Disputatio:Augustus (imperator)

Augustus (imperator) fuit pagina mensis Augusti 2023.

Ave! Res bona est.

Quis scripsit verba supra? Et quid significant? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:29, 25 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's a compliment? Let's assume so ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:24, 25 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Vandalismus?

Vide mutationes a 68.192.152.235 hodie factas: mutavit:

Patronus Gaius Maecenas, historicus Livius, et poetae Ovidius, Propertius, Tibullus, et praecipue Horatius Vergiliusque sub imperio Augusti floruerunt

ad

Patronus Gaius Maecenas, historicus Livius, est poetae Ovidius, Propertius, Tibullus, et praecipue Horatius Vergiliusque sub imperio Augusti floruerunt.

et alterae mutationes sunt mirae. IacobusAmor 21:55, 15 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Nomen

Nomen Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus nunquam, nisi fallor, gessit; nomina alia varia gessit, sed nullum a nativitate usque ad mortem. Igitur ad titulum simpliciorem Augustus (imperator) moveo. An quis abnuit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 22 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

Isn't his legal name, now that he's dead and the Senate has given us its decree, Divus Augustus ? Similarly (but not exactly), the formal name of the Japanese emperor changes after he ceases to be alive. IacobusAmor 17:13, 22 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is his name, unless you are a pagan and living in the Roman Empire. It certainly was his name for quite a long time after his death.

It isn't part of his "life", of course. This page doesn't have a proper "reputation and influence" section yet, though in a single sentence it does note his deification and the naming of the month August after him. That's where I would eventually expand, and specify what he was called by later Romans. It's a bit like saints, really. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:17, 24 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

But, looking again at the first sentence, I agree that this name needed to be added there. So I've done that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:26, 24 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

Acromata?

Jondel, quid significat tuum verbum acromata ? et cur discrepat ab acroamata ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:29, 25 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted, Iacobe! In this quotation there were two letters omitted in the Suetonius manuscripts that need to be added to the text (in acroamata and also in ludios). That was the reason for the < > signs, but evidently it wasn't clear to Jondel. Other readers might have the same problem, I guess. It may be preferable to assume the emendations are correct, and simply write acroamata and ludios. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 25 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)