Diogenes_the_Cynic:
“Emperor” comes from Imperator (“Commander”), which was a military rank akin to a general and was originally adopted by Augustus as a way to avoid the title of King, and thus keep up the charade that Rome was still a Republic.
Eventually, of course, Imperator /Emperor came to be a title which connoted even more power than “King,” and over more jurisdiction, but the irony is that it was initially intended to dress Augustus’ title down , rather than up.
Beautifully put, Diogenes . I wrote my undergraduate thesis on this topic, and I couldn’t have summed it up better myself.
Northern_Piper:
There is another meaning to “empire” that was used in England during Henry VIII’s reformations, and that was to mean what we today would call a sovereign state. Henry referred to England as an “empire” in his legislation - meaning that he did not have any feudal obligations to any other person on earth, unlike kings or princes who owed fealty to the Holy Roman Emperor or to the Pope. England was a completely independent state. Note, however, that he did not adopt the title of “Emperor” - he was a king ruling an empire.
Similarly, since the middle ages, the French king was said to be “emperor in his kingdom” (the word “empire” wasn’t used, though), meaning like in the British case that he held ultimate authority. If I’m not mistaken, this sentence first appeared, quite early, in response to the HRE’s claim that he (the HRE) still had some sort of precedence/authority over European kings.
WOW!
You guys… You GUYS !:)…
“Guys” being used as a collective noun here!
Just gave me a very informative history/etymology lesson!
Had my Dad not brought us to the USA in 1960, I might not have needed to ask this question.
Danke Zusammen!
Der Quasi:)
Found a citation to back up my previous post, and which also confirms clairobscur’s post. It’s from Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England , Vol. I
AND, first, the law ascribes to the king the attribute of sovereignty, or pre-eminence. “Rex est vicarious,” says Bracton, “et minister Dei in terra: amnis quidem sub eo est, et ipse sub nullo, “nisi tantum sub Deo.” He is said to have imperial dignity, and in charters before the conquest is frequently stiled basileus and imperator, the titles respectively assumed by the emperors of the east and west. His realm is declared to be an empire, and his crown imperial, by many acts of parliament, particularly the statutes 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12. and 25 Hen. VIII. c. 28; which at the same time declare the king to be the supreme head of the realm in matters both civil and ecclesiastical, and of consequence inferior to no man upon earth, dependent on no man, accountable to no man. Formerly there prevailed a ridiculous notion, propagated by the German and Italian civilians, that an emperor could do many things which a king could not, (as the creation of notaries and the like) and that all kings were in some degree subordinate and subject to the emperor of Germany or Rome. The meaning therefore of the legislature, when it uses these terms of empire and imperial, and applies them to the realm of England, is only to assert that our king is equally sovereign and independent within these his dominions, as any emperor is in his empire; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth.
(I’ve tidied up the 18th century fonts and a few typos from scanning.)
