom Heiligen Römischen Reich deutscher Nation über das Kaiserreich bis zum Dritten Reich hat es gleichzeitig die politische wie territoriale Struktur als auch die politischen Hoffnungen der deutschen Lande bestimmt. Trotz seiner Zentralität ist das Konzept des Reichs im Kontext des Nationalsozialismus noch nicht vollständig untersucht worden. Wichtige Fragen über das Verhältnis des Regimes zu diesem politischen Begriff und Modell blieben daher bisher unbeantwortet: Wie sah, zum Beispiel, Hitler das Reich? Welche Rolle spielte es in seinem Denken? Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die Rolle des Konzepts des Reichs im Denken zentraler NS-Akteure wie Hitler selbst sowie Goebbels, Rosenberg und Himmler. Er zeigt, dass, trotz der wohlbekannten Identifikation des Nazismus mit dem Begriff Drittes Reich, Hitler sich tatsächlich vom Reichskonzept distanzierte - besonders vom Heiligen Römischen Reich und seiner christlich-universalistischen Tradition. Sogar Bismarcks Kaiserreich war nicht in dem Maß ein Vorbild für den Nationalsozialismus wie dies manchmal unterbreitet wird. Der Begriff Drittes Reich selbst wurde von Hitler explizit abgelehnt. Mit dem Ende des Nazismus verschwand das Reich endgültig aus der deutschen juristischen Tradition. Es wurde schlicht durch den Begriff Deutschland ersetzt. The Reich has been a central category of German legal and political thought since the Middle Ages. From the Holy Roman Empire (in German: Reich) to the Kaiserreich and the Third Reich it has at the same time defined the political and territorial structure as well as the political aspirations of the German lands. Despite its centrality, the concept of the Reich has not been fully explored in the context of National Socialism. Important questions about the regime's relationship with the political term and the political model therefore remain unanswered: How, for example, did Hitler see the Reich? This article examines the concept of the Reich in the thinking of central Nazi figures, including Hitler himself as well as Goebbels, Rosenberg, and Himmler. It shows that despite the well-known identification of Nazism with the term Third Reich, Hitler, in fact, distanced himself from the Reich concept - particularly from the Holy Roman Empire and its Christian-universalist tradition. Even Bismarck's Empire was not quite the paragon it is often suggested to have been. The term Third Reich itself was even expressly rejected by Hitler. With the end of Nazism, the Reich finally faded from the German legal tradition. It was replaced by the simple term Germany. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the dual impact of British India's North-West Frontier on the British idea of empire. The Frontier was an imperial myth - the special interpretation of the past - which provided a pattern of behavior that should be followed by British imperial soldiers and officials. The myth itself was propagated by war correspondents and writers, such as Rudyard Kipling, but the Frontier also served as an "imperial laboratory" for a new generation of military technocrats (e.g. Charles Callwell) who could develop and describe their outlook on asymmetric warfare. The new approach to so-called small wars was a local variant of the general changes in military organization that occurred in the second half of the 19th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Scienza & Politica is the property of University of Bologna, Department of Political & Social Sciences Alma Mater Studiorum and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Studia Norwidiana is the property of Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawla II and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Colloquia Humanistica is the property of Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Slavic Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Romanitas: Revista de Estudos Greco-Latinas is the property of Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A lo largo de la Edad Media, la idea de translatio imperii tuvo en Castilla una presencia reducida en la literatura historiográfica, debido al peso de la tradición isidoriana. Tampoco Alfonso X mostró en sus obras históricas interés por esta idea, quizá porque la consideraba limitada para su visión de la historia. Sin embargo, en el siglo XV se observa un tratamiento detallado de ésta, en el marco de la teoría curial y del debate sobre la institución imperial. Alonso de Cartagena, Sánchez de Arévalo y Torquemada hicieron destacadas aportaciones. Finalmente, con Nebrija, la translatio imperii se subordina a la exaltación de las aspiraciones imperiales de Castilla.