I’m aware that it was an honour from the Senate to the triumvir in the settlement of 27BC, I believe.
I’d imagine that the name-change from Gaius Octavius to Caesar Augustus would be a way to link himself with Julius Caesar officially as his adopted father and heir, whilst Augustus was a name reflecting his virtues as well as showing respect from the Senate and people for him. Augustus’ father was not a exceptionally glorious chap, as I understand it, and so losing Octavius for Augustus added to Augustus’ prestige.
I have been reading through Mary Beard’s Confronting the Classics: Traditions, Adventures and Innovations in which she discusses various topics. Personally, I’ve never liked Beard’s work and her personality annoys me, but given she is a Professor of Classics at Cambridge, I respect her and I feel like her work should be to a high standard.
My issue with the book is that she says that Augustus dropped Octavius as it was a name associated with murder, such as the proscriptions (Is there a source for this? Beard does not specify anything.) which I’d argue is no more a personal interpretation than what I said about Augustus’ virtues, relationship with Caesar and prestige.
I don’t quite understand the connection, however. Obviously, Augustus was still the same man and it is certainly true that he glossed over his years as Octavian in the Res Gestae, but would the people and the Senate really have thought ‘Augustus is a good man. Octavian killed those senators’?! It seems like a loose connection to me, especially in comparison to the idea of honour and prestige. I know Augustus was appreciative of Cicero later in his life, but is there any evidence to suggest that he changed his name to lose the murderous connotations?
Source: Beard, Mary. Confronting the Classics: Traditions, Adventures and Innovations (London: Liveright, 2013), 107
Apologies for formatting issues - mobile. Apologies for any slight mistakes.
Edit: Does Beard have something against Augustus? ‘Altar of Peace (for which Altar of Successful Pacification might be a better title).’ (P.199)
The name 'Augustus' was really just an extra title, as you say, to emphasise his virtues and good graces, stressing it as a great honour gifted him by Senate and Roman people following the First Settlement.
He had not gone by the name Octavian since before the death of Julius Caesar, since his official adoption changed his name to Gaius Julius Caesar, aka the exact same name as Julius Caesar (something Beard does mention in SPQR p. 339 at least). Already Octavian had taken full advantage of his link to Caesar, apparently prematurely using the name 'Caesar' before his adoption had been ratified in 43 BC (for some example sources, I'm looking at Robin Lane Fox The Classical World and Goodman The Roman World 44BC-AD180). Before his adoption of the name 'Augustus', he did not use the name Octavian, preferring instead to exploit this relationship (e.g. coin legends from this period read CAES IMP or CAESAR DIVI F), and it is quite likely that he did so to distance himself from his fairly low familial origins. He had something of a history, then, in using names/titles to increase his own importance and remove himself from the less glamorous aspects of his life.
The actual name 'Octavian' wouldn't really have carried many connotations with the proscriptions of earlier periods, at least not with the general public, perhaps with some senators with whom he had been aquainted when Caesar was still alive and he still used the name 'Octavian'. As I see it, it's not impossible that the adoption of the name 'Augsutus' would place him more in line with the virtues that he wanted the Roman people to believe he possessed - it wouldn't do very well to be remembered only for murder and senatorial unrest. I don't think people would have been tricked into thinking that Augustus and Octavian were different people, but one could argue that by adopting the title 'Revered One', it made him someone worth honouring, someone who did even the worst things for the sake of the state. But like you say that is only subjective interpretation. In other words, I don't think Beard is wrong exactly, but I think she's trying to be realistic (and almost Tacitus-like in her cynicism) about the possible machinations behind Augustus' actions in the early Principate. Hope that makes sense!