A Society's Views on Its Leaders Based on Etymology

Post Reply New Topic

Does the historical meaning of a society's historical term for its highest leader(s) have anything to do with its perception of government's role? I just want to take a brief look at the Indo-European languages for now:

English/Germanic:
king
From Old English cyning. Possibly related to the word kin.

Latin:
rex
Derived from verb regere. To lead straight (cognate with the modern English word right and the Old English suffix -ric).
Ancient Rome also had the rex sacrorum to maintain the priestly functions of the rex in the early Republican era. This was later replaced completely by the pontifex maximums.


Irish Gaelic:
righ
From Old Irish rig. See above.

Gaulish:
rix
See above.

Gothic:
Reiks
A leader. See above.

Hindi:
rajah
From Sanskrit rajan. See above.

Greek:
archon
A ruler of some kind. Somewhat akin to the Latin term of magister (became modern English master).

basileus
In Mycenaean, a high official or local chieftan but not highest king. In Byzantine Empire, a term for emperor.

We see some hint of moral or religious authority in terms cognate with Latin rex. In others we see more of a simple military leader or warlord.

Interesting thread, and interesting discussion.

I would say that, originally, the meaning of the name for a society's highest leader would have been related to its perception of the leader's role.

Presumably, various tribes of Proto-Indo-Europeans had a ruler called a reks, who would have 'led his people straight,' or made sure that his people were satisfied, kept in order and safe. With the authority and power came the responsibilities.

One term which you missed out is Emperor, derived from Latin imperator. The word literally means someone who commands, so the earliest imperator would probably have been set up to command and lead his people. Judging by the meaning of the words, an imperator would have been less obliged to look after his people than a rex.

The word king, as you said, is probably related to 'kin.' The implications associated with the word are that of being of noble birth, and somehow being inherently superior to the rest of the clan or tribe, probably because of previous military conquests. As far as I know, a king was virtually the same as a Roman rex, but the original meanings of the two words are quite different. In my opinion, this shows that the meanings of the words have changed, so we can't rely too much on etymology to separate the meanings between words.

So inevitably, the distinction is lost. Meanings of words change over time, and the original meaning becomes lost. There is little functional difference between a king/queen and an emperor/empress, except that becoming an emperor is not usually hereditary, while being crowned king or queen is. There isn't an 'Imperial Family' in the way that some countries have a Royal Family, so although the etymological distinctions between the meanings of various rulers have been lost or blurred, royality is still hotly debated because you have to have been born in a particular family to have any chance of being king or queen.

I believe imperator was initially a title for the commander or general of a Roman army, and eventually came to be a title used only for generals who pulled off a 'great victory'. In Republican Rome being hailed as imperator by one's soldiers (on the field, after battle I understand) was a pre-requisite to being granted a triumph.