From part of "Die Bildnisse des Augustus" book review by John Pollini of Boschung's book.

What are your thoughts on this subject?
typically used in German scholarship. Also, the inaccurate and anachronistic vocabulary of kingship or "emperorship" (for example, "Prinzenportrats") used to characterize Augustus, members of his family, and the form of government that he established should be given up. This sort of vocabulary (including, in English and American scholarship, the use of emperor and empress), which has been so prevalent, projects false notions onto the past, especially in terms of leadership and governance. Although Rome had acquired an empire (imperium) already under the Republic, Augustus was not an emperor, a word that, of course, derives from imperator but had a quite different meaning in antiquity. Augustus's civic position in the state was that of princeps ("first citizen" or "leader"), a term already in use under the Republic. The Roman historian Tacitus (Annales 1.9), writing in the 2nd century C.E., pointed out that Augustus had established neither a kingship nor a dictatorship but a principate (governance by a princeps): "Non regno tamen neque dictatura, sed principe nomine constitutam rem publicam."

Joe Geranio
portraitsofcaligula.com

Wow that's really interesting. I never knew that

Well, yes, princeps was his official title and he never called himself king or dictator. But he consolidated the powers of so many repubican offices under his authority he was effectively king in all but name. Which is why many us of informally call him and his successors as emperors. I don't really see the problem in it.

Yes, its mainly semantics. While there are differences between definitions of the word 'emperor' as it relates to the Romans and other cultures, generally speaking, we're not completely out of line in using it.

Does anyone know the exact origin of "emperor"?

Vale

It comes from imperator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator

I read someplace that Augustus was the first to use Imperator preceeding his name whereas prior Imperator was used after the name. i.e. Imp Caesar as opposed to Caesar Imp. Perhaps he was trying to indicate to his political "peers" that he was first and foremost Commander of the army and thus derived his powerbase from such.

Joe Geranio, on Jul 3 2005, 12:19 AM, said:

Quote

Yes, Augustus was a princeps, theorically a primus inter pares (I said theorically =)). In Italy we use "Principe" and "Principato" when refering to him, which are, in my opinion, the correct forms to use. However in present days the word Imperator (more specifically emperor) acquired a different meaning from the one it had at the time of Augustus, so all in all this "significant" carries an acceptable meaning..sorry for my English

I thought all Roman Emperors called themselves 'Imperator' which is why we call them emperors? Otherwise we might very well have called them Princeps, Princes or something else.

Yes, they were all Imperators, hence the term emperor, but they did not use Imperator to truly define themselves. The English word Emperor is more closely related in definition to the Latin Princeps than the Latin Imperator.

I initially dismissed the original post because I personally relate the word Emperor to be an English bastardization. Judging by some of the response here, perhaps its not as common knowledge as I thought, and the Roman Emperors have been truly misdefined?

Quote

Yes, of course it is, and I was not referring to all the “Emperors” in general but specifically to Augustus. I just wanted to point out that here when talking about Augustus you are most likely to hear “Principe” so I’m probably used to this definition now, but I think Imperator is perfectly acceptable, there’s a very subtle –if not inconsistent- difference, considering Augustus –despite formally being a primus inter pares- was practically a “king”, holding an “imperium maius et infinitum”. That’s why I strongly disagree with this:

Quote

I partially agree with the fact you can’t call Augustus’ reign a true dictatorship, I think the “dominato” (despotic monarchy) was a prerogative of his successors but I guess this is another story and has nothing to do with the main topic =).

Quote

Naah, my post above was very superficial and incomplete so it sounded like I was implying this, which I wasn’t =| here in some history books Augustus is classified as the first emperor or Rome, so I think it’s not even a question of English bastardisation really it’s just about personal preferences =). Besides, I think saying “Prince Augustus” in English is a bit cacophonous =) Emperor simply sounds better

Is this like saying President for life with a token legislative body devoid of real power isn't a 'true' dictator?

Augustus does from the very start of his reign (after Actium) use the Greek word for King, Basileus, in most of the documents (otherwise uses Sebastos (translation of Augustus). This marks a continuity with the Hellenisitic kings in terms of titulture. I think this suggests that it is perfectly reasonable to refer to Augustus with the word emperor, since we don't use king for any roman ruler.

Some thoughts:

The title of "king" (rex) was anathema to Romans after the abolition of the monarchy in 509BC.

Dictator was an office under the republic (with none of the modern connotations until Caesar adopted the title for life).

Antonius abolished the title of Dictator because of what it had come to mean when used by Caesar.

Imperator was a tile assumed by generals after a victory. Technically they were hailed by that name voluntarily by their troops. Most of the leading figures who held military posts (Cicero is perhaps a notable exception) could have said they were an imperator one of more times over.

Caesar was a family name, inherited by Octavianus under Julius Caesar's will as the Dictator's heir. He legally became Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Later adding Divi Filii (son of god) to his titles/name after Caesar's deification.

I understand that Octavian used the title Imperator differently to anyone previous to him, and assumed it into his name as Imperator Caesar.

After actium, the Senate considered conferring the title/name "Romulus" on him, but Octavian thought bad omens/associations went with that (kingship; legend that Romulus was murdered by senators). He finally elected to be called Augustus - which had religious connotations.

After his death and under his will, Augustus' wife, Livia, was granted the title of Augusta, which was held by several other wives of Augusti. But in Augustus' own time, the word was more a personal name or soubriquet than a title, and Augusta is not connate with "empress" (except by implication and in terms of real-politic). By that, I mean that Augusta is not the matching pair to Imperator and (as far as I know) no Roman lady called herself Imperatrix!!

Tiberius never adopted the title Augustus, but his successors did. Antonia, Marcus Antonius' daughter and Claudius' mother was made an Augusta by Gaius. She was never wife of an Augustus.

From Nero on, no ruler of rome was a Julio Claudian, but rulers continued to take the name Caesar which became a title.

Princeps (First man) was a title in use under the republic for the Senator with greatest auctoritas at the time. Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, active around 100 AD, was Princeps Senatus (and I think took it as part of his name). Augustus, after Actium had more auctoritas than anyone else living and the title naturally became his.

Personally, I would argue that the period Augustus to Nero forms the principiate, with later rulers better thought of as "emperors", or Augusti.

That said, I would argue that Gaius and Nero were attempting to change the hidden monarchy of the principiate (the hiding is what all the names are about - obfuscation of real-politic) into an open autocracy. This was taken further by Domitian, who wanted to be called "Lord and God". After nero, the idea of a famililial siccession, or the idea of hidden monarchy was completely blown. the use of the term "emperor", to me, marks that change in an effective way.

The Antonines and their successors all started to include the names Marcus Antoninus into their titles, even if - as with Septimius Severus and his heirs - there was no blood relationship.

Later on, of course, we have the titles Augustus and caesar being used for "grades" of ruler, and duplicated with senior and juniour Augusti and Caesares.

Just my view,

Phil

Augustus would have been keen to avoid any accusation of becoming a king - After all, that was one of the reasons for Caesars demise. I notice that he kept a less fancy wardrobe than later emperors too. He was saying "I'm an everyday kinda guy, just like you... except that I'm in charge." Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did. He saw himself as ruler of the roman world, as a dictator by any other name, continuing in the footsteps of Caesar without the accusations of royal airs and graces.

I have recently read some scholarship by Galinsky, et al, that attempts to frame Augustus' role as Princeps from the standpoint of auctoritas. I have submitted a full review for the site.

In brief, while Augustus did concentrate various Republican offices into his persona, he preferred to rule from the standpoint of his moral/spiritual authority. The secret to the success is that the non-political classes of Italy whom he empowered more or less accepted his vision of a new Roman order, and eagerly contributed to it.

Caldrail, just a few comments on your post:

Augustus would have been keen to avoid any accusation of becoming a king...

I agree, and I think that a main reason for rejecting thge proposed title of "Romulus" - which had been the name of the first king of Rome. (I must admit I have often wondered whether "Romulus" was anciently a title rather than a name, as the first king also appears to have been called (and deified as) Quirinius.)

I notice that he kept a less fancy wardrobe than later emperors too.

Where do you draw this comment from? I think he was relatively spartan and keen to wear homespun; but I do not doubt that he also wore triumphal gear when appropriate. Much of the time he would have been entitled to wear the toga praetexta as Consul, anyway. But as there was no precedent (except Caesar the Dictator) to follow, he presumably would simply have followed the approach of previous Principes Senatus.

He certainly permitted honours to be shown above the front door of his domus, and was not modest either in his self-written epitaph, or the other public honours he accepted.

Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did.

Here I would entirely disagree with you. By assuming the honorific "imperator" into his actual name, he clearly did see himself as such. He was also "son of the god" (divi filii). Octavian - the blood-stained, inconstant, ambitious, self-conscious, machiavellian teenager, who appeared in Rome in 44BC, in no way saw himself as an ordinary joe. He was eager to claim the full ame of his adoptive father and use it - he knew its power.

It was only Augustus, the victor of Actium, eager to throw off his evil reputation as gangster and murderer, who had sufficient auctoritas and dignitas to practice a sort of inverse snobbery. The less i claim, the more modest i seem, the more i am acclaimed, the more power i have.

From first to last, Augustus was the among the most ruthless, ambitious, self-aware, focused and manipulative politicians in history. Less was more with him towards the end, but he was an actor first to last.

Two more modern examples. Napoleon I - note how the simple grey redingcote and unadorned black bicorne, with the relatively modest dark green coat of the undress of a mere Colonel of the Chasseurs a Cheval of the Guard, made the Emperor stand out against the gold embroidery and swans feathers of his marshals, or the overblown flamboyance of Murat.

Similarly, Goering's white Reichsmarschall's outfits, Himmler's black and silver SS uniform, or Ribbentrop's diplomatic gear, were an effective backdrop for the Fuehrer's simple brown party uniform, of the almost anonymous grey jacket and black trousers he war as Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht.

Augustus would have been taught no lessons by them.

Now, if you want an example of a TRUELY simple man, consider Tiberius...

Phil

[/quote]
Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did.
[/quote]

I think you misunderstood me. The word emperor denotes a dynastic ruler in the oriental fashion. It isn't the same as the the word 'imperator' which you mention above. I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think that we need to understand that the word 'emperor' meant something a little different than it does today.

Augustus was ruthless? Oh yes... A 19 year old youth does not set out to rule the roman world preaching peace and love. Augustus mellowed a little as he grew older, albeit a bit more crotchety, and deep down I don't think he was ever fully secure.

As for the wardrobe, it goes without saying that he wore toga's on offical business. Wasn't he keen on getting senators to do the same? Off duty, he kept things down to earth. And that included his diet too. I understand he wasn't eating 'rich imperial titbits'

Excellent post, Caldrail, I think I understand you now.

And I think this is the BEST short description of Augustus I have EVER read:

Augustus was ruthless? Oh yes... A 19 year old youth does not set out to rule the roman world preaching peace and love. Augustus mellowed a little as he grew older, albeit a bit more crotchety, and deep down I don't think he was ever fully secure.

I don't know whether he set out to "rule" the Roman world, but I think he soon discovered that, with his knew name of Caesar, that was a distinct career option!!

Incidentally, have you ever been to the House of Livia, on the Palatine? It sums up all you say - modest (though with a distinct sense of taste and style) compared to some of the grand houses of Pompeii, you see that the imperial family lived without being over-grand. Even the set of BBC's "I CLAVDIVS" was too large and stylish. Whether he actually lived in that house or the one next door is not, I think, clear. But they must have been very similar.

Thanks for responding,

Phil