83.5
I6
M14
B 487978

ARTES
LIBRARY
1837
VERITAS
SCIENTIA
OF THE
UNIVERSITY
OF
MICHIGAN
}
TIEBOR
MANGNAM
NUS
HIS
FEMINISULA)
CIRCUMSPICE
ฝ้า
Makers
Gaylord Bros.
PAT. JAN. 21. 1908
Syracuse, N. Y


IG
The University of Chicago
8315
•IG
M14
THE HISTORY OF THE TITLE
IMPERATOR UNDER THE
ROMAN EMPIRE
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
BY
DONALD MCFAYDEN
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
1920
.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY
NEW YORK
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON
THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
TOKYO, OSAKA, KYOTO, FUKUOKA, SENDAI
THE MISSION BOOK COMPANY
SHANGHAI
,
The University of Chicago
THE HISTORY OF THE TITLE
IMPERATOR UNDER THE
ROMAN EMPIRE
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
BY
DONALD MCFAYDEN
SEVERAL LI
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
1920
་
COPYRIGHT 1920 BY
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
All Rights Reserved
Published January 1920
Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
90
J, N.
reclaoud Acquch 95,
19200)}}
PREFACE
This dissertation is a by-product of a study of the Flavian era.
The resumption of the Praenomen Imperatoris by Vespasian is the
most obvious surface indication of the constitutional changes which
make that era one of the most significant in the history of the Roman
Empire. In reviewing the previous history of that title, the writer
was struck by the artificiality of the account which is usually given
of its origin and force, and the following investigation was the result.
It would be mere ingratitude not to acknowledge the ready help
the writer has received in the prosecution of his studies from Pro-
fessors Robert J. Bonner, Gordon J. Laing, Elmer T. Merrill, and
Frank Tarbell, and especially from Professor Carl F. Huth, under
whose immediate direction this paper was compiled. To his col-
league, Professor Frederick W. Sandford, he is indebted for assist-
ance in reading the proof.
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, Lincoln, Neb.
January, 1920
371597
V
NOTE...
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. THE USE OF THE TITLE Imperator under the Republic...
II. CURRENT THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE PRAENOMEN
PAGE
ix
I
IMPERATORIS
•
7
III. THE Dictator CaesAR'S USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR.....
. 15
IV. AUGUSTUS' USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR.
28
V. THE CONNOTATION OF THE PRAENOMEN IMPERATORIS UNDER
AUGUSTUS
44
VI. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR..
53
vii
NOTE
The majority of the abbreviations employed in the footnotes will
be intelligible to the reader. It may be well, however, to explain the
following:
B. G. U.=Aegyptische Urkunden aus dem königlichen Museum zu
Berlin; Griechische Abteilung.
Bab. "Julia" I = Babelon, Monnaies consulaires, "Julia," No. I.
C.I. A. Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum.
C.I.G. (Boeckh)=Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. Boeckh.
C.I.L. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
Cohen "Oct. Aug." 1=Cohen, Médailles impériales, “Octave Au-
guste," No. 1.
I=
Grueber, I, p. 1= Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the Brit-
ish Museum, Vol. I, page 1.
Eph. ep. Ephemeris epigraphica.
I. G. Inscriptiones Graecae (the new Greek Corpus published by
the Berlin Academy).
L'ann. ép. Cagnat, L'année épigraphique.
The works of Josephus are cited according to the sections in the
edition of Niese.
ix
CHAPTER I
THE USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR UNDER THE REPUBLIC
In the full titulary of Augustus and of the Roman emperors from
Vespasian to Diocletian, the title Imperator occurs twice, once before
the personal name of the emperor (the so-called "Praenomen Im-
peratoris"), and once after it (the so-called "Cognomen Impera-
toris"), in the latter case accompanied by a numeral; e.g.:
IMP. CAESAR DIVI F. AVGVSTVS, PONTIF. MAXIM., COS.
XIII, IMP. XX, TRIBVNIC. POTESTAT. XXXVII, P. P. (C.
I. L. XI. 367).
The Praenomen Imperatoris, so we are informed by Cassius Dio,¹
was the emperor's distinctive title of office, and denoted the sum-
total of his authority (imperium) over the Roman world. It is from
this use of the title Imperator that the mediaeval and modern title
Emperor is derived. The Cognomen Imperatoris, on the other hand,
was, strictly speaking, not a title at all, but simply a record of the
number of times that the emperor had been acclaimed as victor by
his troops on a field of battle. The aim of the present investigation
is to trace the origin and history of these uses and connotations of
the title Imperator. Inasmuch as both were developments of Repub-
lican usages, it is necessary first to sketch the uses and senses of the
word under the Republic.3
The word imperator is derived from the verb impero, "to com-
mand," and is connected with the noun imperium, "the right to
command," "authority." Under the Republic, however, not all pos-
sessors of imperium were known as imperatores. The Romans dis-
tinguished between an imperium domi, the civil authority wielded by
1 xliii. 44. 2-4; quoted below, p. 7.
2 Claudius and succeeding emperors counted the army's salute on the
occasion of their accession as their first imperatorial salutation.
³ A discussion of the uses of the word imperator in the Republican period,
with full references to the original authorities, will be found in Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, I, 123-36.
笼
​I
}
2
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
1
a magistrate within the City-which was subject to a variety of limi-
tations and checks—and the imperium militiae, the absolute authority
with which a magistrate was clothed when in the field. As far back
as we have any record, the term imperator was used exclusively to
´denote a magistrate exercising an imperium militiae. In fact, impera-
tor was the ordinary Latin word for "general" or "commander-in-
chief."
Every commander-in-chief of an army, whether he was a consul,
a praetor, a proconsul, or a propraetor, was in law an imperator.*
But by a curious convention an imperator was prohibited from
writing Imperator after his name as a title until he had won a notable
victory over a foreign enemy, and in consequence had been hailed by
his troops as an imperator worthy of the name." A promagistrates
4E.g., the Lex Julia municipalis declares ineligible for municipal office.
those whom inperator ingnominiae caussa ab exercitu decedere iusit iuserit
(line 121).
"As to how far there was a definition of the minimum requirements for
an imperatorial salutation, vide Mommsen, Staatsrecht, I, 124, note 4.
"Imperatorial salutations were ordinarily accorded by the soldiery; but
there was no inherent reason why some other body, the Senate for example
(Cic. Phil. xiv) or the people (Appian b.c. v. 31), should not acclaim a com-
mander as "a general indeed."
7 καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς στρατίας ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἔτι οὔσης αὐτοκράτωρ ὑπέστη προσαγορευθῆναι.
ἔστι δὲ τιμὴ τοῖς στρατηγοῖς τόδε τὸ προσαγόρευμα παρὰ τῶν στρατῶν, καθάπερ αὐτοῖς
ἐπιμαρτυρούντων ἀξίως σφῶν αὐτοκράτορας εἶναι. (Appian b.c. ii. 44.)
"Mommsen says that consuls and praetors, as well as proconsuls and pro-
praetors, were in the habit of substituting the title Imperator for their regular
titles (Staatsrecht, I, 124 f.), but cites no examples. (In C.I.L. II. 5041 IN-
PEIRATOR represents pro praetore; in C.I.L. I. 541 IMPERATOR replaces
pro consule.) The point is rendered difficult to determine by the fact that
after the time of Sulla it was very rare for regular magistrates to command
armies. Consequently, in the period from which the bulk of our evidence
comes, only promagistrates, as a rule, enjoyed opportunities to earn the Imper-
atorial title. The only definite piece of evidence which the writer has been
able to find is the epitaph of Pansa, the consul of 43 B.C., who was saluted
Imperator before Mutina and died shortly afterward: EX SC. C. VIBIO C. F.
PANSAE CAETRONIANO COS. (Bull.com., XXVII [1899], 280 ff.). In
this instance the title COS. is retained. It is to be noted that whereas the
terms proconsul (or propraetor) and imperator connoted identical competence
—viz., the imperium militiae-the terms consul (or praetor) and imperator
did not; for a regular magistrate possessed the imperium domi as well as the
imperium militiae. Therefore the power and dignity of a consul would be
inadequately represented if he were to substitute the title Imperator for his
regular title.
THE TITLE UNDER THE REPUBLIC
3
so honored might, if he chose, substitute thereafter Imperator for
his regular title pro consule or pro praetore. Thus, until his victory
at Mount Amanus, Cicero's official style when governor of Cilicia
was M. Tullius Cicero pro cos. After his salutation by his soldiers
on that occasion, he changed his style to M. Tullius Cicero Imp.10
It is to be noted that this substitution of titles denoted no accession
of authority, for no one might be acclaimed Imperator who was not
in law an imperator already.11 The Imperatorial title was, under
the Republic, purely a military distinction.
The use of the Imperatorial title was governed in the Republican
period by the following rules:
I.
1. Like all Roman titles¹2 it was always borne after, never
before, the proper name; e.g., C. Julius Caesar Imp.
2. Inasmuch as the Imperatorial title might be borne only by
one who was an imperator in the legal sense, it was forfeited when
the general entered the City and thus lost the imperium militiae which
constituted him an imperator. A regular magistrate on entering the
City became clothed with an imperium domi, and his imperium mili-
tiae was automatically restored when he again took the field. But it
was a principle of the constitution that a promagistrate was incapable
of exercising the imperium domi.18 Consequently, when a promagis-
trate entered the City, he became a private citizen. Indeed, the rule
was that by crossing the City limits a promagistrate lost his imperium
once for all. If he returned to the field, he returned a simple soldier,
"It is convenient to distinguish the use of "imperator" as a common noun,
in the sense of "commander-in-chief," from the use of "Imperator" as a title
by capitalizing it in the latter case and not in the former. An attempt will
be made in the present paper to observe this usage.
10Cf. C.I.L. I. 527 and the superscriptions to Cicero's Cilician corre-
spondence.
11This principle may have been violated occasionally in the period when
the Republic was in its death throes (vide infra p. 36, note 44); but it was a
definite rule that no legatus or other subordinate officer might receive an
Imperatorial salutation, for any victory won by such an officer was credited
to the imperator under whom he served. On the other hand, an imperator
might receive a salutation or assume the Imperatorial title on account of a
victory won in his absence by one of his lieutenants.
12The only title which in Latin of the Republican period ever precedes
the proper name is the Greek title rex; e.g., Cic. pro rege Deiotaro i. 1. This
anomaly reflects the common Greek order, ὁ βασιλεὺς Δηιόταρος.
18 Mommsen, Staatsrecht, I, 637, note 1.
"
4
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
unless he were expressly invested with a new imperium by the Senate
or the People.
3. In that case, of course, he became once more in the eyes of
the law an imperator; but he did not regain the right to assume the
Imperatorial title until he had distinguished himself in his new com-
mand and been saluted by his new army. Then he might be said
to be Imperator iterum. His title, however, would be Imperator-
not, as under the Empire, Imperator II.14 Under the Republic the
phrase Imperator iterum15 denoted exactly what the words imply;
i.e., a commander who for the second time is wearing the title Im-
perator, a general in the exercise of his second successful command.
An officer did not gain the distinction by virtue of having received
two salutations in the course of one command. A second salutation
could have no effect if the general so saluted had already taken the
Imperatorial title on the occasion of his first salutation. The addi-
tion of such "numerals of iteration" to titles like cos., Imp., etc., is
relatively of rare occurrence in the literature and inscriptions of the
Republic.16 In fact, they seem to have been quoted only where they
are needed to establish the date.17 Thus in the consular dating,
CN. POMPEIO M. LICINIO COS. ITER. (C.I.L. II. 5052)
14 Thus Cicero addresses a letter to Pompey in 62 B.C., when Pompey was
in his second Imperatorship, M. Tullius M. f. Cicero s. d. Cn. Pompeio Cn. f.
Magno Imperatori (ad fam. v. 7).
15 Iteration of office was invariably indicated in Latin by numerals of the
series iterum, tertium (or tertio), etc., not by numerals of the series bis, ter,
etc. The occasional occurrence of rpis in Greek inscriptions as a translation
of the common contraction TER. (I.G.R.R.S. IV. 54=I.G. XII. ii. 202; I.G.
R.R.S. III. 869) is due simply to Greek ignorance of Latin usage.
16The use of numerals of iteration in the period prior to the death of
Caesar may be studied in: C.I.L. I. 615 (=IX. 5837), 615 note, 616, II. 6186, IX.
2194, 5052, X. 4669 (contrast 8079), XIV. 3588, 4268; L'ann ép. (1889)
170, (1907) 183; Cic. de har. resp. 12. 24, de nat. deorum ii. 3. 10, de
divin. i. 35. 77, 46. 103, de off. iii. 22. 86, 26. 99, Cato 4. 11, 5. 14; Bab. "Cornelia"
28-30 (=Grueber, II, pp. 459-60); C.I.G. (Boeckh) 3608; I.G.R.R.S. III.
869; I.G. XII. ii. 202 (=I.G.R.R.S. IV. 54); and the inscriptions and coins
of Caesar listed below, p. 15, note 1. Note the absence of numerals of itera-
tion in C.I.L. I. 530 (=VI. 1281), 531 (=VI. 474), 568 (=X. 3780), 615 note,
IX. 4191; Bab. "Cornelia" 31, 34, 38-43 (=Grueber, II, pp. 461-63).
17 The addition of numerals of iteration to titles for merely honorific
reasons, as well as the practice of citing all the titles that a man had ever
borne (his cursus honorum) seems to have become common first in the period
THE TITLE UNDER THE REPUBLIC
นา
the numeral iterum is necessary in order to make it clear that the
year was 55 B.C., when Pompey and Crassus were consuls together
for the second time, not 70 B.C., when the same men had been consuls
together before. On the other hand, in the consular dating
c. caesARE M. LEPIDO COS. (C.I.L. IV. 60)
there is no numeral after Caesar's name, despite the fact that it was
Caesar's third consulship, for the reason that the mention of his
colleague sufficiently indicates the consulship in question. Under
the Empire, on the other hand, iteration was regularly noted; e.g.,
IMP. VESPASIANO AVG. III M. COCCEIO NERVA COS. (C.I.L.
VI. 1984).
4. In practice the assumption of the Imperatorial title was an
announcement that the commander who assumed it was a candidate
for a triumph. On the one hand, rarely if ever was a triumph
granted to a general who had not been saluted Imperator by his
of the second Triumvirate (Cic. Phil. xiii. 4. 7; C.I.L. II. 3556, III. 7160, VI.
1301, 1316, IX. 2637, X. 409, 1423-24, 6087, 6895, 6897, 6899, 6901; L'ann. ép.
(1895) 28; and the coins of Antony and Lepidus in Babelon, Grueber, and
Cohen). A doubtful approach to the second practice as early as 52 B.C. is
C.I.L. I. 615 (=IX. 5837): cn poMPEIO CN. fil. maGNO IMP. COS. TERt.
paTRONO PVBLICE. Pompey's third Imperatorship closed with his
triumph of 61 B.C., and his fourth salutation (I.G.R.R.S. I. 662, line 33) had
not yet been accorded him in February, 49 B.C. (cf. the superscriptions to Cic.
ad Att. viii. II A-D, 12 A-D; Bab. "Pomp." 7, 8=Grueber, II, pp. 361-62).
It was probably accorded him during the campaign of Dyrrachium.
In 52 B.C., therefore, Pompey had no right to the title Imperator. In the
inscription under consideration, IMP. can refer only to Pompey's past Im-
peratorships, and its appearance is contrary to Republican usage. It is to be
noted, however, that the inscription is a municipal one, and that municipal
inscriptions are apt to display both inaccuracy and an adulatory spirit. The
occurrence of IMP. here may therefore be a mere error or an attempt to
emphasize the equality of Pompey with his rival Caesar, who was at this time
an Imperator. Both habits may be taken as indicative of the decay of the
spirit of republican equality which hitherto had dictated that a magistrate,
once he had resigned his office, should bear himself and be addressed as an
ordinary citizen. The advent of the monarchy was appropriately heralded
by the appearance of ornamental titles. How infrequent the use of numerals
of iteration was under the Republic is amusingly illustrated by a story told by
Tiro, Cicero's secretary. When Pompey in his third consulship came to place
the dedicatory inscription upon his theater, he was in doubt whether he ought
to write himself cos. tertium or cos. tertio. He consulted Cicero, but the great
stylist could not resolve his difficulty. He could only suggest that Pompey
dodge the problem by writing cos. tert.! (Aulus Gellius x. I.)
6
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
troops; on the other, a victory which had justified the one honor
might properly justify the second. In the last two centuries of the
Republic, the steps leading to a triumph became standardized. The
first step was to win from the soldiery an Imperatorial salutation.
A general so saluted might or might not assume the Imperatorial title
at his option; but if he were ambitious to triumph, he would assume
it, wreathe his fasces with laurel, and send litterae laureatae recount-
ing his exploits to the Senate. On receipt of these "laurelled dis-
patches," the Senate would proceed to debate the question of ordering
a supplicatio, or day of public thanksgiving. The tone of this debate
was regarded as an index of the Senate's attitude toward the gen-
eral's aspirations. If the decision were in the negative, there could
be little hope that the House would grant a triumph. If on the other
hand the supplicatio were voted, the general on his return home would
avoid entering the City until the question of his triumph had been
determined. If he crossed the City limits, he would forfeit his
imperium, and the possession of an imperium was essential to a
triumphator. Inasmuch as a triumph implied the termination of a
general's imperium, it terminated his use of the title Imperator.
When the use of the title Imperator under the Empire is compared
with its uses under the Republic, the following differences stand out:
I. Under the Empire, Imperator ceases to be a mere military
distinction and becomes a title of office,
2. The Praenomen Imperatoris is borne in a peculiar position-
before, instead of after, the name.
3. The title is never surrendered, but is borne for life, within
the City as well as without.
4. The numeral of iteration accompanying the Cognomen Im-
peratoris denotes, not the number of successful commands that the
emperor has held for the emperor's command of the army is con-
tinuous-but the number of times that he has been saluted by his
army in an hour of victory.
5. The Imperatorial salutation now takes on a new meaning. It
no longer leads to a triumph. It becomes an indispensable element
in an imperial election.
CHAPTER II
CURRENT THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE PRAE-
NOMEN IMPERATORIS
The only ancient accounts of the origin of the Praenomen Impera-
toris are those of Suetonius and Cassius Dio.
Suetonius, in the passage in which he enumerates the honors
voted Caesar the Dictator, says:
Non enim honores modo nimios recepit, continuum consulatum per-
petuam dictaturam praefecturamque morum, insuper praenomen impera-
toris cognomen patris patriae statuam inter reges suggestum in orchestra,
sed et ampliora etiam humano fastigio decerni sibi passus est.¹
Dio, in the passage in which he describes the manner in which
the news of the Battle of Munda was received at Rome, gives a list
of honors voted Caesar by the Senate on that occasion, and includes
in the list the Praenomen Imperatoris:
τό τε τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος ὄνομα οὐ κατὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἔτι μόνον, ὥσπερ
ἄλλοι τε καὶ ἐκεῖνος πολλάκις ἐκ τῶν πολέμων ἐπεκλήθησαν, οὐδ᾽ ὡς οἱ τινὰ
αὐτοτελῆ ἡγεμονίαν ἢ καὶ ἄλλην τινὰ ἐξουσίαν λαβόντες ὠνομάζοντο, ἀλλὰ
καθάπαξ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ νῦν τοῖς τὸ κράτος ἀεὶ ἔχουσι διδόμενον ἐκείνῳ τότε
πρώτῳ τε καὶ πρῶτον, ὥσπερ τι κύριον, προσέθεσαν. καὶ τοσαύτῃ γε
ὑπερβολῇ κολακείας ἐχρήσαντο ὥστε καὶ τοὺς παῖδας τούς τε ἐγγόνους αὐτοῦ
οὕτω καλεῖσθαι ψηφίσασθαι, μήτε τέκνον τι αὐτοῦ ἔχοντος καὶ γέροντος
ἤδη ὄντος. όθενπερ καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς μετὰ ταῦτα αὐτοκράτορας ή
ἐπίκλησις αὕτη, ὥσπερ τις ἰδία τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν οὖσα καθάπερ καὶ ἡ τοῦ
Καίσαρος ἀφίκετο. οὐ μέντοι καὶ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐκ τούτου κατέλυθη, ἀλλ'
ἔστιν ἑκάτερον· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ δεύτερον ἐπ' αὐτῶν ἐπάγεται, ὅταν
νίκην τινὰ τοιαύτην ἀνέλωνται. οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο αὐτοκράτορες ἅπαξ
τῇ προσηγορίᾳ ταύτῃ, ὥσπερ ταῖς ἄλλαις, καὶ πρώτῃ γε χρῶνται οἱ δ᾽ ἄν
καὶ διὰ πολέμων ἄξιόν τι αὐτῆς κατωρθώσωσι, καὶ ἐκείνην τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ
ἀρχαίου προσλαμβάνουσι, κἀκ τούτου καὶ δεύτερόν τις καὶ τρίτον πλεονάκις
τε, οσάκις ἂν παράσχῃ οἱ, αὐτοκράτωρ ἐπονομάζεται.
In the famous passage in which he describes Augustus' consultation
with Agrippa and Maecenas as to the form of government which he shall
2xliii. 44. 2-5.
1Jul. 76.
;
7
8
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
establish, Dio makes Maecenas say: εἴ γε τὸ μὲν πρᾶγμα τὸ τῆς μοναρχίας
αἱρῇ, τὸ δ' ὄνομα τῆς βασιλείας ὡς καὶ ἐπάρατον φοβηθῇς, τοῦτο μὲν μὴ προσ-
λάβῃς, τῇ δὲ δὴ τοῦ Καίσαρος προσηγορίᾳ χρώμενος, αὐτάρχει. εἰ δ᾽ οὖν
καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν κλήσεων προσδέῃ, δώσουσι μὲν σοὶ τὴν τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος,
ὥσπερ καὶ τῷ πατρί σου ἔδωκαν.3 In the following chapter he tells us that
Augustus in his fifth consulship (29 Β.C.) τὴν τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος ἐπίκλησιν
ἐπέθετο. λέγω δὲ οὐ τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς νίκαις κατὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον διδομένην τισὶν
(ἐκείνην γὰρ πολλάκις μὲν καὶ πρότερον, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ ὕστερον ἀπ' αὐτῶν
τῶν ἔργων ἔλαβεν, ὥστε καὶ ἐν εἴκοσιν ὄνομα αὐτοκράτορος σχεῖν) ἀλλὰ τὴν
ἑτέραν τὴν τὸ κράτος διασημαίνουσαν, ὥσπερ τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ τῷ Καίσαρι
καὶ τοῖς παισὶ καὶ τοῖς ἐκγόνοις ἐψήφιστο. In the course of his description
of the constitution of the Empire, Dio defines the force of the Praenomen
Imperatoris thus: τήν τε τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος πρόσρησιν διαπαντὸς ὀνομά-
ζονται) οὐ μόνον οἱ νικήσαντές τινας, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες, πρὸς δήλωσιν
τῆς αὐτοτελοῦς σφῶν ἐξουσίας, ἀντὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ τε δικτάτωρος
ἐπικλήσεως, ἔχουσιν. αὐτὰς μὲν γὰρ ἐκείνας οὐ τίθενται, ἐπειδήπερ ἅπαξ
ἐκ τῆς πολιτείας ἐξέπεσον, τὸ δὲ δὴ ἔργον αὐτῶν τῇ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος προση-
γορία βεβαίουνται.
It will be observed that the account of Dio is the fuller. In the
first passage quoted, he takes pains to distinguish three uses of the
title Imperator: (I) its use as a military distinction; (2) its use,
under the Republic, to designate the possessor of an imperium,
whether military (αὐτοτελῆ ἡγεμονίαν) or civil* (ἀλλήν τινα ἐξουσίαν); and
(3) the Praenomen Imperatoris. Having made these distinctions
clear, he proceeds to assert that the Praenomen Imperatoris was
conferred first upon the Dictator Caesar by the Senate after the
Battle of Munda (45 B.C.) to designate him as the absolute ruler of
the state, and that the Senate on the same occasion ordained that the
title should be inherited by Caesar's descendants. In the third pas-
sage Dio states that the Praenomen Imperatoris was assumed by
Augustus in 29 B.C., and implies that he assumed it by hereditary
right, in accordance with the senatorial decree of 45 B.C.
Suetonius also says that the Praenomen Imperatoris was con-
ferred first upon the elder Caesar; but he assigns no date, neither does
he say anything about its being made hereditary in Caesar's family.
5liii. 17. 4.
slii. 40.
4lii. 41. 3-4.
"This seems to be one of Dio's errors. Under the Republic the term
imperator was applied only to a military commander; it was never used of
a civil magistrate.
THEORIES AS TO THE PRAENOMEN IMPERATORIS
9
8
Down to the middle of the last century, historians accepted
these statements of Suetonius and Dio without question." Some
recent historians still content themselves with repeating them. But
Mommsen has shown them to be in many respects erroneous.
He
has shown that no contemporary inscriptions,10 coins, or literary
references accord the elder Caesar the Praenomen Imperatoris, and
that there is abundant evidence that Augustus took the style Impera-
tor Caesar long before 29 B.C.
The remaining features of Dio's account Mommsen still accepted
when he wrote his History of Rome.11 According to the History,12
the Senate in 46 B.C. conferred Imperator upon Caesar as a perma-
nent title, with the right to hand it on to his descendants; and Caesar
•
"E.g., Eckhel, Doctrina Nummorum Veterum² (1828), VIII, 346 ff. Hoeck,
Römische Geschichte (1841), I, 1, 318; Walther, Geschichte des römischen
Rechts (1846), p. 346; Drumann, Geschichte Roms (1834), III, 660-61; Meri-
vale, History of the Romans under the Empire (new ed., 1865), II, 428, III,
404; Peter, Geschichte Roms (1881), II, 367.
8E.g., Sihler, Annals of Caesar (1911), p. 247; Ferrero, Greatness and
Decline of Rome (Eng. trans., 1907), II, 289; Groebe's recent (1906) revision
of Drumann, III, 594-95; Heitland, History of the Roman Republic (1909),
III, 353; Shuckburgh, Augustus (1903), p. 46, note 1.
A History of Rome, translated by Dickson (4 vols., Scribner's, 1894), IV,
559-66. In later editions of the English translation the text of the original
is modified to bring it into harmony with Mommsen's later views as expressed
in his Römisches Staatsrecht³ (1887), II, 767 f.
10 Except the Fasti Vallenses (C.I.L. 12, p. 240), a municipal document
of the end of Augustus' reign, and C.I.G. (Boeckh) 3668 (=I.G.R.R.S. IV.
135). The evidence of the former is contradicted by that of sister documents
(vide C.I.L. 12, p. 323, sub IV NON. AVG). It may be suspected of confus-
ing the elder with the younger Caesar. The latter is a Greek inscription set
up by a private person, and hence proves nothing as to the official Latin usage.
Its composer was probably influenced to write τῳ αυτοκρατορι Γαιῳ [Ιουλιῳ Γαι] ου
υιῳ Καισαρι by his familiarity with the Greek idiom ὁ βασιλεὺς ᾿Αντίοχος. Το
these exceptions noted by Mommsen (Staatsrecht, II, 767, note 1) should be
added Jos. ant. xvi. 162: ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος (in a docu-
ment of Augustus') and B.G.U. IV. 1137, line 3. The Latin version of Jose-
phus, however, which frequently presents a better text than the Greek, reads
dictatoris, not imperatoris; and the editors of B.G.U. say that the reference
in the phrase in question may be to Augustus, not to his father.
11 Except that he preferred to date the decree of the Senate which con-
ferred Imperator upon Caesar as a permanent title in 46 B.C., after the Battle
of Thapsus, instead of (with Dio) in 45 B.C., after the Battle of Munda (His-
tory of Rome, IV, 559). Mommsen gives no justification for this, view.
12IV, 559-66.
IO
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
made it his distinctive title, using it as a substitute for rex, to denote
his possession of the full authority, civil and military, of the primi-
tive Roman kings. Indeed Mommsen made these statements of Dio
the corner-stone of his whole treatment of the constitutional history
of the Republic. The plot of Mommsen's History of Rome may be
said to be the story of how the imperium of the Roman kings was
first, under the Republic, distributed among various magistrates and
checked in various ways, and then restored to untrammeled unity
by Julius Caesar, the founder of the Empire. It is this interpreta-
tion of the history of the Roman Republic which determines both
the stopping-place of the book and its hero.
When he came to write his Staatsrecht, however, Mommsen had
become disposed to push his criticism of Dio's story further. He
now recognized that in Caesar's day Imperator was purely a military
title; that it connoted military command, never civil authority. Ac-
cordingly, in the Staatsrecht Mommsen accepts the doctrine which
he had expressly repudiated in his History,18 that Imperator, as
Caesar bore the title, expressed simply his possession of the procon-
sulare imperium, i.e., the fact that Caesar was the commander-in-
chief of the Roman armies. Consequently, inasmuch as military
command and military titles in the nature of things are not heritable,
he rejected Dio's statement that Caesar was empowered to hand
the title Imperator on to his descendants. To account for Dio's
story he evolved the following ingenious theory:14
Caesar the Dictator took Imperator as a permanent title, to rep-
resent his possession for life of the proconsulare imperium, bearing
it always before his other titles and immediately after his cognomen
Caesar, where, so far as position was concerned, it might be inter-
preted as a second cognomen. Mommsen cites as a typical illustration
of this use,
c. julIO CAESARI IMper. DICTAT. ITERVm pont VFICI
MAXumo aug. cOS. (C.I. L. I. 620-IX. 2563).
C. Julius Caesar the younger (Augustus) about 40 B.C. added Im-
perator to his name as a permanent style, representing that his
adoptive father had borne Imperator, not as a title, but as a mere
personal cognomen, to which therefore he himself had as good a
hereditary right as he had to his father's first cognomen, Caesar.
(This "court fiction" according to Mommsen is the origin of Dio's
18ĮV,:562, note.
14 Staatsrecht, II, 767.
THEORIES AS TO THE PRAENOMEN IMPERATORIS
II
statement that the elder Caesar was empowered to hand the title
Imperator down to his descendants.) Coincidently he decided to
drop his praenomen and nomen, C. Julius, and to invert the remain-
ing elements of his name, Caesar Imperator, into Imperator Caesar,
just as one of his contemporaries, Aemilius Paullus, usually wrote
himself Paullus Aemilius. Thus Imperator came to occupy the place
of Gaius in Gaius Caesar, the name by which Octavianus hitherto
had been customarily known. Hence Suetonius appropriately terms
this use of Imperator the praenomen imperatoris.15 In proof of his
view that the Praenomen Imperatoris as borne by the emperors was
originally sensed as a proper name rather than as a title, Mommsen
adduces the facts: that down to the middle of the second century
the emperors were accustomed to drop their previous praenomina
and nomina upon adopting it;16 that Suetonius expressly calls it a
praenomen; and that Dio also says that Caesar received the style
Imperator wσTeρ тì kúpιov,¹ i.e., so Mommsen translates the phrase,
"as a proper name.
""
17
The prestige of Mommsen has won for this theory of the origin
of the Praenomen Imperatoris wide acceptance among students of
Roman history.18 With certain modifications it is the theory adopted
in the most recent discussion of the question, that contained in the
article "Imperator," by Rosenberg in Pauly and Wissowa's Realen-
cyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaften.19 Rosenberg,
15Jul. 76, Tib. 26, Claud. 12.
16Thus T. Flavius Vespasianus on his accession changed his name to Imp.
Caesar Vespasianus.
17xliii. 44. 2, quoted on p. 7.
18 Tentatively or wholeheartedly it is accepted, for example, by Furneaux,
The Annals of Tacitus (1883), I, 63; Karlowa, Römische Rechtsgeschichte
(1885), I, 508; Herzog, Geschichte und System der römischen Staatsverfassung
(1887), II, 30, 127; Kromayer, Die rechtliche Begründung des Prinzipats
(1888), pp. 22 ff.; Greenidge, Roman Public Life (1901), p. 337; Willems, Le
droit public romain (1910), p. 410. Indeed it may be said to be at present the
orthodox explanation, except among certain writers who are under the in-
fluence of a reaction against the sway which Mommsen so long has exercised
in the field of Roman history. These writers, however, offer no better explana-
tion. They either avoid the problem altogether (e.g., Arnold, Studies in
Roman Imperialism [1906], pp. 46 f.) or take the backward step of accepting
the statements of Suetonius and Dio without criticism (cf. the writers listed
above, p. 9, note 8).
19IX, 1, col. 1142-54.
12
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
it is true-unlike Mommsen-is inclined to give complete credence
to Dio's statements that the Senate after the Battle of Munda con-
ferred Imperator upon Caesar and his descendants as a permanent
distinction, and that Augustus took the distinction by inheritance.20
"Daraus geht klar hervor," he remarks, "dass Caesar und seine
Zeitgenossen das Attribut imperator nicht eigentlich als Titel, sondern
als Bestandtheil des Namens empfunden haben; denn die Kompe-
tenz Caesars war natürlich nicht erblich."21 He thus accepts Momm-
sen's interpretation of the significance of the Praenomen Imperatoris.
He also repeats Mommsen's account of the evolution of the Prae-
nomen Imperatoris of Augustus out of the Cognomen Imperatoris
borne by the elder Caesar22 and all Mommsen's arguments and cita-
tions, despite the fact that the latter are in part inconsistent with the
altered theory which he presents.23
Before examining the evidence by which Mommsen supports his
theory of the origin of the Praenomen Imperatoris, let us examine
the theory itself. Prima facie it is too ingenious to be correct. Fur-
thermore, it involves the supposition that Augustus-or, according
to Rosenberg, both Caesar and Augustus-used Imperator as a mere
proper name. Mommsen expressly admits that if Augustus used
the Praenomen Imperatoris as a title of office, he could not have
represented that he had inherited it.24 His explanation of the trans-
formation of the Cognomen Imperatoris into the Praenomen Im-
peratoris also suggests that Augustus regarded Imperator as a mere
proper name. But this supposition is surely inadmissible. In the
days of Caesar and Augustus, Imperator was a very common title.
2ºHe holds, however, with Mommsen, that Caesar never bore Imperator
as a praenomen, and, like Mommsen, he dates the assumption of the Praenomen
Imperatoris by Augustus in 40 B.C.
21 Col. 1143.
22Col. 1145. He thinks that the inversion of the name Caesar Imperator into
Imperator Caesar was suggested by a similar inversion of names on the part of
Sextus Pompeius Magnus; cf. L'ann. ép. (1895) 23: MG. POMPEIO MG. F.
PIO, etc.; Cic. Phil. xiii. 4. 8.
23 Thus he quotes (col. 1142 ad fin.) C.I.L. I. 620, as typical of Caesar's
peculiar use of the title Imperator, despite the fact that this inscription is dated
in Caesar's second dictatorship, and therefore was composed before 45 B.C.,
the year in which, according to Rosenberg, the senatorial decree which author-
ized that use was passed!
24"Um erblich zu sein musste sie (sc. die Imperatorbezeichnung) Name
sein, nicht Titel." Staatsrecht, II, 767, note 3.
THEORIES AS TO THE PRAENOMEN IMPERATORIS
13
It could not have been taken or conferred as a mere name without
doing violence to language.25 Finally, Mommsen's theory implies
that one of the shrewdest politicians of all history gratuitously fur-
nished a handle to his opponents. No amount of explanation would
have sufficed to forestall the charge that, in claiming to have inherited
the style Imperator from his father, Augustus was declaring himself
the legitimate successor of Caesar on the throne of Rome, and Rome
an hereditary monarchy. The assumption of the Praenomen Impera-
toris could have but one result, a declaration of war on the part of
Antony with whom in 40 B.C. Augustus was not yet ready to break
-and the rallying to Antony's side of all the forces of republican
sentiment. It is contrary to all that we know of the policy and
genius of Augustus to believe that he could have been guilty of this
sort of blunder.
It is to be noted that Mommsen found it impossible to be true
to his own theory. He points out that the Greeks, at least, did not
understand Imperator as a mere proper name; else they would
simply have transliterated it into 'IμTeрáтwp, whereas they uniformly
translate it by Auтокрáтwp; from this fact he draws the necessary
inference that the Praenomen Imperatoris as used by Augustus and
the later emperors connoted the possession of authority.26 In fact,
throughout the Staatsrecht, except in the passage in which he
attempts to account for its origin, Mommsen treats the Praenomen
Imperatoris as that element in Augustus' titulary which represents
his proconsulare imperium. But a "proper name" which connotes a
27
25 Suetonius' expression praenomen imperatoris does not prove that he
sensed the so-called Praenomen Imperatoris as a proper name in our sense of
that word, for in the same breath he speaks of the cognomen patris patriae (Jul.
76; Tib. 26). He clearly is using praenomen and cognomen loosely, in the sense
of "prefix" and "affix" respectively. Dio's phrase that Caesar and the later
emperors took the Praenomen Imperatoris &σteρ tì kúpɩv is explained a few
lines further down by the phrase ὥσπερ τὶς ἰδία τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν οὖσα. The true
rendering is "as a peculiar distinction." It is very clear that Dio understood
the Praenomen Imperatoris as a title of office.
26"Die politische Fiction aber, die aus dem Amtstitel imperator ein erbliches
Cognomen machte, hat den darin gegebenen Competenzbegriff natürlich nicht
aufgehoben, wie die am deutlichsten darin hervortritt, dass die Griechen
imperator nicht beibehalten, sondern, durch abтокрȧтwρ wiedergeben." Staats-
recht, II, 770.
27E.g., II, 846.
•‛ ‛、、
14
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
"Competenzbegriff" is not a proper name at all, but a title and
nothing else.
The root of perverseness in Mommsen's theory is his unwilling-
ness to disregard entirely Dio's statement that the title Imperator
was made hereditary in Caesar's family. Yet he has no hesitation
in rejecting other details in Dio's account. He denies that Caesar
ever bore the Praenomen Imperatoris. He rejects, in the Staatsrecht,
Dio's interpretation of the force of the title. He rejects both Dio's
date for Caesar's assumption of the title Imperator in a special sense
and Dio's date for the assumption of the Praenomen Imperatoris
by Augustus. An attempt to find a substratum of truth in Dio's
dating of the latter he scouts as a piece of "conciliatorische Kritik."28
It is surely an even grosser instance of conciliatory criticism to
attempt to find a substratum of truth in the most incredible of all the
elements of Dio's account, a statement, be it observed, for which Dio
is our earliest and only authority. Suetonius, Appian, and Plutarch,
all of whom list Caesar's extraordinary honors29-not to mention
Cicero and the other contemporary writers-betray no acquaintance
with the idea of a hereditary Imperatorship.30 One cannot but feel
that Mommsen would have been more consistent and would have
avoided a strain upon his ingenuity if he had had the courage to
reject this statement of Dio's with the rest.
28 Staatsrecht, II, 768, note 1.
29 Suet. Jul. 76; Appian b. c. i. 106; Plut. Caesar 57.
•
30 Suetonius evidently had no conception that Imperator was an hereditary
distinction: Praenomen quoque imperatoris cognomen patris patriae
recusavit (sc. Tiberius); ac ne Augusti quidem nomen, quan qua m
hereditarium, nullis nisi ad reges ac dynastas epistulis addidit (Tib.
26. 1). In this passage Suetonius implies that whereas Augustus was an
hereditary distinction, the Praenomen Imperatoris was not.
-→
CHAPTER III
THE DICTATOR CAESAR'S USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR¹
Mommsen supports his contention that the elder Caesar took
Imperator as his distinctive title by the following arguments: He
asserts that in the extant inscriptions and documents of Caesar the
title Imperator appears (1) invariably, (2) at the head of Caesar's
titles, (3) accompanied by a numeral of iteration. These phenomena
are consistent with the theory that Caesar employed Imperator as
his most distinctive title, but not-so Mommsen contends-with ordi-
nary republican usage; for the latter (1) would require that Caesar
should surrender the title after his triumphs, (2) fails to explain
the priority of Imperator among Caesar's titles, and (3) would lead
us to expect it to be accompanied by a numeral of iteration, inasmuch
as Caesar was saluted Imperator more than once.2 Let us test the
accuracy of these observations and inferences.
3
I. It is incorrect to say that in the extant inscriptions and docu-
ments of Caesar the title Imperator invariably appears. That it
should appear in the majority is in no way surprising. Caesar was
saluted Imperator in Gaul, before his invasion of Italy in January,
¹The titulary of the elder Caesar may be studied in the following materials :
Cic. ad Att. ix. 6A, 11A, 16, x. 8B; ad fam. xiii. 15, 16; Phil. ii. 34, 87; Caesar
bell. civ. i. 13. 1, bell. Afric. 4, 3; Jos. ant. xiv. 190, 192, 196, 199, 200, 202, 211;
C.I.L. 12, pp. 28, 50, I. 620 (=IX. 2563), II. 5439, IV. 60, 1847, 1849α, VIII.
977, X. 8069, 1; C. I. G. (Boeckh) 2215, 2368, 2369, 2957; I. G. XII. ii. 35, 151;
L'ann. ép. (1889) 41, (1897) 87, (1909) 40; and the coins of Caesar as listed by
Babelon, Cohen, and Grueber. The text of the passages in Josephus is in
nearly every case uncertain, and a good critical edition like that of Niese
must be consulted. These passages are discussed by Ritschl, Rhein. Mus.,
XXVI, 603 ff. On the coins of Caesar see the article by Ganter, Zeitschrift
für Numismatik, XIX (1895), 183 ff. His dating of the third and fourth
dictatorships of Caesar differs from that given in Mommsen's classic treatment
in C.I.L. I², pp. 40-42.
2Staatsrecht, II, 767.
3Thus it does not appear in L'ann. ép. (1897) 87, (1889) 41; C.I.L. I²,
p. 28, II, 5439 (chaps. 66, 106, 125), IV. 60, 1847, 1849a; C. I. G. (Boeckh) 2369;
I. G. XII. ii. 151; Jos. ant. xiv. 199, 200.
!
15
16
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
8
в
49 B.C.4 The triumph which dissolved this Imperatorship did not
take place until June,5 46 B.C., when he celebrated a quadruple triumph
over Gaul, Egypt, Asia, and Africa. On February 19 of the fol-
lowing year he was again saluted Imperator in Spain. The triumph
in which this Imperatorship culminated took place in the following
October. Thus, during four-fifths of his period of supremacy,
Caesar was an Imperator in the ordinary sense of a victorious gen-
eral who was awaiting a triumph. To prove that Caesar bore the
title Imperator as a standing title, it would be necessary to show that
he continued to bear it after his triumphs; i.e., that he bore it (1) in
the interval between his triumph of June, 46 B.C. and February,
45 B.C., and (2) in the last months of his life, after his last triumph
in October, 45 B.C. It should be noted that Mommsen's typical
inscription, C.I.L. I. 620, cannot be shown to fall in either of these
periods."
a) In the first interval Cicero addressed a letter¹º to Caesar which
is headed Cicero Caesari s. simply. The presumption is that Cicero,
when he wrote this letter, understood that Caesar, following the
*Bab. “Julia" 13 (= Cohen “Jul. Cés.” 15
Cohen "Jul. Cés." 15 Grueber, II, p. 363) Cic. ad
Att. ix. 6A, 11A, 16, x. 8B; Caesar b. c. i. 13. It is interesting to note that in his
Bellum Gallicum Caesar nowhere mentions his Imperatorial salutation; also
that on several coins which, from the emblems engraved on them, were clearly
issued in commemoration of his exploits in Gaul, the legend reads CAESAR
simply (Bab. "Julia” 9-12 = Cohen “Jul. Cés.” 12-14 Grueber, II, pp. 368-
69); and that the inscription on an olive market which Caesar presented to
the island of Delos, probably on the eve of the civil war (Suet. Jul. 28. 1),
reads: C. IVLIO C. F. CAESARI PRO COS. OLEARI (L'ann. ép. [1897]
87). The Imperatorial title had become in Caesar's day rather a cheap distinc-
tion, and he probably despised it. Cf. his sneer: His temporibus Scipio detri-
mentis quibusdam circa montem Amanum acceptis imperatorem se appellaverat
(b. c. iii. 31). Caesar seems to have assumed the Imperatorial title only just
before the outbreak of the civil war, for reasons of political expediency.
5 According to the revised calendar.
❝Suet. Jul. 37; Vell. ii. 56; Dio xliii. 19; Plut. Caesar 55; Appian b. c. ii.
I0I-2.
"Bell. Hisp. 19. 6.
8Livy epit. 116; Vell. ii. 56, 3.
"In it Caesar is described as DICTAT. II COS. Caesar's second dic-
tatorship extended from the autumn of 48 B.C. to April-May, 46 B.C.
(Ganter) or to Dec. 31, 46 B.C. (Mommsen). He was Cos. II in 48 B.C.
and Cos. III in 46 B.C. The inscription must therefore be dated either in the
end of 48 B.C. or, more probably, in the first half of 46 B.C.
1ºCic. ad fam. xiii. 16.
CAESAR'S USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
17
par-
usual custom, had dropped the title Imperator after his triumph of
the preceding June. It is true that in intimate correspondence the
use of titles was often avoided ;¹¹ but it is to be noted that this
.11
ticular letter was a formal letter of introduction, and that in the
superscriptions to all the other extant letters between Caesar and
Cicero the title consistently appears.12 Thus a few months later,
when the news of Caesar's victories in Spain had reached Rome,
Cicero wrote another letter to Caesar,13 which he headed Cicero
Caesari Imp. sal.
In chapter 104 of the Lex Genetivae there is another indication
that Caesar dropped the title Imperator after his triumph of 46 B.C.,
which will be noted below.14
b) Mommsen seeks to prove that Caesar continued to use the title
Imperator after his last triumph by the opening words of a letter of
Caesar's written in the very last month of his life, which is preserved
for us by Josephus:15 Γάιος Καίσαρ, αὐτοκράτωρ, δικτάτωρ τὸ τέταρτον,
ὕπατός τε τὸ πέμπτον, δικτάτωρ ἀποδεδειγμένος διά βίου. But for tex-
tual reasons¹º no great reliance can be placed upon this piece of evi-
dence; and there is a mass of evidence on the other side:
(1) The Lex Genetivae¹7 is a public document drawn up between
December 10, 45 B.C., and February 15, 44 B.C.,18 undoubtedly under
11Cf. the superscriptions in Cicero's Cilician correspondence.
12 Ad Att. ix. 6A, 11A, 16, x. 8B.
13 Ad fam. xiii. 15.
14P. 22.
15 Ant. xiv. 211.
16 The text of Josephus is always untrustworthy when it comes to the cita-
tion of Roman titles. In such cases the ancient Latin translation nearly always
presents a different reading from that of the vulgar Greek text, and often a
better one. Cf. the critical notes to the documents contained in the fourteenth
book of the Antiquities in Niese's edition and Ritschl's article in Rhein. Mus.,
XXVI, 603 ff. In particular, the Greek displays a tendency to introduce
abтоkρȧTwp. It is true that in the present case the Latin version (which reads
quater imperator for αὐτοκράτωρ, δικτάτωρ τὸ τέταρτον rather supports the
ordinary reading.
6087.
17C.I.L. II. 5439; Bruns, Fontes Juris Romani7, 122; Dessau Insc. Lat. sel.
18The terminus ad quem is determined by the fact that nowhere in the
document is Caesar given the title dictator perpetuo, which was conferred upon
him some time before February 15, 44 B.C. (Cic. Phil. ii. 34. 87). The
terminus a quo is furnished by the mention in chapter 104 of a Lex Antonia.
This Mommsen (Eph. ep. II, 119 f.) identifies with one of the laws referred
to in Cic. Phil. v. 4. 10: si quam legem de actis Caesaris confirmandis deve
.
18
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
Caesar's own supervision. It is preserved to us in an early stone
copy.19 In the extant portions of it Caesar is four times referred to
by name:
Chap. 66. Quos pontifices quosque augures G. (sic20) Caesar quive
iussu eius colon (iam) deduxerit, fecerit, etc.
Chap. 104. Qui limites decumanique intra fines c(oloniae) G(enetivae)
deducti factique erunt, quaecumq (ue) fossae limitales in eo agro erunt
qui iussu C. Caesaris dict (atoris) imp(eratoris) et lege Antonia
senat (us) que c(onsultis) pl(ebi) que s(citis) ager datus atsignatus erit,
ne quis limites decumanosque opsaeptos neve quit immolitum neve quit
ibi obsaeptum habeto neve eos arato, neve eis fossas opturato neve
opsaepito, quo minus suo itinere aqua ire fluere possit.
Chap. 106. Quicumque c(olonus) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) erit, quae
iussu C. Caesaris dict (atoris) ded (ucta) est, etc.
Chap. 125.
quive tum magistratus imperium potestatemve
colonorum suffragio geret iussuque C. Caesaris dict(atoris) co(n)s(ulis)
prove co(n)s(ule) habebit, etc.
It will be noticed that in only one of these four passages is Caesar
given the title Imperator. This in itself makes against the contention
of Mommsen which we are considering.
From the third passage we learn that the colony has been already
founded by Caesar, doubtless in the months after the Battle of Munda
which he devoted to the settlement of Spanish affairs. Therefore
the second passage must be regarded as elliptical. It forbids all
defacing of the boundaries of "that territory which (has been given
and assigned, sc., to the colony) by command of C. Caesar Dictator
Imperator and by the Lex Antonia, or which shall (at any future
time) be granted or assigned (to the colony) by senatorial or popular
decree." In the summer of 45 B.C. when Caesar founded the colony,
dictatura tollenda deve colonis in agros deducendis tulisse M. Antonius dicitur,
easdem leges de integro, ut populum teneant, salvis auspiciis ferri placet. But
Cicero is here referring to laws passed by Antony after Caesar's death. The
law here mentioned is probably one passed to confirm Caesar's arrangements in
Spain, either by M. Antonius, who became Caesar's colleague in the consul-
ship on January 1, 44 B.C., or-more likely-by L. Antonius, who became
tribune on December 10, 45 B.C., and who is known to have enacted other
laws which Caesar favored (Cic. Phil. vii. 6. 16; Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte
Roms, III, 612, notes 3 and 8).
19Probably made under the Flavians (Mommsen, Eph. ep., II, 120 f.).
20The Flavian copyist is frequently guilty of minor errors of transcription.
CAESAR'S USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
19
he was both Dictator and also an Imperator in the ordinary sense of
a general who was awaiting a triumph. He had been saluted Im-
perator, as we have already seen, in February, and did not triumph
until the following October. This passage, therefore, cannot be
quoted to prove that Caesar employed the title Imperator in other
than the usual manner.
In the second passage, which also refers to Caesar in connection
with the founding of the colony, the title Imperator is omitted. This
omission is hard to explain on Mommsen's hypothesis that Imperator
was Caesar's distinctive title of office. On the other hand, it is quite
explicable if the draftsman of the Lex regarded Dictator as the title
which denoted the powers under which Caesar acted in founding the
colony, and Imperator as a mere military distinction.
In the first and fourth passages the reference is to possible future
acts of Caesar. In these passages the writer seems to be at a loss
what title to assign to Caesar, for the reason doubtless that, at the
time of writing, it had not yet been determined what Caesar's perma-
nent title or titles were to be. Evidently Caesar had not yet been
declared Perpetual Dictator. Accordingly, in chapter 125 Caesar is
referred to as C. Caesaris dict. cos. prove cos, and in chapter 66 he is
referred to, without any title at all, as C. Caesar simply. If Caesar
had determined to use Imperator as a permanent title, its omission in
these passages is likewise hard to explain.
(2) Cicero quotes an entry which M. Antonius after the Luper-
calia (February 15), 44 B.C., proposed to make in the Fasti: C.
Caesari dictatori perpetuo M. Antonius cos. populi iussu regnum
detulisse; Caesarem uti noluisse.21 Had Caesar decided to take
Imperator as a permanent and distinctive title, Antony would have
employed it here.
(3) In the Fasti Capitolini22 and the Acta Triumphalia23 Augus-
tus is consistently referred to as Imp. Caesar, while his father is
referred to with equal consistency as C. Julius C.f. C.n. Caesar.
This amounts to an absolute disproof of Mommsen's whole theory of
the origin of the Praenomen Imperatoris. For both documents, in
the form in which we have them, were drawn up under Augustus;
and there is more than a suspicion that their compilers did not hesitate
to make them reflect in many instances historical theories which
21 Phil. ii. 34. 87.
22C.I.L. I², pp. 27-29.
23Ibid., p. 50.
20
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
Augustus favored.24 Here therefore, if anywhere, we should expect
to find evidence of the "court fiction" which Mommsen posits. It
is hard to believe in the light of these documents either that the elder
Caesar had taken Imperator as a permanent and distinctive title, or
that Augustus pretended to have inherited the title from him.
In the municipal Fasti, also, Caesar the Dictator is always referred
to without the title Imperator;25 whereas Augustus usually is ac-
corded the Praenomen Imperatoris.26
(4) Finally there is the evidence of the coinage. Less than one-
quarter of the coins issued in Caesar's lifetime which bear his name
display the title Imperator.27 None of these can be referred with
confidence to either of the two brief periods during which Caesar
was not an Imperator in the ordinary sense. All save one29 bear
emblems30 which suggest that they were issued in commemoration
of Caesar's victories; and that one describes Caesar as COS. ITER.,
28
24 The recent literature upon these documents is very copious. Vide
Pauly-Wissowa, art. "Fasti" and references; also Kornemann, Hist. Viertel-
jahrschrift (1914), pp. 440 ff.
25 Except in one instance in the Fasti Vallenses; vide supra, p. 9, note 10.
26Cf. C.I.L. 12, pp. 58, 61-64, 66, 68-72.
27 Viz., the seven issues, Bab. "Julia" 13, 14, 32, 33, 34, 46, 47 (= Cohen
“Jul. Cés.” 1, 15, 22, 34, 35, 41, 42 Grueber, I, pp. 543-45, 547-48, II, pp. 363,
559). To these should be added four issues bearing an enigmatical mark
(Bab. “Julia” 25-29 = Cohen “Jul. Cés.” 16-19 = Grueber, I, p. 507, no. 3961);
if this mark represents IMP., which is doubtful. On the other hand, twenty-
one issues display the legend CAESAR simply; and six, of which some at
least are probably posthumous, bear Caesar's head without any legend save
that of the moneyer.
28 Unless we infer from Dio xliv. 4. 4: πρός τε τούτοις τοιούτοις οὖσι πατέρα
τε αὐτὸν τῆς πατρίδος ἐπωνόμασαν καὶ ἐς τὰ νομίσματα ἐνεχάραξαν that Caesar's por-
trait was not placed upon the coinage until 44 B.C.; for on several of these
coins the head of Caesar appears. But this inference, though often drawn, is
inadmissible, for (1) in this passage Dio professedly is listing the extraor-
dinary honors of Caesar without regard to chronology, and (2) he is referring,
not to the representation of Caesar's features on the coinage, but to the issuance
of coins marked PARENS PATRIAE. The view that the coins beåring
Caesar's head were first issued in 44 B. C. is controverted by Ganter, Z. für
Num., IX (1895), 183 ff.
29 Bab. “Julia” 14 (= Cohen “Jul. Cés.” 1 = Grueber, II, p. 559).
80 A trophy or a figure of Venus Victrix.
CAESAR'S USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
21
which proves that it was issued in 48 B.C.,³¹ when Caesar was still
awaiting his first triumph. The coins on which Caesar is accorded
the titles Dictator perpetuo or Parens Patriae, and which therefore
must be referred to the last months of Caesar's life, none of them
display the title Imperator. These facts are at least consistent with,
if they do not prove, the view that Caesar did not regard Imperator
as his distinctive title and that he did not employ the title in the last
months of his life.
The coins issued in Caesar's honor after his death point in the
same direction. It is true that on one issue Caesar is styled IMP.32
But it was not unusual toward the end of the Republican period for
moneyers to issue coins in honor of deceased commanders on which
the generals honored were accorded the title Imperator.33 The ap-
pearance of IMP. on these coins does not prove that the person to
whose name the title is attached was wearing it at the time of his
death, but only that at some time in his life he had attained the
Romans' favorite ambition of an Imperatorial salutation. This coin,
therefore, cannot be cited as proof that Caesar bore Imperator as a
standing title. On the other hand, the coins issued by Octavianus
and Antony in Caesar's honor ascribe to him the titles Dictator, Dic-
tator perpetuo, or Pontifex Maximus, but never the title Imperator,84
despite the fact that those issued by Antony bear on their reverse
the legend M. ANTON. IMP. or M. ANTON. IMP. R. P. C.
2. Mommsen argues that Imperator was Caesar's most distinc-
tive title from the fact that in Latin inscriptions,35 documents, and
31 Grueber prefers to date this issue in 47 B. C., believing that it was struck
to pay the soldiers whom Allienus, then proconsul in Sicily, furnished Caesar
on his way to Africa. He explains the legend cos. ITER. by pointing out that,
owing to disturbances in the capital, no consuls were elected for 47 B.C.
until the close of the year, and that in consequence Caesar's consulship of 48
B.C. would hold over. Even if this dating of the coin is correct, it was struck
before Caesar's first triumph.
82 Bab. "Julia" 56 (= Cohen "Jul. Cés." 37 =
4280-81).
Grueber, I, p. 585, nos.
33E.g., Bab. "Aemilia" 10 (=Grueber, I, p. 418), "Coelia" 7 (=Grueber,
I, p. 475), "Memmia" 10 (= Grueber, I, p. 495).
34 Bab. “Julia" 53-55, 64, 89 (= Cohen "Jul. Cés. et M. Ant.” 1-3, “Jul.
Cés. et Oct." 2, "Oct. Aug." 55 Grueber, II, pp. 397-98, 404-5).
35 Except in Lex Genetivae, chap. 104. Mommsen mentions this instance,
but tacitly disregards it. Rosenberg remarks, "Auf die . . . . selbst nicht
konsequente Ausdrucksweise des Stadtrechts von Genetiva ist kein grosses
Gewicht zu legen" (col. 1143). This is an easy method of disposing of an
inconvenient piece of evidence.
22
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
coin legends, Imperator always appears at the head of Caesar's
titulary.
To estimate the force of this argument, it is necessary to inquire
in what order it was customary to cite titles in Caesar's day. A
study of inscriptions and coin legends seems to reveal the following
rules: (1) Where both secular and priestly titles are quoted, either
group may precede.36 (2) Secular titles are quoted usually in chron-
ological order of their reception.87
The first of these rules explains the fact that in C. I. G. (Boeckh)
2215, 2368, 2957, the title άρχιερεύς precedes the title αὐτοκράτωρ.
This order, therefore, is not due simply to Greek ignorance of Latin
usage; and these inscriptions may be cited along with Lex Genetivae,
chapter 104, to prove that Caesar did not always put Imperator at the
head of his titulary.
In arguing from the order in which Caesar's secular titles are
quoted, it is to be borne in mind that in documents prior to his triumph
of 46 B.C. it is to be expected that the title Imperator should precede
his other titles; for, as we have seen, he was already an Imperator
when he entered Italy. The majority of the instances in which the
title Imperator appears at the head of Caesar's titulary may thus be
explained.38 As to Caesar's habit after 46 B.C., we have only the
following evidence:39
(1) Lex Genetivae, chapter 104: C. Caesaris dict. imp. The
order to titles here, which Mommsen and Rosenberg treat as an
anomaly, is perfectly regular, if we assume that Caesar had dropped
the title Imperator after his triumph in the preceding June. Caesar
was already Dictator when he was saluted Imperator for the second
time.
(2) C.I.L. VIII. 977: C. CAESARE IMP. COS. II, L.
POMPONIVS L. L. MALCio DVOVIR quinquennalis (?)
36 The legends on the coins of Antony are particularly instructive as to
this point.
87Cf. C.I.L. I. 615 (= IX. 5837), II. 3556, III. 455 (= 7160), VI. 1301,
1316, XI. 409 (an exception), 1423-24, 6087, 6897-99, 6901, 8941.
88 Including Mommsen's type instance, C. I. L. I. 620; also L'ann. ép. (1909)
40; Bab. "Julia" 14 (= Cohen "Jul. Cés.” I = Grueber, II, p. 559); Jos. ant.
xiv. 190, 196, 199 (si verae ll.); C. I. G. (Boeckh) 2215; I. G. XII. ii. 35.
39 If we disregard Jos. ant. xiv. 211, where, as we have seen reason to
believe (supra, p. 17), aŮTOKρárwp is an insertion.
CAESAR'S USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
23
!
MVRVM OPPIDI TOTVM EX SAXO QVADRATVM AEDIF.
COEr. Caesar entered upon his fourth consulship on January 1,
45 B.C., and was not saluted Imperator until the middle of the next
month. The order of titles in this inscription therefore is not
chronological, and at first sight seems to support Mommsen's con-
tention. It is to be explained however by the fact that the words
C. CAESARE IMP. COS. II are a consular date, "when C. Caesar
Imp. was consul for the fourth time."
3. Lastly, Mommsen points to the fact that Imperator uni-
formly appears among Caesar's titles unaccompanied by a numeral
of iteration as proof that he bore the title continuously. But under
the Republic numerals of iteration were more frequently omitted
than employed.40 Thus in Mommsen's typical illustration: c. julIO
CAESARI IMper. DICTAT. ITERVm pontVFICI MAXumo
aug. cOS., the numeral is omitted not only with IMper., but also
with COS.41
Thus all the arguments by which Mommsen seeks to support
the assertions of Seutonius and Dio that Caesar took Imperator as
a permanent and distinctive title break down upon examination. It
is to be noted that no other ancient writers betray any knowledge
that Caesar employed Imperator in a special sense. Appian and
Plutarch both list Caesar's extraordinary honors,42 but neither of
them includes the Imperatorial title among them. Cicero and the
other contemporaries of Caesar are equally silent.
How then are the statements of Suetonius and Dio to be ac-
counted for? In the interests of clarity of thought, it is worth re-
calling that the view of Mommsen and other modern writers that
Caesar received the right to employ Imperator as a permanent cogno-
men is not the view of Suetonius and Dio. What the latter assert
is that Caesar was the first to bear the Praenomen Imperatoris, which
Mommsen has shown conclusively to be an error. Mommsen's view
is only an attempt to trace the origin of that error.
40 Vide supra, pp. 4 f.
41 Rosenberg obscures this fact by quoting the inscription thus: “c. julIO
CAESARI IMper. DICTAT. ITERVm pontVFICI MAXumo, u. s. w." (col.
II42).
42Appian b. c. ii. 106; Plut. Caesar 57.
24
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
Its origin can be accounted for, however, in another way. Sue-
tonius and Dio both regard Caesar as the first Roman emperor.43
Accordingly, their predisposition is to attribute to him the titles and
prerogatives of the emperors of their own day. Besides this general
tendency there were well-known facts which might lead a historian
to infer that Caesar had borne the Praenomen Imperatoris. Caesar,
it was remembered, had worn the laurel wreath and on occasion the
rest of the insignia worn by an Imperator at a triumph. These
insignia had since come to be the insignia of the imperial office. It
was an easy mistake to assume that as Caesar had been granted
the right to use the imperial insignia, he had been granted also the
imperial title.
44
Just how Dio or his sources came to fix upon the receipt of the
news of Munda as the occasion of Caesar's being invested with the
Praenomen Imperatoris, it is hard to guess; but it is not difficult
to trace the origin of the other detail peculiar to Dio, that the Senate
decreed that the Praenomen Imperatoris should be inherited by
Caesar's descendants. Dio evidently derived¹5 this detail from the
same source as that from which he drew the equally incredible state-
ment that Caesar's heir, whether natural or adopted, should succeed
him in the Supreme Pontificate. Evidently some thoughtless and
ill-informed historian, believing that Caesar had borne the Prae-
nomen Imperatoris and recalling that he had been Pontifex Maximus,
recalling further that Augustus had succeeded him in both distinc-
tions, drew the inference that Augustus had inherited them from his
father, doubtless by virtue of an enabling decree of the Senate.
43
.46
48 In the case of Suetonius this is shown by the very fact that he included
the life of Caesar in his book. Dio's account of Caesar implies that Caesar
was the first emperor on nearly every page. This was also the view of
Josephus; cf. ant. xviii. 32: kai teλevtậ Kaîoap (sc. Augustus) devrepos µèv Pwpaiwv
αὐτοκράτωρ κ. τ. λ., et alibi passim.
44 Suet. Jul. 45, 51; Ovid met. i. 562; Appian b. c., ii. 106; Plut. Caesar 31,
Antonius 12; Dio xliii. 43. 1, xliv. 4.
45 That Dio did not invent this detail is clear from the fact that he remarks
upon its absurdity.
46 Dio xliv. 5. 3. The application of the hereditary principle to the Supreme
Pontificate would have been a shock to religious conservatism. Furthermore,
had Augustus had an hereditary claim to the office, we should expect to find
him protesting at some time or other against the election of Lepidus. On the
contrary, however, he so fully accepted the validity of Lepidus' election that he
abstained from deposing him at the time of his disgrace, and refused to accept
the Supreme Pontificate himself until after Lepidus' death.
CAESAR'S USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
25
Having fully examined the evidence in the case, we may be per-
mitted in conclusion to consider the a priori probability of the various
theories which have been advanced as to the force of the title Im-
perator as Caesar employed it. The old view that Caesar employed
Imperator (in the sense of "emperor") to denote the sum-total of
his powers is now no longer held by careful scholars. The view of
Rosenberg that Caesar used Imperator as a mere name is simply in-
credible. Two other possible interpretations of the title, however,
merit brief discussion.
Dio says that the Senate στρατιώτας τε μόνον ἔχειν καὶ τὰ δημόσια
χρήματα μόνον διοικεῖν ἐκέλευσαν, ὥστε μηδένι ἄλλῳ μηδετέρῳ αὐτῶν, ὅτῳ
μὴ ἐκεῖνος ἐπιτρέψειεν, ἐξεῖναι χρῆσθαι. 47 If this statement be correct,
it is conceivable that Caesar employed the title Imperator to express
the fact that he was commander-in-chief of all the Roman armies.
But here again Dio is contradicted by earlier and better authorities.
He clearly has in mind the system of the fully developed Empire,
under which the emperor was the sole imperator and all other com-
manders only his legati. This system, he assumes, originated with
Caesar, whom he regards as the first emperor. As a matter of fact,
however, it was a much later development.18 Throughout the period
of Caesar's sole rule, the provinces continued to be governed by pro-
consuls and propraetors; and one of Caesar's last acts was to desig-
nate proconsuls and propraetors to the several provinces for five
years in advance.40 Under the Republic proconsuls and propraetors
were ex officio imperators. That Caesar did nothing to abrogate this
constitutional principle is clear from the correspondence between
Cicero and P. Vatinius, the proconsul of Illyricum, regarding the
latter's aspirations to a triumph.50 In these letters, which were
written all within a year of Caesar's death, Vatinius writes himself,
and is addressed by Cicero, as P. Vatinius Imp.; and in one letter
Vatinius complains that if he must capture all thirty towns of the
Dalmatians before he is to be allowed to triumph, longe alia condi-
cione sum ac ceteri imperatores.51 We learn, it is true, from refer-
ences in the correspondence that Caesar was opposing the vote of
a supplicatio on account of Vatinius' victories; but it is clear from
47 xliii. 45. 2.
48 The Princeps did not become the imperator of all the armies until the
time of Gaius; vide infra, p. 62.
49 Drumann-Groebe, III, 612 ff. and references.
5ºCic. ad fam. v. 9, 10, 10A, II.
51Ibid. v. 10.
26
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
the language of Vatinius himself that Caesar's objection was, not
that Vatinius was a mere legatus of his own, but that his exploits
were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant the honor. The whole
incident is inexplicable if Dio's statement be correct.
Nevertheless Caesar's imperium did differ in one important re-
spect from that of other commanders. By a law passed by Caesar
himself, the tenure of office of a proconsul was limited to two years,
and that of a propraetor to one.52 Caesar's imperium, on the other
hand, was continuous, and intended to be permanent. Mommsen,
in his Staatsrecht,58 holds that Caesar took the Imperatorial title as
a permanent distinction in order to express this difference and to
intimate that military command was his peculiar prerogative, in
other words, that he was der Kriegsherr des römischen Reichs.54
This view, however, not merely is not borne out by the evidence, but is
antecedently improbable for two reasons. In the first place, the Im-
peratorial title in that case would have been superfluous, for Caesar's
dictatorship involved all that it could imply; and in the second, such
a use of it would have been in the highest degree impolitic. Had
Caesar employed the title Imperator in the manner and sense which
Mommsen describes, it is hard to see how he could have rebutted
the most dangerous charge that could be leveled against him—the
charge, namely, that on his own admission his power rested primarily
upon his command of the chief armed forces of the state, and that
his was, not a constitutional government, but a military despotism.
That Caesar, who was a statesman before he became a soldier, well
understood the insecurity of a mere tyrannis is shown by the efforts
he made in his last years to relegate the military basis of his power to
the background and to lend his government the appearance of resting
entirely upon law and the consent of the governed.55
Thus there are objections to every interpretation of the Impera-
torial title as Caesar used it, except the simplest and most natural
one, that he used it in the same manner and with the same signifi-
cation as the rest of his contemporaries. In one respect alone can
52 Cic. Phil. i. 8. 19, v. 3. 7; Dio xliii. 25.
58II, 767.
54Was Mommsen in forming his theory unconsciously influenced by the
ideas and constitution of the German Empire?
55Cf. Vell. ii. 57. 1. He dismissed his veteran legions (Dio xliii. 14. 1;
Suet. Jul. 70) and his bodyguard (Dio xliv. 7. 4; cf. 6. 1).
a
CAESAR'S USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
27
he be shown to have violated the accepted rules of usage. When
Caesar entered the City after his return from Gaul, he technically
forfeited the command of his Gallic army and therewith his right
to be styled Imperator and to celebrate a triumph over Gaul. But
inter arma silent leges. Caesar obviously could not afford to sur-
render his imperium; neither did he surrender the Imperatorial title,
but retained it until his triumph in 46 B.C., although he had entered
the City more than once in the interval.
}
1
CHAPTER IV
AUGUSTUS' USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
The history of Augustus' use of the title Imperator falls into
three periods, each of which is characterized by a distinct usage:
(1) from his first assumption of the title down to the invention of
the Praenomen Imperatoris (April 15, 43-c. 38 B.C.); (2) from
the invention of the Praenomen Imperatoris to the establishment
of the Principate (c. 38-c. 29 B.C.); (3) the period of the Princi-
pate (c. 29 B.C.—14 A.D.).
I.
The younger Caesar first took the title Imperator as a result
of a salutation accorded him by his soldiers on April 15, 43 B.C., in
the course of the Mutina campaign.¹ When the news of his achieve-
ments reached Rome, the Senate on motion of Cicero joined in the
salutation and ordered a supplicatio. It is quite clear from the
speech which Cicero delivered on this occasion that the title was
assumed and conferred in the usual republican sense. The voting of
a supplicatio was a regular preliminary to the voting of a triumph.
Octavianus moreover for many years bore the title in the usual posi-
tion, after his name; e.g., C.I.L. IX. 2142: C. IVLIO C. F.
CAESARI IMP. TRIVMVIRO R. P. C. PATRONO D. D.³
It is noteworthy, however, that it is frequently omitted on the
coins issued by him or in his honor prior to his assumption of the
Praenomen Imperatoris. In fact the only coins of this period on
which it does occur either may be referred to the months before his
consulship, during which he had no other title, or are coins which
also bear the name of one of the other triumvirs and on which the
title Imperator with Caesar's name serves to balance a title borne
4
¹Dio xlvi. 38. 1; Cic. Phil. xiv. This is admitted both by Mommsen
(Staatsrecht, II, 767 f.), and by Rosenberg (col. 1144).
2Phil. xiv.
³Cf. also Cic. Phil. xiv, passim and the coins listed below, notes 4 and 5.
4Cohen "M. Ant.” 5, “M. Ant. et Oct." 5, "Oct. Aug.” 5, 6, 246 (= Bab.
"Julia" 59-63 = Grueber, II, pp. 406, 408-9).
28
AUGUSTUS' USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
29
8
6
7
10
by his colleague.5 His other coins of this period bear the legends:
C. CAESAR COS. PONT. AVG., C. CAESAR IIIVIR R. P. C.,?
CAESAR IIIVIR R. P. C., or, after the deification of the elder
Caesar in the end of 42 B.C., DIVI (IVLI) F.,⁹ CAESAR DIVI F.¹º
—without the title IMP. An especially noteworthy instance is the
coin described C. CAESAR IIIVIR R. P. C. / Q. SALVIVS IMP.
COS. DESIG,¹¹ on which the title IMP. is given to Salvius (better
known as Q. Salvidienus Rufus), but not to Octavianus.
It is tempting to try to explain the absence of the title Imperator
on these coins as due to an observance of the ordinary republican
rules of usage. Technically Octavianus forfeited his right to the
title when he entered the City on August 19, 43 B.C., to assume the
consulship. If he observed the regular rules, he would not resume it
until his second Imperatorial salutation. This second Imperatorship
might be regarded as dissolved by his joint ovation with Antony in
40 B.C. He was not saluted Imperator for the third time until two
years later.12 Thus there were two intervals-viz., between August
19, 43 B.C., and his second salutation, and between 40 B.C. and 38 B.C.
-during which Octavianus might be regarded as having no legal
5E.g., LEPIDVS PONT. MAX. IIIVIR R. P. C. / CAESAR IMP. IIIVIR
R. P. C. (Cohen "Lep. et Oct.” 1-2 = Bab. "Julia" 70-71 = Grueber, II, p.
579), M. ANTONIVS IMP. IIIVIR R. P. C. AVG. / C. CAESAR IMP.
IIIVIR R. P. C. PONT. AVG. (Cohen “M. Ant. et Oct." 3=Bab. “Julia” 77
Grueber, II, p. 398, no. 59). Cf. also Cohen "M. Ant. et Oct.” 1, 2, 6-10
(= Bab. "Julia" 72-74, 76, 94-96 Grueber, II, pp. 489, 491, 497-98).
6 Cohen "Jul. Cés. et Oct.” 2 (= Bab. “Julia” 64 Grueber, II, p. 404).
This coin evidently was issued during his first consulship, August-November,
43 B.C.
=
"Cohen "M. Ant." 67, "M. Ant. et Oct." 4, "Oct. Aug." 227, 243, 416-17,
443-44, 467-68, 540; Bab. "Julia” 65, 68, 69, 75, 82-85, 88, 90-91, 97; Grueber, I,
pp. 574-75, 579, 583, 588, II, pp. 396, 399, 400, 405 (no. 79), 406-7.
Cohen "Oct. Aug.” 55, 245, 248, 410-12; Bab. “Julia” 63, 67, 78-81, 89;
Grueber, I, pp. 580, 584-85, II, pp. 405, 409, 410.
⁹Cohen "Jul. Cés. et Oct." 5, "Oct. Aug." 95, 522-23, 546-47; Bab. "Julia"
101-2, 106, 123-29; Grueber, I, pp. 591-93, II, pp. 410, 413.
10 Cohen "Jul. Cés. et Oct." 3, 4, 14, “Oct. Aug." 60-77, 821; Bab. “Julia”
98-99, 103-20; Grueber, II, pp. 8-10, 412-13, 416, (no. 2), 535. Many of these
coins, however, may have been issued after the invention of the Praenomen
Imperatoris.
11Cohen "Oct. Aug.” 514 (= Bab. “Julia” 67 = Grueber, II, p. 407).
12Vide infra, p. 37.
30
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
right to the Imperatorial title. The coins in question may conceivably
have been issued in one or other of these two intervals.
This explanation it is difficult to refute conclusively for the double
reason that the date of Octavianus' second salutation cannot be de-
termined with certainty,13 and that it is impossible to date the coins
in question with sufficient exactness. But it is rendered improbable
by the following considerations: (1) In C.I.L. IX. 2142¹4 and on
all the coins on which IMP. appears in conjunction with other titles,
IMP. precedes IIIVIR R. P. C. If we may assume that the order
of titles is chronological, IMP. in these instances must refer to the
salutation of 43 B.C. which preceded Octavianus' consulship; for be-
tween his consulship and the establishment of the Triumvirate, there
were no military operations to furnish Octavianus an opportunity
for an Imperatorial salutation. It is probable, therefore, that Oc-
tavianus, following the precedent set by the elder Caesar,15 disre-
garded the rule whereby he forfeited the title Imperator by entering
the City. (2) The coin of Q. Salvidienus Rufus referred to above
is usually dated in 41 B.c.18 If this date be correct, this coin furnishes
an instance of the deliberate omission of the Imperatorial title with
Octavianus' name; for on the bullets used at the siege of Perusia
in this year, the title is ascribed both to Rufus and to Octavianus.17
(3) On the coins of Octavianus issued after the establishment of the
Triumvirate, there seems always to be a definite reason for quoting
the title Imperator where it occurs. The presumption is that in the
other cases it was purposely omitted.
The true interpretation of the use and the omission of the Im-
peratorial title on the coins of this period is probably as follows:
Octavianus continued throughout the period to write himself Im-
perator on occasion. He could not afford to be outshone by Antony,
who seems constantly to have used the title,¹8 or by the numerous other
generals¹º-among them many who were virtually his own lieutenants
13 Vide Mommsen, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, p. 11.
14Quoted above, p. 28.
15 Vide supra, p. 27.
16Cf. the notes on this coin in Babelon and Grueber; also Mommsen, "Der
Denar des Q. Salvidienus" (Zeitscrift für Numismatik, XI, 71 ff.) and
Geschichte des römischen Munzwesens, p. 659; Borghesi, Oeuvres, IV, 2, 63.
17Eph. ep., VI, p. 58, no. 63: CAESAR IMP., p. 62, no. 63, 1-5: RVFVS
IMP.
18It almost invariably appears on his coins.
19 Vide the Acta Triumphalia and below, p. 36, note 45.
AUGUSTUS' USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
31
-who were parading it. But he preferred the titles triumvir reipub-
licae constituendae and Divi f. to the title Imperator. The fact is that
the title Imperator as yet suggested rather a pretendant to the supreme
place in the state than its occupant. For a century the chief pieces
in the game of politics had been, not votes, but armies. The first
step in the upward career of a Marius or a Sulla, a Pompey or a
Caesar, had been to gain the command of an army, to win victories
with it, and to secure its loyalty. The outward and visible sign of
having achieved this step was the title Imperator. The next step
was to defeat all rival Imperators. The victor then found the state
at his feet; but both decency and expediency dictated that he should
now drop the title Imperator, with its suggestion of a military
tyrannis, and cause the Senate or the Comitia to confer upon him
some civil title. Thus Sulla and the elder Caesar chose to govern
as Dictators, Marius as Consul. Pompey, in the decade after his
last triumph during which he was the chief figure in Rome, posed
simply as the princeps,20 the "foremost citizen" of the Republic. In
the reign of violence which ensued upon the death of Caesar, every
politician raised an army, and all the chief actors of the period as-
sumed the Imperatorial title. In some cases it served to conceal the
fact that its wearer was a mere brigand without a shadow of legal
authority. Sextus Pompeius, for example, and, in the previous
period, his brother Gnaeus must have been at a loss for a title with
which to dignify themselves until they had been saluted Imperator
by their troops.21 Octavianus himself at the outset of his career
had been glad to substitute the title Imperator for Propraetor as an
indication that he was "in the running" for a prominent place in the
state. He probably was equally glad when he could substitute for
Imperator the titles consul, triumvir reipublicae constituendae and
Divi f., which indicated that he had "arrived."
2. The assumption of the Praenomen Imperatoris by Octavianus,
Mommsen dates in the year 40 B.C. Simultaneously, according to
Mommsen, Octavianus dropped his praenomen and nomen, C. Julius,
calling himself thenceforward simply Caesar or Imp. Caesar.2
Mommsen assigns as the reason for his dropping his praenomen and
20Cic. ad fam. i. 9. 11; Sallust hist., oratio Macri 23.
22
21 Note the appearance of the title upon the earlier coins of Sextus. For
Gnaeus' use of it cf. C.I.L. I. 68 (= II. 4965).
22 Staatsrecht, II, 767 ff.
32
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
nomen “die Rücksicht, dass der Herrscher von den Unterthanen
schon in der Benennung sich unterscheiden muss."28
Mommsen overemphasizes the significance of this latter phase
of Octavianus' change of name. The disuse of his praenomen and
nomen was no sudden act, nor would it of itself in any way serve
to distinguish "den Herrscher von den Unterthanen." M. Junius
Brutus was usually referred to and addressed as Brutus in ordinary
conversation and M. Tullius Cicero as Cicero.24 Like ourselves, the
Romans were in the habit of calling a man by his last name25 only
(1) in familiar intercourse, or (2) when the person spoken of was
a famous man.28 Accordingly, ever since his adoption Octavianus
had commonly been referred to as Caesar or C. Caesar,27 even in
formal documents.28 As he became more and more the central figure
in the Roman world, the use of his praenomen and nomen would
become more and more uncommon.2 29 But this of itself would not
mark him as the "ruler." His famous "subjects," M. Vipsanius
Agrippa and M. Tullius Cicero, were constantly referred to, for
similar reasons, as Agrippa and Maecenas.
Mommsen's reason for dating Octavianus' assumption of the
Praenomen Imperatoris in 40 B.C. is that the entry in the Acta
28Ibid., II, 770. "Erst während des Triumvirats, wie es scheint im J. 714,
hat Augustus den Juliernamen abgelegt, offenbar um eine Scheidelinie zwischen
der herrschenden Familie und den übrigen zu ziehen" (ibid., II, 766).
24E.g., in the correspondence of Cicero, passim.
25 In the case of certain families it was the middle name that was so
employed.
20 On the Roman use of proper names see Pease, "The Greetings in the
Letters of Cicero" in Studies in Honor of Basil Gildersleeve (1902), pp. 395 ff.;
Axtell, "Men's Names in the Writings of Cicero," Class. Phil., X (1915),
386 ff.
27E.g., in the last letters and speeches of Cicero (ob. December 7, 43 B.C.).
28 Thus in a senatus consultum of the year 43 B.C. he is referred to as
C. Caesar C. f. Pontifex (Cic. Phil. v. 17. 46). Cf. also C.I.L. IX. 2142,
quoted above, p. 28. The elder Caesar is also frequently referred to in formal
documents during his lifetime as C. Caesar (Cic. ad fam. viii. 8. 7 and the
documents of Caesar quoted in Jos. ant. xiv.).
29 Axtell notes that "Pompey (in the writings of Cicero) often bears the
praenomen, (the elder) Caesar rarely. The latter seems, in numberless places
in which he is called to mind, like an impersonal force dominating and directing
the trend of affairs" (op. cit., p. 401).
AUGUSTUS' USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
33
Triumphalia recording the ovation which Octavianus and Antony
celebrated together in that year reads:
IMP. CAESAR DIVI F. C.N.
M. ANTONIVS M.F. M.N.
IIIVIR R.P.C. OVans quod .
PACEM CVM M. ANTONIO FE-
CIT.
IIIVIR R.P.C. OVANs QVOD
PACEM .... CVM IMP. CAES.
FECIT.30
It is to be remembered, however, that this entry was not made at
the time of the event. The Acta Triumphalia was not compiled until
long after Imp. Caesar had become Octavianus' established style.³¹
Its appearance here, therefore, may be an anachronism. The use of
IMP. with Caesar's name only is thus most easily explained.32
In 38 B.C. Agrippa issued three series of coins-the numismatists
believe, in Gaul-which may thus be described:
(1) DIVOS IVLIVS (behind a laurelled head of Julius Caesar,
which faces a head of Octavianus; behind the latter) DIVI F./ M.
AGRIPPA COS. DESIG.
(2) IMP. DIVI IVLI F. TER.33 IIIVIR R. P. C. (a head,
laurelled and youthful) / M. AGRIPPA COS. DESIG.
(3) IMP. CAESAR DIVI IVLI F. (head of Octavianus, bare
and bearded)/M. AGRIPPA COS. DESIG.34
The second and third of these coins furnish the earliest instances
of the use of the Praenomen Imperatoris extant. An attractive case
can be made out for the theory that on them the Praenomen Im-
peratoris was employed absolutely for the first time.
30C.I.L. I², p. 50. Cf. also the record of the establishment of the Trium-
virate in the Fasti Capitolini, sub anno 717.
31The date of the Acta Triumphalia and of its sister-document, the Fasti
Capitolini, is discussed in the articles referred to in note 24, p. 20. Whatever
theory be adopted, the statement in the text remains true.
32The entry in the Fasti Capitolini regarding the first consulship of
Octavianus (43 B.C.) reads: C. IVLIVS C.F. c.n. caesar octavianus qui
POSTEA IMPerator appel. This proves that the compilers would have been
tempted to refer to Octavianus even thus early as IMP. CAESAR had not the
anachronism been too glaring.
33 The reading TER. seems now established. Vide Grueber's note on this
coin (II, p. 411, note 1).
34 Cohen "Jul. Cés. et Oct." 5, “Jul. Cés.” 33, "Oct. Aug." 545 (= Bab.
“Julia” 129-31 ·
Grueber, II, pp. 410-12).
..
Th
34
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
The identical reverse on all three coins compels us to regard them
as a series, and their obvious aim is to exalt Octavianus. The first
coin, apart from the conjunction of two heads which it presents,
is not otherwise remarkable ;35 which suggests that it was the first
to be issued. The second, on the other hand, is very striking. So
anxious is the designer to quote all Octavianus' distinctions that he
sacrifices Octavianus' name in order to find room for them! More-
over the head on the obverse bears a laurel wreath. This suggests
at first sight that it is intended for the head of the elder Caesar;
for on the coins of this period the elder Caesar is uniformly depicted
wearing a laurel wreath, while Octavianus is uniformly depicted
with his head bare. (The device on the first coin illustrates this
usage.) But the youthfulness of the features and the fact that Oc-
tavianus' titles surround the head make against this identification.
The numismatists usually explain the anomaly by supposing the
head to be that of the elder Caesar rejuvenated; but this explanation
is a tour-de-force. It is more likely that the designer, in his eagerness
to do Octavianus honor, disregarded the convention which reserved
the laurel for Octavianus' father. The third coin appears to be an
emended edition of the second, on which a return is made to the
more usual method of representing Octavianus, and Octavianus'
name CAESAR is inserted. The order in which these coins are
usually cited is therefore in all probability the chronological one.
Examining them in this sequence, we note that the coin on which
the Praenomen first appears is the one which in other respects dis-
plays a willingness to invent new distinctions for Octavianus. Fur-
thermore, on this coin the Praenomen Imperatoris is accompanied
by a numeral of iteration (TER.). This is absolutely the only in-
stance known of the use of a numeral of iteration with the Praenomen
Imperatoris. The effect is awkward, and on the third coin the de-
sign of the second is emended in this particular also. The form Imp.
Caesar which the third coin displays becomes thenceforward fixed.36
In the usage as finally established, when a note of iteration is desired,
Imp. is repeated after the name with the proper numeral attached.37
35The heads of both Caesar and Octavianus are of the customary types.
There are numerous coins of this period extant on which Octavianus is styled
simply DIVI F. (p. 29, note 9).
86 The form IMP. DIVI F. appears elsewhere only on a few coins of
municipal provenience (Cohen "Oct. Aug." 672, "Agrippa et Auguste" 7-10).
37Cf. the inscription of Augustus quoted above, p. 1. This method of indi-
cating iteration was in use at least as early as 31 B.C. (C.I.L. X. 3826).
AUGUSTUS' USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
35
As we study these coins, we seem to see the Praenomen Im-
peratoris in process of incubation. If this is not a mere arbitrary
exercise of the imagination, it points to Agrippa as the inventor of
the distinction.38 Agrippa's motives and the original force of the
title can be divined.
39
The circumstances under which these coins were struck can be
made out from Dio.89 In the end of 40 B.C. or the beginning of 39
B.C., Agrippa was sent by Octavianus into Gaul to suppress certain
disturbances on the Rhine frontier and in Aquitania. He was suc-
cessful, and Octavianus offered him a triumph, i.e., saluted him—or
sanctioned his being saluted-as Imperator. Agrippa, however, re-
fused the honor. Octavianus then offered him a consulship. He be-
came consul in 37 B.C. These coins were issued while he was consul
designate, i.e., presumably in the end of 38 B.C. This was the first
instance of what was to be with Agrippa a settled policy. Although
he was the most distinguished of Octavianus' generals, he never ac-
cepted a triumph-although on two occasions at least he was again
offered one¹0-and never took the title Imperator.41
40
Agrippa's reasons for persistently refusing the title Imperator
were probably two. In the first place, the Imperatorial title had be-
come greatly cheapened. Roman generals always had eagerly sought
occasion to assume it.42 To ride in triumph through the streets of
Rome was the dream of every Roman. The wars which ensued
upon the death of Caesar the Dictator furnished occasions in plenty;
and in the general breakdown of public order, the checks which law
and public opinion imposed upon the assumption of the title¹³ were
inoperative. Neither Antony nor Octavianus could afford to offend
38 Mommsen remarks, "Wahrscheinlich erfolgte diese Umnennung eben
unter dem Einfluss des Agrippa" (Staatsrecht, II, 768, note 1).
39 xlviii. 49.
40 Dio liv. 11. 6, 24. 7.
41 The title never appears on his coins. Of the inscriptions which refer
to him, which are fairly numerous, it appears only in two which are of
municipal origin (C.I.L. IX. 262, 2200).
42Cf. the case of Cicero in Cilicia and the amusing letter of Caelius to him
(ad fam. viii. 5) in which the writer expresses the hope that the enemy will
show enough fight to justify Cicero's taking the title Imperator, but not enough
to prove dangerous. Other references: Cic. in Pisonem 26. 62; Cato's oration
against Q. Minucius Thermus de falsis pugnis (cf. Livy xxxvii. 46. 1); Livy
xl. 38. 9; Caesar b. c. iii. 31; Valerius Maximus ii. 8. 1.
48 Vide supra, p. 2, note 5.
36
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
1
any man who had soldiers at his back; consequently, they did noth-
ing to check the abuse. On the contrary, they employed the triumph
freely as a cheap method of rewarding their followers. Between 44
and 26 B.C. the Acta Triumphalia records no less than nineteen
triumphs in addition to those celebrated by the triumvirs themselves.
It is possible that in some cases they went so far as to procure from
the Senate triumphs for commanders who were not legally entitled
to them, i.e., for officers who were not imperators in the legal sense
but merely legati. Besides these triumphators, we know of four-
teen other generals who assumed the Imperatorial title but who
failed to win a triumph.45 Inasmuch as the assumption of the title
by these latter is known to us in many instances by mere chance
references,46 it is altogether likely that there were other Imperators
of whom we know nothing. In view of this degradation of the
distinction, Agrippa's disdain of it is understandable.
44
But Agrippa had a deeper reason for refusing it. Unlike his
fellow-lieutenants, he identified his interests wholly with his master's
44 Of the triumphators listed in the Acta Triumphalia, Ventidius is said
to have been only a legatus of Antony (Dio xlviii. 41. 5) and Sosius likewise
(Plut. Antony 34; Livy ep. 128; Jos. ant. xiv. 447, b. j. i. 327; Dio xlix. 22. 3).
Indeed Sosius was perhaps Antony's quaestor (Bab. "Sosia” 1 = Cohen “M.
Ant." 90 = Grueber, II, p. 504); but see Dessau, Prosopographia, sub nomine.
Domitius Calvinus (Dio xlviii. 42. 4) and Carrinas (Dio li. 21.6) are said to
have been only legati of Octavianus, and the same may have been true of
Statilius Taurus and Q. Laronius; the latter of whom, it is true, never
triumphed, although he was saluted Imperator (C.I.L. X. 8041. 18: IMP. II).
Q. Pedius and Q. Fabius Maximus, who triumphed in 45 B.C., were perhaps
only legati of the elder Caesar (Dio xliii. 31. 1, 42. 1; cf. bell. Hisp. 2. 3).
In the Acta Triumphalia all these triumphators are styled proconsuls, except Q.
Fabius Maximus, who is styled consul; but this may have been simply to cover
up the irregularity. Mommsen suggests that they may have been granted a
proconsulare imperium for the day of triumph (Staatsrecht, I, 130, note 5). At
the same time we have to reckon with the possibility that in some of these
cases Dio and later writers may have misunderstood the situation. In their
day the emperor was the only imperator, and all other generals were legally
his legati. Dio therefore may have assumed without warrant that all the lieu-
tenants of Caesar, Antony, and Octavianus were simply legati, whereas in
formal law they may have been independent proconsuls or propraetors.
45 Sextus Pompeius (Imp. II), D. Brutus, M. Brutus, C. Cassius, Domitius
Ahenobarbus, Q. Salvidienus Rufus, Statius Murcus, Marcius Crispus, P.
Ventidius, Q. Laronius, Pinarius Scarpus, M. Nonius Gallus, M. Cocceius
Nerva, C. Cocceius Balbus. History is silent as to the exploits of the two last.
46 Statius Murcus and Marcius Crispus are casually mentioned in Velleius
(ii. 69. 2), M. Cocceius Nerva in Dessau Insc. sel. 8780, C. Cocceius Balbus in
C. I. A. III. 571.
AUGUSTUS' USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
37
and sought advancement only in his wake. Consequently, it was
his habit to prefer Octavianus' glory to his own and as a loyal
subordinate to attribute his victories to his chief. On this occasion,
for instance, it is probable that he based his rejection of the Im-
peratorial salutation upon the ground that he was only Caesar's
lieutenant¹ and that, accordingly, the salutation belonged to Caesar
himself. The third salutation of Octavianus which these coins com-
memorate was probably the salutation which Agrippa refused.
The same reasons which led Agrippa to refuse the Imperatorial
title would account for his invention of the Praenomen Imperatoris.
If Agrippa was to forego a Roman's favorite ambition and to sur-
render his laurels to his chief, self-respect, not to mention the very
motives which dictated the surrender, must suggest that he indicate
in some way that his chief was no ordinary Imperator but the Im-
perator par excellence. Whoever invented the Praenomen Impera-
toris, this is its obvious import.48
The above theory as to the invention of the Praenomen Impera-
toris is at best a conjecture. What is certain is that about this time
Octavianus took the Praenomen Imperatoris as a permanent dis-
tinction. Thenceforth he uses as his full name Imp. Caesar divi f.—
with the addition, after 27 B.C., of Augustus. Thus the medals
struck in connection with his triumph over Sicily in 36 B.c. are in-
scribed IMP. CAESAR, with or without DIVI F.49 The inscrip-
tions of this period likewise uniformly display the Praenomen Im-
peratoris.50 How closely the Praenomen Imperatoris was now asso-
ciated with Caesar's name is shown by the fact that from this time
47 It is unknown whether technically Agrippa at this time was a legatus of
Octavianus or an independent proconsul.
48Cf. the contrast implied in the coin legend, IMP. CAESARI SCARPVS
IMP. (Bab. "Pinaria” 15 = Cohen “Oct. Aug.” 497 = Grueber, II, p. 585).
49 To the period 38-27 B.C. may be referred the following coins, all of
which bear the legend IMP. CAESAR (DIVI F.): Cohen "Oct. Aug." 44,
88-91, 94, III, 113-28, 218, 229-30 (?), 337, “Livia” 24 (= Grueber, II, pp.
13-17, 412, 414-17, 537, 580-81, 584). Several of these coins bear devices which
suggest that they were issued in connection with the Sicilian triumph of 36
B.C. It is quite possible, however, that some of the coins inscribed CAESAR
DIVI F. listed on p. 29, note 10, also belong to this period.
50 C.I.L. III. 7255, 14625, V. 525-26, VI. 873, 2294, 31067, 31270, X. 3825-26,
4830, XI. 1330, 5642; L'ann. ép. (1890) 79. In addition should be quoted in
this connection C.I.L. IX. 4191-92, XIV. 2240, 2963, 4232, documents of a later
date which reflect the usage of this period. C.I.L. III. 14147 (line 5) is an
exception.
2
38
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
on it regularly appears in consular datings,51 in which for obvious
practical reasons custom prescribed the utmost abbreviation.
This use of Imperator as his distinctive title was a reversal of
Octavianus' previous practice; but it was good politics. In the
decade 38-29 B.C. Octavianus' rôle was that of the defender of Rome
and Italy from military attack-from the barbarians of the north-
east and northwest, from the piracies of Sextus Pompeius, and from
the assault of oriental despotism as personified in Cleopatra and
Antony. Consequently, the military prestige to which the Praenomen
Imperatoris called attention was at this period Octavianus' chief
political asset. Indeed, from the beginning of 32 B.C., the Praenomen
Imperatoris exactly expressed Octavianus' position in the West. In
the beginning of that year, so he tells us in the Monumentum Ancy-
ranum,52 juravit in mea verba tota Italia sponte sua et me belli quo
vici ad Actium ducem depoposcit; juraverunt in eadem verba pro-
vinciae Galliae Hispaniae Africa Sicilia Sardinia. From this time
until his abdication of his extraordinary powers in 27 B.C., Octavianus
was in the strict sense the imperator of every "loyal" Roman and
provincial.
3. The Battle of Actium, however, changed the whole posture
of affairs. Military problems receded into the background, and the
chief requirement of the state became the restoration of civil order
and the establishment of a civil government. It behooved Octavi-
anus, therefore, to seek a new rôle. He chose one with consum-
mate skill. In 28-27 B.C. he laid down his extraordinary power, and
re-established the constitutional authorities in control.58 From now
on his pose was that of a simple citizen. The adoption of this
pose safeguarded him from the fate which had befallen the elder
Caesar, but it in no way diminished the reality of his power. For
the Senate, the magistrates, and the people were only too ready to
commit to his charge the more perplexing tasks of administration,
and in all matters to follow his suggestions. He remained the ruler
of the Roman world, but officially he was not its monarch. He was
intrusted, it is true, with a number of legal prerogatives, among them
51E.g., C.I.L. X. 884: IMP. CAESARE IX. M. SILANO COS. (25 B.C.).
Instances before 27 B.C.: C.I.L. VI. 873, IX. 422, 4191, X. 3826, 4830, XI. 564,
1330; L'ann. ép. (1895) 4, (1905) 190.
218.
52v. 3.
58Mon. Anc. vi. 13. Cf. Ovid fasti i. 589; Vell. ii. 89. 3; Cohen "Oct. Aug.”
AUGUSTUS' USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
39
the command of the majority of the armed forces of the state. But
his legal prerogatives constituted neither the basis nor the sum of
his real powers. In theory, and more or less in reality, his govern-
ment rested upon the fact that the Roman people recognized him
as its princeps, and voluntarily submitted its affairs to his guidance.
The Praenomen Imperatoris, therefore, no longer appropriately
represented his place in the state. What Octavianus was anxious
above all things to avoid was the semblance of a military autocracy.
There is an indication that in 30-29 B.C. Octavianus even contem-
plated discarding the Praenomen Imperatoris. On the receipt of
the news of the capture of Alexandria, the Senate decreed that that
event should serve thenceforth as the Egyptian era.54 The effect
of this decree is to be observed in the extant Egyptian papyri, in
which a method of dating occasionally employed in the reign of
Augustus is according to the ἔτος Καίσαρος. 55 The invariable omis-
sion of aŮTOKρȧTopos in this formula suggests that Caesar, not Imp.
Caesar, must have been the form of Octavianus' name prescribed
by the senatus consultum. By 30-29 B.C. the latter form had become
so firmly established by the usage of a decade that the omission of
Imp. must have been intentional; and we can hardly believe that it
was omitted without Octavianus' consent. It is probably in conse-
quence of this official usage that throughout the papyri and in Philo
of Alexandria,56 Augustus is usually referred to as Kaîoap simply.
But all the reasons which had led originally to the adoption of the
Praenomen Imperatoris still held good. Augustus was still the
defender of Rome. The universal peace which was his greatest
gift to the world was maintained by his sword. Moreover there
still were lesser Imperators to be kept in their place. The habit of
citing a man's cursus honorum in honorific inscriptions, and perhaps
also in formal documents, was now firmly established.57 All the
Imperators of the era of the triumvirate, therefore, doubtless con-
tinued to write themselves Imperator on occasion for the rest of
their lives. Nor did the creation of new Imperators immediately
cease upon the establishment of the Principate. To be sure, oppor-
tunities to earn the title were thereafter much restricted. Normally
54Dio li. 19. 6.
55 Wilcken, Griech. Ostraka, I, 787 f., and Hermes, XXX, 151 ff.
56Cf. legatio ad Gaium and in Flaccum, passim.
57 Vide supra, p. 4, note 17.
40
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
the Proconsul of Africa was the only commander cum imperio.
Other generals ranked only as legati Augusti, and hence were in-
し
​capable of receiving an Imperatorial salutation. But the Acta
Triumphalia records triumphs of African proconsuls in 21 and 19
B.C. One other African proconsul at least took the title Imperator.58
In addition to these African Imperators, various junior members of
Augustus' family were permitted to assume the title; viz., the brothers
Drusus5⁹ and Tiberius,60 C. Caesar, Augustus' grandson,61 and his
adopted grandson, Germanicus.62 However firmly Augustus' gov-
ernment might be rooted in the consent of the governed, he could
not afford to acknowledge any one as his equal in military fame.
An acknowledged hero might too easily become a formidable rival.
As long as other men were wearing the cognomen Imperatoris, it
behooved him to retain the Praenomen Imperatoris, the title which
proclaimed him the Imperator par excellence, the one unapproach-
able hero of the age.
63
Therefore the Praenomen Imperatoris was retained. Officially
Augustus continued to be styled Imp. Caesar Augustus and Imp.
Caesar divi f. Augustus until his death. But a study of the less.
formal references to him reveals the fact that after 27 B.C. the
Praenomen Imperatoris was no longer felt to be his distinctive
title. In such references he is spoken of as Caesar, Caesar Augustus,
58L. Passienus Rufus, c. 3 B.C. (C.I.L. VIII. 16456; Vell. ii. 116. 2).
Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, who won the ornamenta triumphalia in 6 B.C.
(Vell. ibid.; Florus ii. 31; Dio lv. 28. 4), probably also bore the title.
59Imp. (Cohen "Néron Drusus" 1-6, 8; C.I.L. V. 3109); ovation in 10
B.C. (Dio liv. 33. 5; Suet. Claud. 1). A second ovation was voted in 9 B.C.,
but Drusus died before it was celebrated (Dio lv. 1. 4).
6ºImp. VII under Augustus (Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, p. 17);
ovation in 9 B.C. (Dio lv. 2. 4; Vell. ii. 96. 3; Suet. Tib. 9); triumph in 7 B.C.
(Dio lv. 6; Vell. ii. 97. 4) ; triumph in II A.d. (Vell. ii. 121. 2; Suet. Tib. 20).
61C.I.L. II. 3267 (B.C. 3), V. 4306, 6416, XII. 141, etc.
62 Mommsen, loc. cit.
68 This consideration accounts for the restriction of the Imperatorial
title and the triumph to members of Augustus' family in the latter
part of Augustus' reign, and also for Augustus' habit of reckoning the
Imperatorial salutations of the younger members of his house among his
own (vide Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, pp. 10-18). Augustus seems to
have displayed a certain jealousy even of the military prestige of Tiberius
(Suet. Tib. 17); and it is noteworthy that the title Imp. is omitted on the
coins of Germanicus (vide Cohen).
AUGUSTUS' USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
41
Augustus, or, more rarely, Augustus Caesar—a clear indication that
he was thought of, and wished to be thought of, primarily as the
great man and god-sent savior of society, not as the Imperator.
The form Imp. Caesar continued to be used after 27 B.C. only in
consular datings, in which its use had become conventional;64 in
Fasti,65 which are only lists of consular datings; and occasionally in
references to exploits of Augustus prior to the establishment of the
Principate.
66
To illustrate from the inscriptions: It is perhaps not surprising
that the Praenomen Imperatoris should invariably be omitted in
household inscriptions, such as:
aESOPO CAESARIS AVGVSTI DISP. (C. I. L. XIV. 2259),
C. IVLIVS CAESARIS AVGVSTI L. DOSA (C. I. L. V. 3404).
NEREI CAESARIS AVG. SER. (C. I. L. III. 256),
TI. CAESAR AVG. F. (C.I.L. XIII. 1036),
or frequently67 in sacral inscriptions, such as:
NVMINI AVGVSTI (C. I. L. XII. 4333 et alibi),
GENIO AVGVSTI DIVI F. (C. I. L. II. 3524),
AVGVSTO SACRVM (C. I. L. II. 2197 et alibi),
ROMAE ET AVGVSTO CAESARI DIVI F. PATRI PATRIAE
(C.I.L. V. 18);
for in such inscriptions it is the man or the semi-divine personality
that is in mind, not the great general. But it is striking that it should
be omitted always in such military titles as legatus Augusti, evocatus
Augusti, speculator Augusti, etc. That its omission in such titles
was not dictated by mere lack of space is shown by the occurrence
of such forms of them as
CAESARIS AVGVSTI LEGATVS (C.I.L. V. 1878),
SPECVLATORIBVS CAESARIS AVGVSTI (C.I.L. III. 4843).
64E.g., C.I.L. II. 5763, IX. 4644, X. 884, 890, 3790, 5162. Exceptions,
C.I.L. VI. 448, IX. 786, X. 2381; L'ann. ép. (1913) 198.
65E.g., C.I.L. IX. 4191, XIV. 2240, 4232. Instances like C.I.L. VI. 2295
32482), XIV. 2963 may be regarded as extensions of the usage of the
Fasti.
66 E.g., C.I.L. VI. 2295 (= 32482); L'ann. ép. (1898) 14.
67 Though by no means universally; e.g., C.I.L. II. 5182.
42
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
In the festival list of Cumae (C.I.L. X. 8375), which was drawn
up toward the end of Augustus' reign, the entry regarding his victory
in Sicily in 36 B.C. reads:
iii non. septemb. eo die exerCITVS LEPIDI TRADIDIT SE
CAESARI SVPPLICAtio.
It is instructive to compare the form of Augustus' name here with
that employed in a dedicatory inscription contemporary with the
event,
IMP. CAESARI DIVI F. SICILIA RECEPTA C. PAPIVS CELSVS
M. PAPIVS RANVS FRATRES (C.I.L. III. 14625).
An impressive expression of the feeling which led to the subordina-
tion of the Praenomen Imperatoris in the latter part of Augustus'
life is presented in another entry in the Fasti Cumani,
iii. k. febr. eo die ara pacis aug. dedicata EST SVPPLICATIO IM-
PERIO CAESARIS AVGVSTI CVSTodis civium romanorum
totiusque orbis terrarum.
Augustus is here stated to possess an imperium, but he is not styled
Imperator. In fact, he is given no official title. The guardian of
civilization is not regarded as an official, but as a personality who
is best designated by his personal name, Caesar, coupled with the
appellation, Augustus, which indicates that he enjoys the special
protection and guidance of the gods. We are reminded of the elder
Caesar's famous boast, "I am not King, but Caesar." To have used
IMPERATORIS CAESARIS instead of CAESARIS AVGVSTI
here would have been to strike a far lower note, to have suggested
that Caesar's domination was one of brute force.
The literature of the Principate displays a similar tendency to
avoid the Praenomen Imperatoris ;68 and also the coinage. Whereas,
as we have seen, 69 on the coins issued between 38 and 27 B.C., Oc-
tavianus is almost, if not quite, uniformly referred to as Imp. Caesar,
the Praenomen Imperatoris becomes of rare occurrence on coins
issued at Rome after the Augustan settlement. In general, it may be
said to appear only where the designer is aiming at citing Augustus'
68 In the Latin prose of Augustus' reign the Praenomen Imperatoris ap-
pears only in works published prior to 27 B.C. (e.g., Cornelius Nepos Atticus
19. 2; Vitruvius praef., ad init.) or, in works of a later date, in references to
events of that period (e.g., Livy i. 19. 3; contrast iv. 20, 7, xxviii. 12. 12).
69 P. 37, note 49.
AUGUSTUS' USE OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
43
full titulary. It is commonly omitted even on coins which distinctly
commemorate Augustus' military exploits, e.g.,
CAESAR DIVI F. COS. VII/AEGYPT. CAPTA,
AVGVSTVS/ARMENIA CAPTA,
MARS VLTOR/CAESAR AVGVSTVS SIGN. RECE.,
S. P. Q. R. PARENT. CONS. SVO (eagle, standard, triumphal robe,
and crown) /CAESARI AVGVSTO (triumphal chariot),
AVGVSTVS DIVI F. (laurelled head) / SENAT. P. Q. R. (victory
bearing a shield marked CLV. V).71
Where IMP. does appear with Augustus' name on the Roman coins
of this period, it is usually affixed to his name in the republican man-
ner, and often is accompanied by a numeral.72
73
Most significant of all, because emanating from Augustus him-
self, is the usage of the Monumentum Ancyranum. In that docu-
ment Augustus nowhere employs, or even alludes to, the Praenomen
Imperatoris. He twice refers to his having received Imperatorial
salutations, but he never intimates that he bore Imperator as a per-
manent title. This ignoring of a familiar honor can only be ex-
plained as intentional. On the other hand, he is careful to describe
himself as princeps and also to imply that there were other principes
viri in Rome.75
70Cohen "Oct. Aug.” 82-85, 226, 343-45, 348, 581-82. The following in-
stances, however, cannot be thus explained: Cohen "Oct. Aug." 322, 327, 462,
541-43.
71 Cohen “Oct. Aug." 1, 8, 54, 78, 253. Many other instances could be
quoted.
72 Cohen "Oct. Aug.” 14, 112, 129-77, 202, 212, 298.
73 Appellatus sum viciens semel imperator (chap. 4); quotienscumque im-
perator appellatus sum (chap. 21).
74Me principe (chap. 13); ante me principem (chap. 30).
75 Chap. 12.
}
CHAPTER V
THE CONNOTATION OF THE PRAENOMEN IMPERATORIS
UNDER AUGUSTUS
It has been assumed in the last chapter that the Praenomen Im-
peratoris, as Augustus used it, denoted simply that Augustus was
the foremost military hero of the age. This interpretation of the
title is not universally accepted. The older modern historians, fol-
lowing Dio, held that the Praenomen Imperatoris, like the modern
title Emperor, designated Augustus as the monarch of Rome.¹ More
recent writers have regarded the Praenomen Imperatoris as that
element in Augustus' titulary which represented his proconsulare
imperium,² i.e., his position as "Kriegsherr des römischen Reichs."
In discussing the signification of the Praenomen Imperatoris
under Augustus, it is necessary to distinguish between the official
or Roman interpretation of it and the interpretation put upon it by
the provincials. In either case the point of departure must be the
signification of the title Imperator at the end of the Republican era;
for admittedly the Praenomen Imperatoris was a modification of
the Republican title Imperator, of which it was, so to speak, a super-
lative. That the precise use and sense of the title under the Republic
was still clearly understood in the Augustan period is shown by
Livy's perfect understanding of it.
To a Roman of the Republican period, the word Imperator de-
noted a distinguished fellow-citizen who had enlarged or defended
the empire. It did not denote a master; for under the constitution,
an Imperator ceased to be such when once he crossed the City
limits, i.e., an Imperator had no authority over citizens in their civil
relations. This disposes of the older view that Augustus employed
the Praenomen Imperatoris in the sense of "Emperor." For, even
if he had been the monarch of Rome-which he always disclaimed,
and technically with right-the title Imperator, by reason of its past
history, could only express his control of the army and the provinces ;
it could not express his control of the home administration.
1Vide p. 9, note 7.
3 Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 840 ff.
³Gardthausen, Augustus und seine Zeit, I, ii, 524 ff.
44
CONNOTATION OF THE PRAENOMEN IMPERATORIS
45
The theory that the Praenomen Imperatoris designated Augustus
as the commander-in-chief of the Roman armies has more to be said
for it. It is true that legally Augustus was not the commander-in-
chief of all the Roman armies. The senatorial proconsuls were
technically the imperators of the forces stationed in their provinces,
and the Proconsul of Africa always had a complete legion under his
command. But certainly no one could hear the name Imp. Caesar
Augustus without being reminded that Augustus was virtually the
master of the legions. Yet it is more than doubtful whether this
was the immediate force of the title. There are reasons for thinking
that in Augustus' reign the Praenomen Imperatoris was sensed in
Rome as a military distinction rather than as a title of competence.
In the first place, there are signs that even under the Republic
the title Imperator was coming to be so regarded, that it was becoming
dissociated in men's minds from the legal term imperator. Only
thus can the following usages be explained:
cn. poMPEIO CN. fil. maGNO IMP. COS. TERt. paTRONO PVB-
LICE (C.I.L. I. 615-IX. 5837),
C. CAESAR IMP. COS. ITER. (Bab. "Julia" 14-Cohen "Jul. Cés."
I=Grueber, II, p. 559).
C. Pansa consul imperator, C. Caesar pro praetore imperator, A. Hir-
tius consul imperator (Cic. Phil. xiv, passim).
4
If Imperator be regarded as a title of competence, these usages are
tautologous; for the competence denoted by imperator is implied
in each case by the title consul or pro praetore. Hence, as we have
seen above, the older usage prescribed that the title Imperator should
not be conjoined with magisterial or promagisterial titles. The in-
scription first quoted is the earliest known instance of a violation
of this rule. Such redundant usages are explicable only if we assume
that Imperator was coming to be felt as a species of military decora-
tion rather than as a title of office.
This understanding of the title explains the assumption of it in
the era of the Triumvirate by commanders who were not imperators
in the legal sense. It would further be promoted by the growing
habit of retaining the title after a general had laid down his com-
4P. 2 f.
5
"Vide supra, p. 36, note 44.
1
46
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
6
mand. Moreover, it probably furnishes the true explanation of
such usages as the following:
IMP. CAESARE IX M. SILANO COS. (C.I.L. X. 884).
SER. GALBA IMPERATOR CAESAR AVG. (C.I.L. VI. 2051=
32359),
T. IMP. VESPASIANVS CAESAR AVG. F. (C.I.L. VI. 2059=
32362),
T. CAESAR AVG. F. IMP. VESPASIANVS (C. I. L. VI. 940).
It is such expressions which furnish the strongest support for the
theory of Mommsen that Imperator under the Empire was sensed
as a mere proper name. In the first instance cited IMP. in IMP.
CAESARE seems to parallel M. in M. SILANO. In the other
three IMPERATOR appears in the midst of the elements of the
proper name. In all four it is clear that Imperator is not a title
of office; for in Latin the position of titles of office is after the name.
But these usages can be explained without resorting to the des-
perate expedient of assuming that Imperator was sensed as a mere
name. It is possible to offer as a parallel to the first the natural
English expression, "when General Grant and Schuyler Colfax
were President and Vice-President" and to the others, such usages
as "John Viscount Morley." In these expressions "General" and
"Viscount" are titles, not proper names-but titles not of office but
of distinction, which it would be discourteous to omit. Being per-
sonal distinctions and not titles of office, they precede, or even may
be interjected into the midst of, the personal names proper."
The assumption that Imperator was sensed as a personal dis-
tinctions explains the possibility of transposing Caesar Imp. into
Imp. Caesar. If Imperator be taken as meaning not "commander-
in-chief" but "the victorious," it becomes no distant parallel to
"Vide supra, p. 4, note 17.
"The comparative effect of using titles as affixes and as prefixes is the
same in English as it is in Latin. Contrast the expressions "H. S. Hadley,
Governor" with the expression "Governor Hadley." In the former case "Gov-
ernor" is a pure title of competence; in the latter it is rather a personal dis-
tinction. American usage admits of the employment of "Governor" as a
courtesy title in speaking of an ex-Governor. It does not permit, however, the
employment of such courtesy titles as affixes.
Is this what Mommsen had in mind when he described the Praenomen
Imperatoris as an “Eigenname"? If so his use of language is unfortunate,
and has proved misleading.
}
47
CONNOTATION OF THE PRAENOMEN IMPERATORIS
9
Magnus in Pompeius Magnus, Alexander Magnus, or to Africanus
in Fabius Maximus Africanus; and the habit of writing these names
Magnus Pompeius, Magnus Alexander, 10 Africanus Fabius Maxi-
mus,11 the effect of which was to emphasize the honorary cognomen
by placing it first, would serve as a precedent for the form Imp.
Caesar.
Finally, this interpretation of the Praenomen Imperatoris is in
harmony with the idea which seems to underly Augustus' choice of
titles. Augustus' titulary is not to be regarded as an analysis of his
legal prerogatives. There are whole reaches of his powers which
are not represented by it; his censorial powers, 12 for instance, and
his control of elections.13 The aim of Augustus' titulary was not
to indicate his legal position, but to appeal to men's imaginations.
In other words, it was the creation, not of a lawyer, but of a poli-
tician. In its complete form, it is represented by C.I.L. XI. 367:
IMP. CAESAR DIVI F. AVGVSTVS, PONTIF. MAXIM., COS.
XIII, IMP. XX, TRIBVNIC. POTESTAT. XXXVII, P. P. We
may paraphrase it as follows: "Caesar, the divinely endowed (DIVI
F. AVGVSTVS) guardian of religion (PONTIF. MAXIM.), pro-
tector of the people¹¹ (TRIBVNIC. POTESTAT.), defender of the
empire (Praenomen Imperatoris) and Father of his Country, who
thirteen times has been elected consul and whose prowess has been
displayed on twenty stricken fields (IMP. XX)."
It is to be admitted, however, that the provinces understood the
Praenomen Imperatoris in quite another sense. The provincials per-
sistently failed to understand—or, shall we say, they saw through—
the fiction of the Principate. In their eyes Augustus was the monarch
of the empire, and Imperator (in Greek, avтokpȧrwp) his appropriate
title.
Thus in the list of festivals inscribed upon the great altar of
Rome and Augustus at Narbo, there occurs the entry:
QVOQ. IDVS IANVAR. QVA DIE PRIMVM IMPERIVM ORBIS
TERRARVM AVSPICATVS EST (sc. Augustus) (C.I.L. XII.
4333).
Vide supra, p. 12, note 22.
10 Suet. Jul. 7. I, et alibi.
11 Cited by Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 769, note 5.
12 Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 937 ff., 1044 ff., 1098 ff.
18 Ibid., II, 917 ff.
14Cf. Tacitus' words: ad tuendum plebem tribunicio iure contentus (ann.
i. 2. 1).
48
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
The festival referred to, it will be observed, is the commemoration
of the “re-establishment of the Republic," the occasion on which
Caesar professed to have surrendered his absolute powers. This
act of surrender is here described as the establishment of his im-
perium over the world! Yet this altar is connected with that very
cult of "Rome and Augustus" which was intended to teach the
provincials that not Augustus but Rome was the ruler of the world,
and that Augustus was only Rome's foremost citizen. We are not
unprepared, therefore, to find that in an inscription of the island of
Gaulus cut in the early years of Tiberius' reign,15 Augustus is re-
ferred to as the Imperator instead of as the Princeps, and that on
the provincial and municipal coinage the Praenomen Imperatoris
continued in use even after 27 B.C.16
This divergence of the provincial understanding of the Praeno-
men Imperatoris from the official sense of it is the natural outcome of
the different points of view from which the citizens and the provin-
cials regarded an Imperator, even under the Republic. If to a Roman
of the Republican period an Imperator was a distinguished fellow-
citizen, to a provincial the word denoted a despot. Provincial ad-
ministration under the Republic never advanced beyond the stage
of military occupation. The government of a province was in-
trusted to the commander of the troops stationed in it. The power
of the governor over the lives and fortunes of the inhabitants of
a province was absolute. Even if he transgressed the treaty rights
which certain provincial cities possessed, the provincials had no
recourse against him so long as he remained in office. They could
appeal to the Senate to reverse his acts or prosecute him only after
his resignation. As long as he remained governor, they owed him
unlimited obedience. That a governor of a province was known
in law as an imperator the provincials could not but be aware. They
were accustomed to hear their governors addressed by their sol-
diers as imperator, and it is even possible that they may have used
15C.I.L. X. 7501.
16 Cohen "Oct. Aug." 16, 17, 19, 29, 31-33, 36, 397-405, 647-48, 650, 657-58,
672, 677, 683-85, 689, 692-93, 700, 709, 710, 716, 730-36, 770, 784-85, 788, 798-801,
807, 818, 824, 829, “Aug. et Liv.” 1, 2, 6; “Agrippa et Auguste” 5, 7-12, “C. et L.
Césars, au revers d'Auguste" 2.
CONNOTATION OF THE PRAENOMEN IMPERATORIS
49
that form of address themselves.17 Between an ordinary governor
and one who employed Imperator as a title they doubtless could
discern but little difference. Indeed, as we have seen, in law there
was none. The chief practical difference, from the provincial point
of view, was that whereas an ordinary governor disposed at pleasure
only with the lives and property of individuals, an Imperator often
exercised similar powers over whole states. For the Imperatorial
title usually implied that the general who bore it had added new
territory to the empire; and the organization of such conquests and
the determination of the privileges of the states in them was usually
left to the general himself.18
Hence the downfall of the Republic at Rome involved no loss of
liberty to the provincials, nor did its “re-establishment" by Augustus
in any way change their status. Before as well as after these events,
they had been under arbitrary rule. The only change in their con-
dition wrought by the Augustan settlement was that thenceforward
the majority of the provinces found themselves under one perma-
nent governor, who was more just and considerate than their former
individual and annually changed tyrants. The "senatorial" or "pub-
lic" provinces continued to be administered practically on the old
system; but even they looked to Augustus as, in the last resort, the
controller of their destinies.19 From the point of view of the prov-
inces, therefore, Augustus was the successor of the imperators and
Imperators of previous times.20 They had little comprehension of,
and perhaps little patience with, his preference for the designation
17But in the older provinces at least the customary form of address to a
provincial governor was praetor (Cic. in Verrem i. 54. 142). Tacitus fre-
quently uses the word praetor as a generic term for "provincial governor”
(ann, i. 74. 1, iv. 43. 5, 45. 1, etc.). Cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 240, note 5.
18Normally, to be sure, he was assisted in this task by a senatorial com-
mission specially appointed for that purpose. But in the end of the Republican
era, even this limitation was suffered to lapse. Pompey organized his con-
quests in the East and Caesar arranged the affairs of Gaul unassisted.
19It is usually stated in modern books upon the Principate that Augustus
possessed a majus imperium in the senatorial provinces. This, in the opinion
of the present writer, is not proved; but in any case the influence of Augustus
with the authorities legally in control of these provinces was paramount, and
this the provincials were quick to perceive.
20Thus in a letter of Caesar the Dictator quoted in Jos. ant. 212, the
writer uses the expression πρὸ ἐμοῦ αὐτοκρατόρων.
•
50
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
1
Princeps. To them his appropriate title seemed to be Imperator, and
the honest interpretation of that title, "absolute ruler."
That the eastern provinces in particular should thus understand
the situation is natural in view of their past. The Hellenistic world
was almost a stranger to free institutions. From time immemorial
Asia and Egypt had known nothing but absolute rule. Alexander
and his successors had further drilled them in servility. In the eyes
of the East, Augustus was simply the successor of the Ptolemies
and of the Republican imperators who had stepped into the place
of the Seleucidae. Naturally, therefore, it was in the Greek-speaking
provinces that the tendency to regard Augustus as a monarch and
Imperator as his proper title was most marked; e.g.,
Καισαρι
Ζανι Ελευθεριῳ
Aridos (I.G.R.R.S. I. 1295),
δεσποτοι Ευρωπας τε και
αυτοκρατορα Καισαρα θεον υιον Σεβαστον τον πασης γης και θαλασσης
арxovтa (I.G.R.R.S. I. 901),
θεον Σεβαστον θεον υιον Καισαρα αυτοκρατορα γης και θαλασσης τον
ευεργετην και σωτηρα του συμπαντος κόσμου (I.G.R.R.S. III. 719),
υπερ αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος θεον υιον Σεβαστου και Λειουιας Σεβαστου
και Γαιον Καισαρος και Λεύκιον Καισαρος των υιών του αυτοκρατορος
και Ιουλιας της θυγατρος του αυτοκρατορος (I.G.R.R.S. I. 1109).
Indeed, it was difficult to express in Hellenistic Greek the
idea of the Principate. The words which in the days of free Greece
had connoted the existence of free institutions had all become de-
graded in meaning.21 The Greek language itself had taken on a
servile cast.
The word chosen to represent princeps was yeμwv, "leader."22
But yeμv did not have the uncompromising meaning of "a leading
citizen of a free state" which was suggested by princeps. Even in
classical Greek it had been used of military commanders.23 The
regular Greek equivalent for imperium Romanum was ǹ ǹyeµovia tŵv
21 An interesting instance of this is the use in Hellenistic Greek of the
word Tomteveσ lau. In Philo and Josephus this word quite loses its proper
meaning, “to be a citizen,” and comes to mean “to rule”; e.g., Philo in Flacc. 85:
τοῖς γὰρ ὀρθῶς πολιτευομένοις τῶν ἀρχόντων; Jos. ant. xviii. 256, etc.
22E.g., the Greek version of mon. Anc., passim; Strabo iv. 3. 2; and the
Greek writers, inscriptions, and papyri of the first century. It would be in-
teresting to inquire why the word πроσтáτηs was not chosen.
23E.g., Xen. anab. iv. 7. 8; Thuc. iv. 91, vii. 15.
}
CONNOTATION OF THE PRAENOMEN IMPERATORIS
51
Ρωμαίων 34 Moreover yeμv was coming to be the common word
in Greek for "provincial governor";25 and a provincial governor
certainly did not bear to the provincials over whom he ruled the
relation of a primus inter pares. To an ordinary Greek, therefore,
there would appear no inconsistency in attributing absolute powers to
οἱ ἡγεμόνες τῶν Ρωμαίων. In fact, the only difference between the
word princeps and its equivalents, and the words deoπórns or Túpavvos
which a Greek could readily discern was the distinction between a
"king" and a "tyrant."27
26
It was not so difficult for the Greeks to discover an equivalent for
imperator. In the early days of the Roman domination in the East,
the Greeks sometimes simply transliterated imperator as iµπepάTwp.28
But they soon realized that they had a term in their own language
which made the mere transliteration of the Latin term unnecessary,
viz., the word avтокрάτwр. The Greeks of classical times were
familiar with στρατηγοὶ αὐτοκράτορες and πρεσβεῖς αὐτοκράτορες. By
the former phrase were meant commanders intrusted with discretion-
ary powers, such as commanders sent on distant expeditions like the
Sicilian expedition of 416 B.C.; the latter was the ordinary Greek for
"ambassadors plenipotentiary." The Roman provincial governors
might be said to combine the functions of στρατηγοὶ αὐτοκράτορες and
πрeσßeîs avтокρȧropes. On the one hand, they were the commanders-
in-chief of the forces stationed in their provinces, and in practice they
made war and peace with the neighboring states as they saw fit; on
the other, they were the representatives of the Roman People as
against the subject communities, over which they wielded the full
authority of Rome, for the time being without appeal.29 In one
24E.g., mon. Anc. v. 27; Strabo vi. 4. 2, etc.
25 Strabo xvii. 3. 21; Jos. ant. xv. 405, etc. Even the governor of Egypt,
who lived in the palace of the Ptolemies, was known as the yeuwv (Mitteis
and Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, I, 131).
26 Hence Dio prefers πρокρiтоs to yeμwv as a translation of princeps; xlvi. 20. 5,
liii. 1. 3, lvii. 8.
" Cf. Philo in Flaccum 105: ἔνιοι γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ Τιβερίου καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ
Καίσαρος τῶν διεπόντων τὰς ἐπικρατίας τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ προστασίαν (principatum)
εἰς δυναστείαν καὶ τυραννίδα μεθαρμοσάμενοι, κ. τ. λ.
28 L'ann. ép. (1893) 52.
29 Dr. Fred Smith in his forthcoming Chicago dissertation on Athenian
Political Commissions, maintains that the στρατηγοὶ αὐτοκράτορες and πρεσβεῖς
avтокрáтоpes of classical Greece did not have absolute discretionary powers,
that they were always limited by their instructions, and that if they went
1
52
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
respect, however, the equation of imperator with abтоkpáтwp was mis-
leading. It obscured the fact that imperator was essentially a mili-
tary term, and led the Greeks to interpret it in the sense of "absolute
ruler," a sense which, as far as etymology went,30 it might very well
bear. It was in this sense that the Greeks interpreted the title as
applied to the emperors.
The fundamental difficulty which the provincials in general found
with the conception of the Principate is suggested by a phrase of
Strabo's. Strabo speaks of Augustus having been entrusted by the
Fatherland with τὴν προστασίαν τῆς ἡγεμονίας.3 The literal translation
of this phrase in Latin is principatum imperii (sc. Romani). From
the point of view of the theory of the Augustan settlement, this
language is in the highest degree unorthodox. Augustus was the
princeps, not of the empire, but of the Roman citizen body. It was
the latter which was the sovereign of the empire. This refinement it
was not difficult for a Roman to grasp, for he was surrounded by the
institutions of the "re-established" republic; but despite the efforts
of Augustus to spread the cult of the goddess Rome in the provinces,
it was an idea upon which the provincials ever failed to lay hold. It
was, from their point of view, too complicated and too unreal. They
were too familiar with despotism not to recognize its lineaments under
the thin disguise of the Principate. If for some occult reason
Augustus preferred the title Princeps to that of Imperator, they must
perforce respect his wishes; but they were not concerned with his
relations to the citizen body, but with his relations to themselves.
Even while using the word Princeps, they thought of Augustus as the
monarch of the empire.
beyond these their acts were liable to be disowned. But even if we assume
that this limitation was remembered as late as the second century B.C., the
period in which the identification of the terms imperator and abтоKPȧTWP
became fixed, the correctness of that identification is not impaired; for the
provincial governors were expected to carry out the instructions of the
Senate and were liable to have their acta annulled if they transgressed those
instructions. In practice, we may feel sure, this limitation of the governors'
powers was less apparent than the "autocratic" nature of their authority.
30Imperator qui imperat.
31 xvii. 3. 25.
CHAPTER VI
THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
4
Tiberius on his accession refused to assume the Praenomen
Imperatoris.¹ In this he was actuated in part, perhaps, by the same
feeling which had led the elder Caesar² and Agrippa³ to avoid it.
Tiberius was no carpet knight, and he probably had a contempt for
military vanities. It is noteworthy that after his accession he dropped
the cognomen Germanicus, which had been accorded him toward the
close of Augustus' reign in recognition of his services in the North.*
But his unwillingness to assume the Praenomen Imperatoris was due
still more to his loyalty to Augustus' memory and to the principles of
the Augustan settlement. He may have felt it fitting that the com-
mander whose sword had established the Pax Romana should be dis-
tinguished as the Imperator of all time; and it is certain that he was
anxious, like his adoptive father, to be regarded as princeps civitatis,
rather than as imperator. Dio tells us that he was fond of declaring,
δεσπότης (dominus) μὲν τῶν δούλων αὐτοκράτωρ (imperator) δὲ τῶν
στρατιωτῶν τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν προκρίτος (princeps) είμι.5
The book of Velleius Paterculus shows how thoroughly the pure
doctrine of the Principate was understood at Tiberius' court. Vel-
leius writes as if he had Tiberius' favorite saying pinned above his
desk. Not merely does he describe Augustus and Tiberius frequently
¹Suet. Tib. 26; Dio lvii. 2. 8. The Praenomen Imperatoris occurs prefixed
to his name in a few extant inscriptions and coin legends (C.I.L. III. 10918,
VIII. 685, 10018, 10492; Cohen "Tib." 116, 203-4, 211-12). But these inscrip-
tions and coins emanate from outlying portions of the empire and may be
referred to the early months of his reign, when his wishes were not yet
understood.
2Vide supra, p. 16, note 4.
зVide supra, p. 35.
*Dio lvii. 8. 1. This cognomen is of not infrequent occurrence in in-
scriptions prior to his accession (C.I.L. VI. 4353, 4398, 6152, 10368=34009).
The only extant instance of its use after his accession seems to be C.I.L.
VI. 8810.
51vii. 8. 1. 2.
53
Um
54
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
8
6
7
9
and consistently as principes, but he takes pains, by using the word
princeps in other conections, to make its meaning plain. He describes
Virgil as princeps carminum, Q. Catulus as omnium confessione
senatus princeps, a certain army as inter Romanos milites princeps.
He thus makes it clear that the word princeps, as applied to Augustus
and Tiberius, designated them simply as the "foremost" among
Roman citizens. He further intimates that they were only the suc-
cessors of a long line of "first citizens" of Rome, by giving a partial
list of the latter;10 indeed, they were not the only principes viri even
of their own day." Their rule rested, not upon a certum imperium
vimque regiam, but was simply an ex voluntate parentium constans
inter suos
principatus.12 He is careful not to use the word
Imperator to describe their place in the state. The word imperator
occurs frequently in his pages,13 but only in its Republican senses of
"general" or "victorious general." He uses it of Tiberius only in
describing his campaigns under Augustus ;14 he never applies it to him
after his accession. Indeed, in describing the mutiny of the German
legions in the beginning of Tiberius' reign, he even goes so far as to
designate Germanicus as the imperator of the German army, and
Tiberius as its "former imperator" (vetus imperator),15 ignoring the
fact that that army and Germanicus himself had taken the military
oath to Tiberius,10 and that Tiberius was still its supreme commander-
in-chief.17
•
6ii. 38. 3, 89. 4, 6, 90. 1, 94. 2, 97. I, III. I, 113. 1, 115. 3, 116. 4, 124. 2, 3, 125. 2,
126. 4, 5, 128. 1, 4, 129. 1, 2, 3.
Tii. 36. 3.
8ii. 43. 3.
9ii. 119. 2.
10ii. 128. Elsewhere he describes M. Antonius the father of the Triumvir
(i. 22.3), Crassus (ii.44.2), Pompey (ii.53.2), the elder Caesar (ii. 57. 1, 68. 5),
and Antony the Triumvir (ii. 66. 4, 72. 2) as principes.
11ii 89, 4.
12In his description of the position of Maroboduus, Velleius is implicitly
defining the terms used in describing that of Augustus and Tiberius.
13In the sense of "general": ii. 19. 3, 46. 3, 55. 3, 62. 5, 63. 1, 70. 3, 84. 1,
85. 3, 5, 90. 2, III. 4, 112. 5, 120. 5; in the sense of "victorious general": i. 13. 2, 3,
ii. 15. 3, 24. 1, 33. 2, 40. 3, 54. I, 59. 2, 69. 2, 89. 6.
14ii. 96. 3, 104. 3, 4, 106. I, 110. 6, 113. 2, 114. 4, 115. 2, 5, 121. 1, 125. 3.
15ii 104. 3.
16Tac. ann. i. 37. 4.
¹Tac. ann. i. 38. 3, 42. 4, ii. 18. The Princeps was the imperator of all the
legions except that stationed in Africa.
:
i
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE TITLE
55
The Geographica of Strabo furnishes another illustration of the
rigor with which orthodoxy in regard to the theory of the Principate
was insisted upon at Tiberius' court. Strabo describes the founding
of the Empire thus:
καί αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν Ἰταλίαν διαστᾶσαν πολλάκις, ἀφ' οὗ γε ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίοις
ἐστί, καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν Ῥώμην ἡ τῆς πολιτείας ἀρετὴ καὶ τῶν ἡγεμόνων εκώλυσεν
ἐπὶ πλέον προελθεῖν πλημμελείας καὶ διαφθορᾶς. χαλεπὸν δ᾽ ἄλλως διοικεῖν
τὴν τηλικαύτην ἡγεμονίαν ἢ ἑνὶ ἐπιτρέψαντας ὡς πατρί. οὐδέποτε γοῦν
εὐπορῆσαι τοσαύτης εἰρήνης καὶ ἀφθονίας ἀγαθῶν ὑπῆρξε Ῥωμαίοις καὶ τοῖς
συμμάχοις αὐτῶν ὅσην Καισάρ τε ὁ Σεβαστός παρέσχεν ἀφ' οὗ παρέλαβε
τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτοτελῆ καὶ νῦν ὁ διαδεξάμενος υἱὸς ἐκεῖνον παρέχει Τιβέριος,
κανόνα τῆς διοικήσεως καὶ τῶν προσταγμάτων ποιούμενος ἐκεῖνον καὶ αὐτὸν
οἱ παῖδες αὐτοῦ Γερμανικός τε καὶ Δροῦσος ὑπουργοῦντες τῷ πατρί.18
Strabo throughout his book carefully avoids describing Augustus
and Tiberius as αὐτοκράτορες. He invariably uses the word ήγεμών
(princeps).10 In the present passage he refers to Augustus as Καίσαρ
ὁ Σεβαστός (Caesar Augustus) and to Tiberius simply as "Augustus
son and successor” (ὁ διαδεξάμενος υἱὸς ἐκεῖνον.30 He implies that there
had been yeμóves in Rome from the beginning, and that Augustus
and Tiberius were simply the most recent of the long line of Rome's
"leading statesmen." These features of his language reflect the pure
Augustan doctrine, and correspond to the usage of Velleius. But in
Strabo they have an unnatural ring. The phrase τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτοτελῆ
escapes him in describing the position of Augustus; and Augustus is
ascribed a paternal authority over the empire. Strabo, as a Greek pro-
vincial, cannot disabuse himself of the idea that οἱ ἡγεμόνες τῶν Ρωμαίων
possess an imperium orbis terrarum. However carefully he may
adhere to the creed of the Principate, he is prevented by what a
theologian would call invincible ignorance from comprehending the
faith.22 For that very reason, however, he is the best witness as to
the way in which the use of the Augustan formulas was insisted upon
by Tiberius.
The fidelity with which Tiberius himself adhered in general to the
Augustan theory of the constitution this is not the place to discuss;
18vi. 4. 2, ad fin.
19E.g., iii. 4. 20, iv. 3. 2.
20This phrase occurs again in iii.3.8.
21The Greek equivalent for imperium.
22 For another illustration of his incapacity to be inwardly true to the
theory of the Phincipate, vide supra, p. 52.
\
56
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
he adhered to it strictly in the matter of the use of imperator. He
monopolized neither the formal imperium nor the Imperatorial
title. He recognized the proconsuls of Africa as legal imperators, 23
and is said by Velleius to have sent an officer to Spain cum imperio.24
He procured an extraordinary imperium proconsulare for Ger-
manicus in 14 A.D.,25 and in 17 A.D. had the Senate confer upon him
a majus imperium over the eastern provinces.26 Perhaps he pro-
cured a proconsulare imperium also for his son Drusus.27 Germanicus
had already received an Imperatorial salutation under Augustus.28
Under Tiberius he received a second,29 which was allowed to culmi-
nate in a triumph.80 In addition, an ovation was voted him on account
of his successful conduct of his eastern mission,31 but its celebration
was prevented by his death. Drusus was likewise suffered to cele-
brate an ovation.82 Even more significant was the permission granted
Julius Blaesus, when proconsul of Africa, to assume the Imperatorial
title.88 Blaesus, it is true, was not allowed to triumph, but only
granted the ornamenta triumphalia,.84 but this also was in accord with
Augustan precedent.85 Tiberius himself employed the Imperatorial
title only in the Republican sense, as a military distinction. He was
already Imp. VII before his accession.86 He received another saluta-
28 Tac. ann. iii. 21. 4.
24Vell. ii. 125. 5. This probably means that Tiberius recognized the Pro-
consul of Baetica as legally an imperator.
25 Tac. ann. i. 14. 4. Hence Germanicus is referred to as an imperator in
i. 44. 7, etc.
28Ibid. ii. 43. 2. Hence Germanicus is referred to as an imperator in iii.
12. 4.
27 Mommsen (Staatsrecht, II, 1152, note 1) infers this from Tac. ann. iii.
56: incolumi Germanico integrum inter duos (sc. Germanicus and Drusus)
iudicium tenuisset. He supposes that Drusus received the proconsulare im-
perium on his departure for Illyricum in 17 A.D. This inference however is
somewhat precarious, especially in view of the fact that the Imperatorial
title is denied Drusus in inscriptions. Compare the titularies of Germanicus
and of Drusus in C.I.L. VI. 909 and 910.
28 Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, p. 17.
29 Tac. ann. i. 58. 9. He is styled Imp. II in C.I.L. II. 1517, 2039, 2198,
VI. 909, 921, X. 460, 513, etc.
80Ibid. ii. 41. 2.
81Ibid. ii. 64. I.
82Ibid. ii. 64. 1; iii. 19. 4.
38Ibid. iii. 74. 6.
84Ibid. iii. 72. 6.
35Vide supra, p. 40, note 63, and Mommsen, Staatsrecht, I, 136, 466.
86 Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, p. 17.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE TITLE
57
tion from the German army in 16 A.D.87 Thenceforth to the end of
his reign he wrote himself, when he used the Cognomen Imperatoris
at all, Imp. VIII.38 It is noteworthy that he did not appropriate the
salutation of Germanicus in the preceding year or even the salutation
of Blaesus. The fact that in inscriptions and coin legends the Cog-
nomen Imperatoris is frequently omitted from his titulary, even
where the titulary is otherwise formal and complete,39 is an indication
that he did not regard the Imperatorial title as a title of competence.
It need hardly be said, of course, that Tiberius' care not to seem
to monopolize the military imperium and the Imperatorial title was a
mere pose. The disuse of the Praenomen Imperatoris betokened no
real change in the Principate. Tiberius remained, like Augustus, the
virtual, and for the most part the legal, imperator of the Roman
armies; and his personal safety and the interests of the world de-
manded that he should brook no rival in military prestige. It is worth
noting that Germanicus took care not to presume upon the honors he
had received. His Imperatorial salutation of 15 A.D. was not spon-
taneously accorded him on the field of battle. He accepted it only
on his return to winter quarters when it was offered him auctore
Tiberio,40 and he took care to return the compliment the following
year by procuring from the same army an Imperatorial salutation for
Tiberius. He never employs the Imperatorial title on his coins.42
The remaining emperors of the Julio-Claudian line followed
Tiberius' example in abstaining from the use of the Praenomen
Imperatoris. Neither the Praenomen nor the Cognomen Imperatoris
41
87Tac. ann. ii. 18. 2.
38 Cohen "Tib." passim; C.I.L. VI. 885, 903, 1253 (=31565a), XI. 367,
XIII. 4481, and the indexes to C.I.L.
39 Vide the indexes to C.I.L. In the unindexed volumes it is omitted in
titularies otherwise complete in VI. 902, 2024-26, XI. 3783-84, 3872; also, perhaps
less significantly, in VI. 92, 1255 (=31571), 3675 (=30856), 3749 (=31278),
30690; XI. 3185. On the coins listed in Cohen, Imperator is about as fre-
quently omitted as employed, if the provincial coins be disregarded. In the
papyri, the title avтоkρaтwp hardly ever is attached to Tiberius' name; but the
papyri seldom quote his full titulary, but refer to him simply as Tußepios Kawap
Σεβαστος.
40Tac. ann. i. 58. 9.
41Ibid. ii. 18. 2. The fact that this salutation was accorded him on the
field of battle supports the surmise that it was suggested by Germanicus.
42 Vide Cohen.
:
58
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
occurs in the titulary of Gaius on his extant monuments43 or coins,44
except in the provinces. The only exception is in the Acta Arvalium
for 40 A.D., where the Praenomen Imperatoris is supplied by the
editors.45 The omission of the Cognomen Imperatoris is especially
noteworthy, for Gaius undoubtedly received an Imperatorial saluta-
tion in Gaul.46 Claudius was avid of Imperatorial salutations. He
accumulated no less than twenty-seven in the course of his reign.47
Naturally, therefore, the Cognomen Imperatoris frequently occurs in
his titulary; but he never assumed the Praenomen Imperatoris.49
Nero also for the most part avoided it.50 The only urban inscription
in which it appears is the Acta Arvalium for 66 A.D.,51 the year of the
Vinician conspiracy, which seems to have had for its object the sup
48 In C.I.L. XI. 4778, Gaius' full titulary is given as: C. Caesar Ang. Ger-
manicus, Germanici Caesaris f., Ti. Caesaris n., Divi Aug. p., p.m., trib. pot.,
cos. Cf. also VI. 811, 886, 889, 2028-30, 2298, 5188, 5822, 7703, 8823-24, 9061,
31281, 31765, 32345-47, 33767, XI. 720, 3598, XIII. 1189, and the indexes to
C.I.L.
44 Vide Cohen. Cohen "Cal." 12 and 30 are probably of provincial pro-
venience.
pose.
45C.I.L. VI. 32347. By this time Gaius had abandoned his republican
46 Gaius sent litterae laureatae to the Senate from Gaul (Suet. Cal. 44. 2),
and planned a triumph (ibid. 47); although he eventually celebrated only an
ovation (ibid. 49. 2).
47C.I.L. VI. 1256.
48 Vide the indexes to C.I.L. The following inscriptions in the unindexed
volumes of C.I.L. will illustrate Claudius' usage. Those which display the
Cognomen Imperatoris are starred. VI. 64, 70, 138, 353, 562,* 915,* 916*
(=31201), 917* (=31283), 919, 920* (cf. p. 841), 921 (=31284), 922-23, 924
(=31205), 1231* (=31537), 1252,* 1254,* 1256,* 1403, 2031-36, 3751,* (=31282),
4226, 4226α, 4236, 4348, 4887, 5011, 5239, 5650, 8601, 8603, 8662, 8665, 8839,
8843, 8952, 31285, 33194, XI. 5,* 1169,* 1835, 2999,* 3199, 3593, 3599, 3790,*
3791,* 3792,* 5999,* 6114,* 6163, XIII, 254,* 590,* 1037,* 1038, 1039, 1610,*
1615. The Cognomen Imperatoris appears on more than half of the coins
of Claudius listed in Cohen.
49 Suet. Claud. 12.
5º It occurs frequently however on his coins; vide Cohen. But with the
exception noted in the text and those noted in the next note, it does not occur
in his inscriptions. Hardly any of Nero's inscriptions in the unindexed
volumes of C.I.L. display a full titulary.
51C.I.L. VI. 2044. It is noteworthy that other inscriptions of the same
year atribute to him the Praenomen Imperatoris: C.I.L. X. 8014, XI. 395,
1331. It occurs also in VI. 8806 (a military epitaph) and IX. 4115.
*
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE TITLE
59
1
•
planting of Nero by the great general Corbulo.52 The motive for its
employment in this instance was evidently to emphasize that Nero
was the superior of all military commanders, however famous.
Throughout the Julian period, moreover, it remained customary
at Rome to refer to the emperor as the Princeps, not as the Imperator,
except when his relation to the army or the provinces was in mind.
In the inscriptions princeps occasionally appears among the emperor's
titles from the reign of Tiberius onward.53 Thus Gaius is described
on his mother's funeral urn as C. Caesar Aug. Germanicus princeps,54
and under Claudius an event is stated to have occurred Gaii princi-
patu.55 But the most conclusive evidence is that furnished by
Seneca's De Clementia. The De Clementia was written as a vade
mecum for a despot. It opens with a highly rhetorical description
of Nero's omnipotence. Nero is exhorted to remind himself,
egone ex omnibus mortalibus placui electusque sum qui in terris deorum
vice fungerer? egone vitae necisque gentibus arbiter ?56
Seneca equates the terms princeps and rex,57 and compares the rela-
tion of a rex to his subjects with that of a master to his slaves.58 In
another passage he remarks,
non est unum imperandi genus; imperat princeps civibus suis, pater liberis,
praeceptor discentibus, tribunus vel centurio militibus.59
From beginning to end of the book, Nero is described in the most
emphatic terms as an absolute ruler; yet he is consistently referred to
as the Princeps.60 It is obvious that Seneca is using the word princeps
in a new and most unnatural sense. The words imperat princeps are
52 Henderson, Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero, pp. 387 ff.
53 C.I.L. VI. 93, 902, 904 (Tiberius); VI. 886 (Gaius); VI. 2034 (line 8),
X. 1401 (line 3) (Claudius); VI. 2037(=31352), X. 7832 (lines 9, 10) (Nero);
VI. 944 (Titus); VI. 956, 2074, XI. 1147, 3309 (Trajan); VI. 967 (Hadrian);
VI, 1001, 2084, 2086, XI. 1424, 5694 (Pius); VI. 2093 (line 7) (M. Aurelius);
VI. 2099, 2100 (Commodus); XI. 3873 (Pertinax); VI. 1033, XI. 3201, XIII.
1681 (Septimius Severus); XI. 2648 (Caracalla); VI. 1079 (Macrinus); VI.
1079 (Elagabalus); VI. 1090 (Gordian III); VI. 1106, XI. 3091 (Gallienus);
VI. 1112 (Aurelian); XI. 6501 (Carus). Vide also the indexes to C.I.L.
54C. I. L. VI. 886.
55C. I. L. V. 5050 (line 12).
56i. I. 2.
57i. 4. 3.
581. 18. 3.
59j. 16. 2.
6ºIn the De Clementia the word imperator occurs only twice (i. 4. I, 5. 2).
In both cases the relation of the emperor to the army is in mind. Instances
of its occurrence in similar contexts in other writings of Seneca are dial.
iv. 10. 4, 31. 4, v. 2. 4, vii. 26. 2, ix. 4. 5, 8. 6; ep. lxxxiii. 12.
60
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
!
a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, the word imperator,
in its later sense of qui imperat or "autocrat," would have expressed
Seneca's meaning precisely. His retention of the term princeps can
be explained only on the supposition that as yet it was the only word
in Latin for “emperor," and that the use of imperator in the sense of
"emperor" had not yet come in at Rome.61
62
Yet there were forces at work which were making the substitution
of imperator for princeps as the common noun for "emperor" nat-
ural, if not inevitable. In the first place, there was the influence of
the provinces. We have already seen that imperator rather than
princeps was the true term to describe the relation of the emperor
to the provincials, and that even under Augustus the Greek-speaking
portions of the empire were accustomed to refer to him as the
avтоκρȧTwp. This continued. Philo, for example, while he fre-
quently refers to the emperors as yeμóves, evidently regards
aŮтокράтwρ as their proper designation, and uses that term con-
stantly. There can be no question as to the sense which he attaches
to it. He understands it in the sense of "autocrat."64 For Philo the
empire is a hereditary monarchy rules by ò σeßaσTòs oikos.65 If he
does not, like Josephus, expressly describe the empire as a Baoiλela,
he essentially regards it as such. It is not surprising, therefore, that
the title Imperator (avтоkρáтwρ) should continue in frequent use in the
provinces, even under emperors who showed a distaste for that title.
Thus avтокρȧTwp is frequently appended to the name of Gaius in the
63
66
61In the Acta Arvalium for 38 A.D. there is a notice of a sacrifice on March
18: QVOD HOC DIE C. CAESAR AVG. GERM. A SENATV IMPERATOR
APPELLATVS EST. This however is no indication that under Gaius
imperator was already displacing princeps as the word for "emperor." The
reference is to the conferring of the proconsulare imperium, which was the
first step in the formal creation of a Princeps (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 842,
note 2).
62 Vide supra, pp. 50 ff.
63 Cf. Τιβερίου μὲν τελευτήσαντος Γαίου δ᾽ ἀποδειχθέντος αὐτοκράτορος, in Flaccum 9;
ibid. 15, 83, 97, 105, 150; leg..ad Gaium 26, 29, 30, et passim.
64 Thus ǹyeµovía is frequently equated with åpxý (in Flaccum 12, leg. ad Gaium 24,
et passim): phrases like ǹyeµwv yŷs kai Oaλáoons are common (leg. ad Gaium 8, 19, 44,
etc.); Gaius is called å vûv deσtórŋs (in Flaccum 23); he remarks ávvπev@vvov elvai
Tòv aŮTOKρáTopa (leg. ad Gaium 28), etc.
65 ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ὁ σεβαστός οἶκος ἀνήψατο γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης (in Flaccum 104;
cf. ibid. 23, 49; leg. ad Gaium 48, etc.).
66 Cf. oi Pwμaiwv ßaoideîs, b. j. v. 563 et passim. I Pet. ii. 13. 17.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE TITLE
61
papyri," although, as we have seen,68 the Cognomen Imperatoris is
usually absent from his titulary in inscriptions set up in the capital.
On the Latin provincial coinage also, the Cognomen Imperatoris
appears with the names of all the Julian emperors with noteworthy
frequency. Especially remarkable is the fact that already under
Tiberius there begins the custom of quoting the Cognomen Im-
peratoris without a numeral attached, which suggests that it was
taken by the provincials as a title of office." The provincial inscrip-
tions show the same natural tendency to cite the Cognomen Im-
peratoris. It is only to be expected, for example, that the caption
of the record of the oath which the townspeople of Aritium in Lusi-
tania took to Gaius as their imperator should refer to him as C.
CAESARIS GERMANICI IMP.70 Even the Praenomen Im-
peratoris occurs sporadically in the provinces with the names of
Tiberius,"¹ Gaius,72 Claudius,78 and Nero.74 In truth, the omission of
the title Imperator from the titulary of the emperor left that titulary
imperfect. It deprived it of all reference to the emperor's connection
with the army and with the provinces ; i. e., to his connection with the
vast majority of the inhabitants of the Roman world. This omission
the provincials, of course, would especially feel. The steady infiltra-
tion of provincial blood into the Roman citizen body, both among the
commons and among the nobility, could not but infect Rome itself
with provincial conceptions and forms of speech.
But in the capital itself changes early began to take place which,
by revealing the hollowness of the theory of the Principate and the
67Cf. the indexes to the various collections.
68 Vide supra, pp. 57 f.
69 The Cognomen Imperatoris appears on the following coins of Tiberius:
Cohen "Tib." II,* 27,* 81-83,* 89,* 126,* 127-30, 161-63, 68-175,* 196, 200,
207, 214-15,✶ 216-27, 230-50; in the cases starred without a numeral. It occurs
without a numeral on the following coins of Gaius: Cohen "Cal." 36-45, 48,
55; and on the following coins of Claudius: Cohen "Claud. Ier.” 1, 2, 13, 14,
16, 22, 24, 38, 39, 47, 49, 54, 64, 67, 68, 70-75, 81, 83-85, 92-93, 95-96, 99, 117, 129-31.
Vide Cohen Neron, passim.
70C.I.L. II. 172. For references to the oath taken by the provincials in
the imperial provinces to the emperor see: Tac. ann. i. 31, 34; Jos. ant. xviii.
124; Pliny, ep. ad Traj. 52-53, 103 (sworn annually); mon. Anc. 5. 3.
71Vide supra, p. 53, note 1.
72C.I.L. III. 6664, 10918, VIII. 685, 5205, 10018, 10492.
78C.I.L. VI. p. 841 (an inscription of Cyzicus); VIII. 5205, 10492 (?);
Cohen "Claud. 1er." 113-15.
74Vide supra, p. 58, note 51.
62
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
fact that the empire was at bottom a military monarchy, tended to
make an eventual substitution of imperator for princeps as the cus-
tomary designation of the ruler of the state almost inevitable; and
strange as it may seem, it was Tiberius himself who struck the
Augustan settlement the first and most fatal blow. Tiberius concen-
trated the Praetorian Guard in a camp just outside the city.75 The
result was that the foundation of physical force which underlay the
Principate, even under Augustus, was now uncovered. It could no
longer be represented, in the presence of such a force, that the author-
ity of the Princeps rested solely upon the unfettered consent of the
people; and the Praetorians were led to realize their power. They
became the most powerful single element in the political situation.
They were the main reliance of Sejanus, who probably had suggested
their concentration in the first place. The anxiety of Tiberius lest
they should intervene in Sejanus' behalf probably delayed the latter's
fall.76 Gaius," Claudius,78 and Nero," all owed the throne in large
measure to their support. Claudius paid them the compliment of
counting their recognition of him as emperor as his first Imperatorial
salutation;8⁰ and this became a precedent.81 Nero, detested as he
was, was secure until they turned against him.82 As long as the mili-
tary remained content with a Princeps, his position was unassailable.
Gaius took a further step toward making imperator a synonym
for princeps when he took the command of the African legion away
from the senatorial proconsul and committed it to the legate of
Numidia, his own subordinate.88 The last force not under the
supreme command of the Princeps thus passed under his control.
Thenceforward the Princeps was the only imperator in the Roman
75Tac. ann. iv. 2; Suet. Tib. 37. 1; Dio lvii. 19. 6; Aurelius Victor Caes. 2.
76Cf. Tiberius' precautions: Dio lviii. 9-13; Suet. Tib. 65; Tac. ann.
vi. 23. 5.
77Gaius owed the throne largely to the support of Macro, the Praefect of
the Praetorians: Tac. ann. vi. 45. 5, 46. 3, 48. 4, 50. 5-9; Dio lviii. 28; Suet.
Cal. 12. 2.
78Jos. ant. xix 186-88; b. j. ii 204-5; Suet. Cal. 60; Claud. 10; Dio lx. 1.
79Tac. ann. xii. 68-69; Suet. Nero 8; Dio lxi. 3. 1; Jos. ant. xx. 148-96.
80Cf. Cohen "Claude 1er." 40-41, 47-48, 70-71, all of which coins were
issued in the very beginning of his reign.
81Vide supra, p. 1, note 2.
82 Suet. Nero xlvii. 3; Dio lxiii. 27. 3.
88Tac. hist. iv. 48; Dio lix. 20. 7; C.I.L. VIII, p. xv.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE TITLE
63
world. The words imperator and princeps, therefore, now denoted
the same person; but they were not yet interchangeable. The latter
alone was used to describe the relation of the emperor to the state as
a whole; the former was employed only when his relation to the army
or the provinces was in mind. To cite a modern analogy, the Presi-
dent of the United States is also ex officio commander-in-chief of
the American army; but he is always referred to as "the President,"
not as "the Commander-in-Chief."
The definitive adoption of the Praenomen Imperatoris as a stand-
ing title of the emperor and the introduction of the indiscriminate use
of the words princeps and imperator were greatly hastened by the
events of 68-69 A.D., the disastrous "Year of Confusion." In that
year, in Tacitus' well-known words, "a secret about the empire be-
came known, that a Princeps might be created elsewhere than in
Rome."84 The provincial armies began to emulate the Praetorians
and to nominate emperors.
To the soldiery, the emperor had never been a princeps (i. e., a
primus inter pares), but an imperator. Imperator had always been
the soldier's mode of address to him; and after the time of Gaius, the
Princeps was the only officer so addressed. Therefore, when an
army wished to pledge its allegiance to a Princeps, its natural mode
of so doing was to hail him as its imperator. It was thus that the
Praetorians had nominated Claudius,85 and it was thus that the
various armies in 68 and 69 A.D. nominated Galba,86 Otho,87 Verginius
Rufus,88 Vitellius,89 and Vespasian.90 Such a demonstration was in
form indistinguishable from the Imperatorial salutations of Repub-
lican times. Hence officers thus saluted immediately assumed the
Imperatorial title.
,
The coins and inscriptions of Galba for the most part display the
title Imperator. Galba, however, apparently preferred to use the
title as a cognomen, rather than as a praenomen. His favorite style
seems to have been Servius Galba Imp. Caesar Augustus.91 Instances.
86 Suet. Galba 10; Plut. Galba 5, 10.
84Tac. hist. I. 4.
85 Suet. Claud. 10; Dio lx. I, 3.
87 Suet. Otho 6; Dio lxiv. 5. 3.
88Tac. hist. i. 8; Dio lxiii. 25. I; Plut. Galba 6.
89 Suet. Vit. 8. 1; Tac. hist. i. 57; Plut. Galba 22; Dio lxiv. 4. 2.
9º Suet. Vesp. 6; Tac. hist. 2. 80; Dio lxv. 8. 4.
91 In this style Imp. precedes Caesar Augustus for the reason probably that
it was the first distinction to be conferred.
64
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
•
94
of the Praenomen Imperatoris with his name are confined to private
or provincial inscriptions.92 Otho regularly employed the Praenomen
Imperatoris. He chose to be known as Imp. M. Otho Caesar Augus-
tus.93 Vitellius, on the other hand, invariably used the Cognomen
Imperatoris, preferring it to any other title. His chosen style was
A. Vitellius Imp. Germanicus (or Germanicus Imp.) Augustus.95
Vespasian reverted to the use of the Praenomen Imperatoris ;
and from his reign onward, it remained a fixture in the imperial
titulary. He elected to be known as Imp. Caesar Vespasianus Augus-
tus.96
His sons framed their official names on this model;97 and
thenceforward, until the time of Diocletian and after, Imp. Caesar
continued to be the first two elements in every emperor's titulary.
This form of name is obviously a reminiscence of the name of the
first emperor, Imp. Caesar Augustus. Vespasian's employment of
the Praenomen Imperatoris, however, was suggested rather by that
of Octavianus the Triumvir than by that of Augustus the Princeps.
He, and particularly his sons, treated the Praenomen Imperatoris as
their most distinctive title. It almost invariably appears on their
coins; and is rarely omitted in the most abbreviated references98 to
92 The following inscriptions illustrate the usage of Galba. Those in which
the Praenomen Imperatoris appears are marked with an asterisk. C.I.L.
II. 2799,* III. 8702 and diplomata IV-VI, VI. 155, 471, 928, 2051 (=32359),
X, 770-71, 7894, XI, 4666,*, 6685.* Cf. also his coins in Cohen.
93Cf. C.I.L. VI. 2051 (=32359) and his coins.
94He at first would not permit himself to be addressed as Augustus (Suet.
Vit. 8. 2) and refused to be called Caesar until just before his death (ibid.;
Tac. hist. i. 62, iii. 58).
95Cf. C.I.L. VI. 929, 2051 (=32359) and his coins.
96This is the full form of Vespasian's name in the majority of the extant
inscriptions, although occasional variations are found; e. g., Imp. Vespasianus
Caesar Augustus (C.I.L. III, p. 849, etc.) and Imp. Caesar Augustus Ves-
pasianus (C.I.L. XI. 1171, 2999, 6106, etc.). The inscriptions of Vespasian and
Titus discovered down to 1900 may be found collected in Newton, The Epi-
graphical Evidence for the Reigns of Vespasian and Titus ("Cornell Studies in
Classical Philology,” 1901).
97Titus and Domitian respectively were usually known as Imp. Titus
Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, Imp. Caesar Domitianus Augustus; Nerva as
Imp. Nerva Caesar Augustus; Trajan as Imp. Caesar Nerva Trajanus Au-
gustus; although in each case occasional variations are found. Thenceforward
the usage remains practically fixed.
98Thus Tacitus in casual references refers to Augustus as Imperator Au-
gustus (hist. 1. 90), Domitian as Imperator Domitianus (ann. xi. 11), and Tra-
jan as Imperator Trajanus (Germ. 37).
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE TITLE
65
them, in consular datings," or even household inscriptions.100 This
likewise remained the customary usage under the succeeding emperors
until the period of the Oriental monarchy.
In one other respect Vespasian copied the usage of Augustus.
Under Augustus lesser imperators were permitted to employ the
Cognomen Imperatoris, the superiority of the Princeps being marked
by the Praenomen Imperatoris. Titus, Vespasian's son and assistant,
in 71 A.D.101 was granted a proconsulare imperium, and allowed to
employ the Cognomen Imperatoris.102 This, however, is the last
instance of the employment of the Cognomen Imperatoris to denote
a subordinate Imperator.103 In the course of the second century,
Caesar or nobilissimus Caesar (after the personal name) became the
customary title to designate the heir to the throne, the reigning em-
peror being distinguished by the title Augustus.104 The use made of
99 E. g., IMP. CAESARE VESPASIANO III M. COCCEIO NERVA
COS. (C.I.L X. 4734).
100E.g., AEPOLO IMP. T. AVG. DISP. GALBIANO (C.I.L. VI. 8819).
In inscriptions of slaves and freedmen of Augustus the Praenomen Impera-
toris is hardly ever found.
101 The date is established by the coinage; vide Pauly-Wissowa, VI, col.
2711.
102E.g., IMP. CAESARE VeSPASIANO AVG. VI TITO CAESARe
¡MP. IIII CoS. (C.I. L. VI. 2054). It frequently appears, strangely, in the
middle of his name thus: T. Imp. Vespasianus Caesar Aug. f. (C.I.L. VI.
2056=32362) or T. Caesar Aug. f. Imp. Vespasianus (C.I.L. VI. 940). Oc-
casionally also the Praenomen Imperatoris is accorded Titus before his father's
death (e.g., C.I.L. XI. 1834, 6000); but this clearly was an unsanctioned usage.
108 M. AVRELIVS ANTONINVS CAESAR IMP. (Caracalla sub patre)
(C.I.L. VI. 1050) is an isolated instance.
104E.g., Imp. Caesar C. Julius Versus Maximinus Aug. (C.I.L. VI. 6201)
but C. Julius Verus Maximus nobilissimus Caesar (C.I.L. VI. 1806). The
history of the transformation of the proper name Caesar into a title was as
follows: Gaius was the last representative of the family of the Caesars.
Claudius, however, assumed the name on his accession, and all succeeding
emperors (except Vitellius, vide supra, p. 64, note 94) followed his example.
Until the time of Hadrian the name was borne by all members of the reigning
family; but Hadrian, when he adopted M. Aurelius Antonius (Antonius Pius)
and L. Verus, gave it only to the former. To all intents and purposes, Caesar
thus became a title, being reserved for the emperor and his heir. Hence such
inscriptions as M. AVRELIVS ANTONINVS CAESAR DESIGNATVS
(Caracalla sub patre, C.I.L. VI. 1984, 31555). The earliest instance of the
addition of nobilissimus which the writer has found is in the case of Geta
(C.I.L. VI. 1033, 3768, etc.).
66
HISTORY OF THE TITLE IMPERATOR
}
this distinction between the titles Caesar and Augustus in Diocletian's
reorganization of the Empire is familiar to every historical student.
The motives of Vespasian's revival of the Praenomen Imperatoris
are not far to seek. The Senatorial Order resented his elevation
because of his non-noble birth, and the Flavian era was punctuated
by a series of conspiracies of the nobles. The dynasty was maintained
only through the undeviating support of the army. Vespasian con-
sequently had no love for the Senate, although he was politician
enough not to abolish it or formally break with it. He had, more-
over, a penchant for frankness. With cynical realism, he seems to
have dated his tribunician years from the date of his first Imperatorial
salutation, rather than from that of the lex by which his tribunician
power was formally conferred.105 His employment of the Praenomen
Imperatoris as a standing title was probably intended as a compliment
to the army and as a reminder to the Senate of the position in which
it stood. The fact is that from 68 A.D. on, Rome really ceased to be a
self-governing state. The form of the Republic persisted, it is true,
for some centuries longer; but the sole function of the Senatus Popu-
lusque Romanus was to clothe in legal garb the authority and will of
the general who for the moment was in control of the capital. All
that was left to the citizen body was bonos imperatores voto expetere,
qualescumque tolerare.106 The word imperator was now a more ap-
propriate description of the ruler of Rome than the word princeps.
As a matter of fact, the use of imperator as a full synonym of
princeps became not uncommon under the Flavians and their suc-
cessors.107
It tended to lose its military reference and to be em-
ployed in the sense of "autocrat," a sense which corresponded with
its derivation (imperator=qui imperat) and with the provincial un-
derstanding of its Greek equivalent auтокpáтwp. It was thus, as we
have seen, that Dio interpreted the title in the third century. The
105 Borghesi, Oeuvres, VI, 1-36.
108Tac. hist. iv. 8.
107Cf. Martial x. 72. 8 f: Non est dominus hic sed imperator, sed justis-
simus omnium senator (Trajan); Pliny ep. ad Traj., passim, etc. Tacitus,
though quite cognizant of the exact meaning of the two words, sometimes in-
terchanges them for the sake of variety (e.g., ann. iii. 30, iv. 66, vi. 8, 13, xii.
6, 22, etc.; cf. Gerber-Greef, Lexicon Taciteum). Contrast Aulus Gellius'
own usage (noct. Att. x. 22, xv. II. 4, xvi. 13. 5) with that of the first century
sources which he quotes in ii. 24. 15 and v. 6. 14. The words are used inter-
changeably in the Corpus Juris Civilis (vide Dirksen, Manuale Latinitatis
fontium juris civilis Romanorum, Berlin, 1837).
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE TITLE
67
20
word princeps, however, still remained the commonest word for
"emperor",108 Latin-speaking peoples never quite forgot that im-
perator was originally a military term. The reaction against the
tumultuarii imperatores109 of the third century led to the former term
being preferred in the succeeding period. After Diocletian the Cog-
nomen Imperatoris disappeared from the imperial titulary.110 Even
the Praenomen Imperatoris gradually fell into disuse, the words
dominus noster¹¹¹ replacing it in inscriptions and on coins.
The use of the title Imperator, however, was revived by Charle-
magne. The charters of Charlemagne after 800 A.D. all begin with
the words: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Karolus
serenissimus Augustus, a Deo coronatus, magnus, pacificus Im-
perator, Romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per misericordiam Dei
rex Francorum et Langobardorum; and close with the subscription,
Signum domini Karoli piissimi ac serenissimi (or gloriosissimi) im-
peratoris.112 The reason for Charlemagne's preference for the title
Imperator was, undoubtedly, that the word princeps in his day was
the common word for "noble" or "leading man" of the kingdom.113
Its use in the sense of "emperor" had naturally gone out with the
disappearance of the Western Emperor in 476 A.D. It was capable,
moreover, of suggestions which to Charlemagne would be especially
unpalatable. Princeps in classical Latin had always been the word
for a barbarian "chief"; and in the period of the Germanic invasions,
it was the general term by which the leaders of the bands which
ravaged the empire were known.
108E. g., it is the only word for "emperor" in Suetonius and Juvenal, and
always remained the commonest term. Usually where the word imperator
appears there is some trace of its special uses.
109 Ventum est ad principem Claudium, qui nobis intuitu Constanti Caesaris
cum cura in litteras digerendus est. De quo ego idcirco recusare non potui,
quod alios, tumultuarios videlicet imperatores ac regulos, scripseram eo libro
quem de triginta tyrannis edidi. Trebonius Pollio, Div. Claud. i. 1.
110 Seeck, Untergang der antiken Welt, I, 20, 442 f. Its place is taken by
cognomina such as Gothicus, Germanicus, etc.
111The prefixing of D. N. to the title of the emperor or a Caesar begins to
be common under the Severi. At first the Praenomen Imperatoris is usually
retained (early exceptions: C.I.L. VI. 31162 [Elagabalus], 423 [Gordian
III]). After Diocletian the Praenomen Imperatoris becomes increasingly
rare in the inscriptions, and after Constantine it hardly ever appears on the
coinage.
112Giry, Manuel de diplomatique, pp. 719 f.
MAR 30 1921
113Ibid., pp. 324 f., 333.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 06839 2219
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD
ཙ ཙ ནམྨནྟ། རཱུ སདྷརཱནྟིཏྭཱ ཁཾ ཨ ཀི གཉྩ ཙ