Titles of Augustus

147 views
Skip to first unread message

Dom

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 2:30:38 PM11/14/05
to
On the 11 Nov. 2005 Dateline NBC program dealing with the birth of
Jesus, John Dominic Crossan listed the following titles of Augustus:
"divine" [or deified], "son of God," "God," "God from God." Crossan
also stated: "He was the lord. He was the liberator. He was the
redeemer. He was the savior of the world. Those are the titles of
Caesar Augustus."

Of the above, I was aware only of the title divine or deified. I would
appreciate it if someone could provide a complete list of Augustus'
titles.

Domenico Rosa

Frank R.A.J. Maloney

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 3:40:39 PM11/14/05
to
"Dom" <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote in message
news:1131996638.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

"Augustus" is itself a title bestowed on Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus by
the Senate; the word derives from "augere", to increase or venerate, and
related to the word "augur",with ancient religious overtones.

He preferred to call himself "Princeps", First Citizen, a title that of
course evolved into "prince".

He was also "imperator", military commander, the term that evolved into
"emperor".

His style of rule by observing Republican forms in a monarchical reality is
called the Principate. It applies to all his successors until Diocletian,
who preferred the title "Dominus" or Lord.

He held at one time or another various magisterial offices, including consul
and tribune.

He also added the title of Pontifex Maximus, then the chief priestly office
in the state religion. He was also granted the title "Pater Patriae", Father
of the Country.

--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."


Don Aitken

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 3:45:27 PM11/14/05
to

He was deified only after his death, and was not regarded as a god at
Rome in his lifetime. He was so regarded in Egypt, where he had all
the attributes of the Pharaohs, and possibly elswhere in the East. In
fact, some of those above sound like Greco-Egyptian titles to me, and
may never have been used officially at Rome.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Frank R.A.J. Maloney

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 4:51:41 PM11/14/05
to
"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:psqhn1l7kieretdnj...@4ax.com...

[deletion]

> He was deified only after his death, and was not regarded as a god at
> Rome in his lifetime. He was so regarded in Egypt, where he had all
> the attributes of the Pharaohs, and possibly elswhere in the East. In
> fact, some of those above sound like Greco-Egyptian titles to me, and
> may never have been used officially at Rome.

Quite true. However, his coins and monuments were often inscribed
"IMP嵩AESAR嵯IVI幹嫂VGVSTVS" for Imperator Caesar Son of a God Augustus, the
god in question being the deified Julius Caesar.

Chris Pitt Lewis

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 5:02:47 PM11/14/05
to
In message <1131996638.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Dom
<DR...@teikyopost.edu> writes

His name (not titles in the modern sense) in the latter part of his life
was Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus.

In Republican times, most Romans had three names, for example:
Caius (Praenomen) (Given name)
Iulius (Nomen) (Family name)
Caesar (Cognomen) (Surname)
The Cognomen was optional and was used as an hereditary name to
distinguish different branches of a wider family. Some families did
without, e.g. Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) had only a praenomen and a
nomen.

In addition, for formal purposes, a patronymic would also be used, thus
Caius Iulius Caii filius (son of Caius) Caesar

The man we call Augustus was born Caius Octavius Caii filius (no
cognomen) in 63 BC. In 44 BC he was adopted by his maternal uncle
Caius Julius Caesar in his Will and, in accordance with the usual
practice,
adopted his nomen and cognomen, thus becoming another Caius Iulius Caii
filius Caesar. Also in accordance with usual practice, he could use
Octavianus, an adjectival form of his original nomen, as an additional
fourth name. Hence historians writing of this period of his life tend to
call him Octavian. He preferred to call himself Caesar.

On 1 January 42 BC the Senate deified the late Julius Caesar. Octavian
could then, and did, call himself Caius Iulius Divi filius Caesar (Divi
filius = Son of the God).

Imperator was not a name or a permanent title in Republican times.
Literally, it means someone who exercises imperium, or the power of
official, particularly military, command. The consuls, praetors and
provincial governors (who were mostly ex consuls or ex praetors)
exercised imperium. A military commander who returned victorious from a
successful campaign would be hailed as "Imperator" as part of his
official Triumph; but it was never borne as a permanent title. "General"
is a possible translation, but since it was not a routine title, and
since Roman political thought did
not distinguish in the same way that we do between civil and military
power, it does not give the full flavour. "Generalissimo" would be
closer.

Sometime between about 40 and 38 BC Octavian did a strange thing. He
dropped the name Iulius and began to use Caesar as his Nomen. This
implies that his adopted father should be regarded as the founder of an
entirely new family, of which he (Octavian) was now the head, and indeed
the only member. Further, he dropped the name Caius, and began to use
"Imperator" as his praenomen, which was quite unprecedented. At this
stage Octavian was in his early twenties and was one of the three
"triumviri reipublicae constituendae" ("Triumvirs for putting the State
in order") along with Antony and Lepidus, but his name already suggests
greater pretensions. "Imperator Caesar Divi filius" - "Generalissimo
Caesar Son of God" - is a name that could only be invented by a
serious megalomaniac.

This was the name under which he defeated Antony and Cleopatra at Actium
in 31 BC and became the sole ruler of the Roman world. On 13 January 27
BC he resigned all his powers and provinces to the Senate and People of
Rome, thus, according to his propaganda, restoring the Republic to
constitutional rule. He graciously accepted in return the governorship
(which he exercised through deputies) of the three strategic provinces
of Gaul Spain and Syria, with the imperium and legions that went with
them; and he continued to be elected as one of the two Consuls annually
until 23 BC. Egypt remained his personal property, as it had been since
Actium.

On 16 January 27 BC the Senate expressed its gratitude by bestowing on
him a new and unprecedented cognomen: Augustus. This is an adjective
meaning honourable, majestic or revered; "august" is a perfectly good
English translation. His name (not title) was now, and remained for the
rest of his life, "Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus".

In 23 BC he resigned the consulate, and thereafter was elected to it
only on two special occasions in 5 and 2 BC. Instead, he was voted the
tribunician power, which gave him certain personal immunities and the
power to veto legislation; this was renewed annually, both to him and
later to his successors. In theory he now held no official position
other than
his provinces; such power as he had was exercised only by his personal
authority as the foremost citizen of the Republic. He liked to be
called "Princeps". The leading citizens of the republic had commonly
been called "principes", (which is the plural of princeps). A standard
translation would be "First Citizen". "Capo di tutti capi" would be a
mischievous Italian translation. "The Chief" might be a more neutral
version. No-one was fooled
at the time, or has been since.

In 12BC, following the death of Lepidus, the former triumvir, Augustus
succeeded him as Pontifex Maximus (Chief Priest). This was not a title,
but a significant religious office.

In 2 BC the senate hailed him as "pater patriae" ("Father of his
Country"). This accolade had been given to other politicians in the
Republic, but was something akin to a title.

After his death on 19 August 14 AD, Augustus was deified. He was then
commonly referred to as "Divus Augustus" or even "Divus Augustus Divi
filius". But he was not treated as a God in his lifetime, at least in
Rome. In Egypt and other eastern provinces, with different traditions,
it was a different matter.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis

rick++

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 9:51:25 AM11/15/05
to
HBO Rome makes Octavius Pontifex as a teenager. Is this accurate?
I believe the intention was for Ceasar to exert more control over
powerful
priests. I thought it be more likely Ceasar would have accelerated
Octavius
through the traditional pre-offices of consul to have him in waiting.
(Much like the US presidency pre-office is traditionally US Congress or
state
governor, and so on through the chain.)

rick++

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 9:53:37 AM11/15/05
to
>He was deified only after his death, and was not regarded as a god at
>Rome in his lifetime.

Interestingly the Catholic and Orthodox tradition of creating saints
imitates this
Roman practice.

Stephen Stillwell / Tom Wilding

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 10:59:53 AM11/15/05
to

"rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132066285.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Gaius Octavius was born in 63; adopted by Julius Caesar in 45 - that would
make him in late teens. According to Webster's Biographical Dictionary, he
does not become Pontifex Maximus until the death of Lepidus in the year 12.
I am not sure of the exact difference between being a Pontifex and Pontifex
Maximus.

As to chain of succession - The Secretary of State was initially perceived
of as the heir apparent.
Washington
Adams - office prior VP
Jefferson - Adam's VP, Washington's SecyState
Madison - Jefferson's SecyState
Monroe - Madison's SecyState
JQ Adams - Monroe's SecyState

Henry Clay dropped out of the presidential race and allowed Adams to win -
if he was named Secy State, which he was. But this was seen as a betrayal
of the citizenry in the states west of the Appalachians and in the South and
so he & Adams were defeated the next time.

-- Stephen J Stillwell jr


Stephen Stillwell / Tom Wilding

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 11:01:13 AM11/15/05
to

"rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132066417.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The Catholic & Orthodox branches of the Christian Church are not the only
branches of that body to "create" saints. And the "creation" of saints is
not confined to Christianity.

VtSkier

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 12:36:51 PM11/15/05
to

Gee, steve, give a guy a break.

He was pointing out that that the Catholic and Orthodox
branches of Christianity, who are children of the Roman
Empire, follow the Roman practices in deifying (saint-i-
fying) formerly living individuals.

Your point is probably know to rick++ but it was not
the point of the post.

Hovite

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 2:00:57 PM11/15/05
to
His full titles at the date of his death were:

Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Consul XIII,
Imperator XXI, Tribuniciae potestatis XXXVII, Pater Patriae

Stan Brown

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 3:49:12 PM11/15/05
to
Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:40:39 -0800 from Frank R.A.J. Maloney
<fr...@blarg.net>:

> "Augustus" is itself a title bestowed on Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus by
> the Senate; the word derives from "augere", to increase or venerate, and
> related to the word "augur",with ancient religious overtones.

Was it a title? I always thought it was a name (an officially
sanctioned 'nickname') like Africanus.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech /faqget.htm

Frank R.A.J. Maloney

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 10:35:43 PM11/15/05
to
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1de413d32...@news.individual.net...

> Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:40:39 -0800 from Frank R.A.J. Maloney
> <fr...@blarg.net>:
>> "Augustus" is itself a title bestowed on Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus
>> by
>> the Senate; the word derives from "augere", to increase or venerate, and
>> related to the word "augur",with ancient religious overtones.
>
> Was it a title? I always thought it was a name (an officially
> sanctioned 'nickname') like Africanus.

I would say it was a title. Some others who have posted in this thread have
called it a name. Although it might be relevant, it is true that when
Diocletian created tetrarchy the two emperors were Augusti and their
designated heirs were Caesares. Certainly by 293 Augustus was a title and I
say it was from the moment it was first voted on by the Senate.

The Roman term for nickname or sobriquet is "cognomen", as another poster
wrote. A cognomen could either be a surname or distinguishing sobriquet.
Roman political history is dominated by, indeed all but monopolized by a few
families, and names reappear generation after generation. So when a
particular Scipio distinguishes himself by destroying Carthage, he becomes
Africanus, Africa being the name of Roman province that held the ruins of
old Carthage.

Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus, younger brother of Tiberius, enjoyed great
military successes in Germany as far as the Elbe. He also died in Germany.
He was posthumously awarded the cognomen Germanicus.

His son inherited the name and used it as his personal name; after he was
adopted by grandfather Augustus, he was Germanicus Julius Caesar Claudianus,
the new cognomen referring to his birth father. But he is known in history
as Germanicus Caesar or simply Germanicus.

david meadows

unread,
Nov 16, 2005, 5:54:22 AM11/16/05
to
Gaius Octavius became pontifex on October 18, 48 b.c. ... same time as
he donned his toga virilis.

dm


Stephen Stillwell / Tom Wilding wrote:

rick++

unread,
Nov 16, 2005, 9:23:18 AM11/16/05
to
So that is consistent more or less with the HBO Rome which starts
in 52 BCE and (I presume) ends its first season in 44 BCE (this
Sunday).

So how common of career move is this in this era?
I'd guess it would be more common to become a junior millitary officier
or munipal official rather than religious.

Stan Brown

unread,
Nov 16, 2005, 10:36:41 AM11/16/05
to
Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:35:43 -0800 from Frank R.A.J. Maloney
<fr...@blarg.net>:

> I would say it was a title. Some others who have posted in this thread have
> called it a name. Although it might be relevant, it is true that when
> Diocletian created tetrarchy the two emperors were Augusti and their
> designated heirs were Caesares. Certainly by 293 Augustus was a title

Well, yes, in Diocletian's system Augustus and Casear were titles.
But that was 300+ years later.

I hardly think that's relevant to the question of the _original_
Augustus. If you use that to support a statement that "Augustus" was
originally a title, then by the same logic "Caesar" was also
originally a title, and that's absurd.

Anyway, we can thank Chris Pitt Lewis for the definitive word that
the first emperor's name (not title) was Augustus. Only later in the
development of the Empire did both Caesar and August become titles.

Hovite

unread,
Nov 16, 2005, 11:46:24 AM11/16/05
to
Suetonius called it a cognomen (surname).

In Greek it was treated as a title and translated as sebastos.

Frank R.A.J. Maloney

unread,
Nov 16, 2005, 1:29:33 PM11/16/05
to
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1de51c163...@news.individual.net...

> Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:35:43 -0800 from Frank R.A.J. Maloney
> <fr...@blarg.net>:
>> I would say it was a title. Some others who have posted in this thread
>> have
>> called it a name. Although it might be relevant, it is true that when
>> Diocletian created tetrarchy the two emperors were Augusti and their
>> designated heirs were Caesares. Certainly by 293 Augustus was a title
>

[deletions]

I see I made a typo. I meant to write "might not be relevant". For the
record, I continue to remain unconvinced, not that it matters, that Augustus
was ever a name so beyond that statement I won't bother reiterating that.

Don Aitken

unread,
Nov 16, 2005, 1:10:37 PM11/16/05
to

Actually, membership of the college of pontiffs was a regular part of
a political career for those who were eligible - candidates had to
come from patrician families, of which there were very few remaining
at this date.

Dom

unread,
Nov 16, 2005, 2:46:40 PM11/16/05
to
Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:
> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1de51c163...@news.individual.net...
> > Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:35:43 -0800 from Frank R.A.J. Maloney
> > <fr...@blarg.net>:
> >> I would say it was a title. Some others who have posted in this thread
> >> have
> >> called it a name. Although it might be relevant, it is true that when
> >> Diocletian created tetrarchy the two emperors were Augusti and their
> >> designated heirs were Caesares. Certainly by 293 Augustus was a title
> >
>
> [deletions]
>
> I see I made a typo. I meant to write "might not be relevant". For the
> record, I continue to remain unconvinced, not that it matters, that Augustus
> was ever a name so beyond that statement I won't bother reiterating that.

Cassius Dio, The Roman History: The Reign of Augustus, Trans. by Ian
Scott-Kilvert, Penguin Books, 1987. Page 140 contains the following:

"When Augustus had finally put his plans into effect, the name Augustus
was conferred on him by the Senate and the people. At the time when
they wished to give him some title of special eminence, and some people
were proposing one title and some another and pressing for its
adoption, Octavian had set his heart strongly on being named Romulus.
But when he understood that this aroused suspicions that he desired the
kingship, he abandoned his efforts to obtain it and adopted the title
Augustus, as signifying that he was something more than human, since
indeed all the precious and sacred objects are referred to as augusta.
For this reason when he was addressed in Greek he was named Sebastos,
meaning an august individual: the word is derived from the passive form
of the verb sebazo, I revere."

Dom Rosa

Francois R. Velde

unread,
Nov 16, 2005, 3:06:42 PM11/16/05
to
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Frank R.A.J. Maloney <fr...@blarg.net> os suum:

> For the
> record, I continue to remain unconvinced, not that it matters, that Augustus
> was ever a name so beyond that statement I won't bother reiterating that.

This is pretty easy to settle. Head first for the online Lewis and Short
at Perseus and look up the entry Augustus:

"A surname of Octavius Caesar after he attained to undivided authority"

then track down the citations provided in the same place, for example
Ovid's Fasti 1,590:

Idibus in magni castus Iovis aede sacerdos
semimaris flammis viscera libat ovis;
redditaque est omnis populo provincia nostro
et tuus Augusto nomine dictus avus.

On the ides [of January] in the great temple of Jupiter the chaste priest
consecrates by fire the entrails of a castrated sheep; and all the province
is returned to our people and your ancestor is given the nomen of Augustus.

or Suetonius, Vita D. Augusti 7:
"Postea Gai Caesaris et deinde Augusti cognomen assumpsit, alterum testamento
maioris avunculi, alterum Munati Planci sententia, cum, quibusdam censentibus
Romulum appellari oportere quasi et ipsum conditorem urbis, praevaluisset, ut
Augustus potius vocaretur, non tantum novo sed etiam ampliore cognomine"

Later he took the cognomen of Gaius Caesar and afterwards that of Augustus,
the one by virtue of his uncle's will, the other on a proposition of Munatus
Plancus when he prevailed over others who thought that he should be called
Romulus as if he had himself founded the city, with the opinion that it would
be better to call him Augustus, not only as a new but also as a greater cognomen.

--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

Stan Brown

unread,
Nov 16, 2005, 5:45:03 PM11/16/05
to
Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:29:33 -0800 from Frank R.A.J. Maloney
<fr...@blarg.net>:

> I see I made a typo. I meant to write "might not be relevant". For the
> record, I continue to remain unconvinced, not that it matters, that Augustus
> was ever a name so beyond that statement I won't bother reiterating that.

On the basis of "might not be relevant", we're in agreement. :-)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages