Princeps Vs. Emperor?

[Joe Geranio]

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

[Lost_Warrior]

Wow that's really interesting. I never knew that

[Ursus]

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.

[Primus Pilus]

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.

[Joe Geranio]

Does anyone know the exact origin of "emperor"?

 

Vale

[Ursus]

It comes from imperator:

 

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

[P.Clodius]

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.

[Silentium]

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

an emperor, a word that, of course, derives from imperator but had a quite different meaning in antiquity.

 

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

[Favonius Cornelius]

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.

[Primus Pilus]

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?

[Silentium]

I personally relate the word Emperor to be an English bastardization.

 

 

Yes, of course it is, and I was not referring to all the

[Onasander]

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

[zorba]

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.

[phil25]

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

[caldrail]

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.