Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

caesar in pesian has an interesting meaning . kay means mithraist king ,and sar means head . so its meaning in old persian is ,head of the kings .

Persian language is different from arabic. Before Islam ,persians were using Aramaic alphabet. Caesar in Pahalavi Language (ancient Persinan language)is written "Kaysar" with the same pronociation as in Greek. Considering the simultanous surfacing of this title in history with crowning of Tirdad Ashkani AKA Parti(king of Arminia) in Rome by Julius (the Roman empror), I believe that this title was given to Julius by Tirdad Ashkani since Julius bestoed the crown to Tirdad Ashkani. Human6 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Trdat Aršakuni was crowned by Nero in AD 66, not Julius Caesar. Even though I'm flattered that you think the title Caesar was bestowed by an Armenian king, you're theory is crazy :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 05:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my mistake ,but the meaning of caesar in old persia is very strange for me ,on the other hand ,I don't see any relation between emperor and hair . besides ,I don't know if julius was mithraic or not . you know ,in old persia the title of the emperor was shahanshah ,meaning ,king of the kings . In old persia kay means mithraic king and shah means zoroasterian king .

The data that says ,mithraism has begun in ROM AD ,seams wrong . because Julius caesar became one of the five prospects ,zeus ,horus ,krishna ,mithra and julius ,after death BC . IT MEANS THAT MITHRA WAS ONE OF THE ROMAN GODS IN JULIUS CAESAR PERIOD . Besides we know that JULIUS CAESAR was a militarist and populist leader ,which are very important factors in mithraism .

Stop writing nonsense in Wiktionary: everybody knows Caesar was an ethnic Armenian, and obviously worshiped Vahagn, not puny Mithra. --Vahagn Petrosyan 11:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Vahagn Petrosyan ,first of all I should mention that I love Armenians ,second if you are right about worshiping Vahagn by Julius Caesar ,it is not too far from my hypothesis . Because Vahagn or Vahran ( persian and Avestian GOD ) is like mithra a SUN-GOD . VAHRAN ,ANAHITA and MITHRA are the Gods who entered ZOROASTRIANISM from MITHRAISM in ancient Persia .Human 8:22 AM FRI 9 July

RFV discussion[edit]

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

Sense 2: "The government; society; earthly powers". I've never seen the word used in this sense, and I don't believe the biblical quote is supporting it; to me it just means "give to the Roman Emperor that which is the Roman Emperor's". Are there any other supporting quotes? Hyarmendacil (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd just speedy delete it. It's quite a well known citation (I'm not even a Christian) where Caesar refers to the Roman Emperor. I can find the whole citation if anyone feels it's really necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It definitely refers explicitly to the Roman emperor (at one point Jesus asks, "whose picture is on the coin"). Theologically, that can be extrapolated into a statement on the relationship of Christians to any earthly authority, but that's on the level of ideas, not words. Using symbolism has no effect on lexicography- otherwise we'd have to add a definition to cover every well-known literary work that uses a metaphor:


  1. A warm puppy.

Chuck Entz (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable RfV. There might be some context in which the NT reference is used this way, as Judas/judas is in fairly broad contexts and Quisling/quisling was. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Possibly: “Christs come and Christs go, but Caesar is forever,” from a song I don’t remember. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added cites that support the sense. It seems difficult to characterize the appropriate usage context. It is probably more common in religious contexts, but it is used outside of strictly religious contexts. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think "Caesar's laws" would support the sense 'the laws of the state' and not 'the laws of Caesar'? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
There is also Caesar non supra grammaticos. SpinningSpark 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
@MG: Because I took the trouble to exclude citations from translations of Latin works, from works about Roman history and law, from works about the New Testament and the history of the Christian church during the time of the Roman empire and to read the remaining citations to find those that did not in fact refer to the laws of Julius Caesar. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: "to find those that did not in fact refer to the laws of Julius Caesar" it looks like they refer to the laws of Julius Caesar to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
If it really meant "the government" you should be able to use it in a modern context: Caesar capped benefits to £500 per household per week in 2013. Now I think about it, I don't even know what "The government; society; earthly powers" means. Sounds like three different senses on one line, and also I don't know what "earthly powers" means. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
There are lots of words that are only used in limited ways. A low-frequency word is intrinsically not part of most people's idiolect and therefore doesn't seem natural. An expression that is derived from a metaphor/metonym seems to inherit restrictions from its origin so that not all use seems apt. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Consider a closely analogous case: sense 5 of crown:
"Imperial or regal power, or those who wield it."
Treasure trove automatically becomes property of the Crown
One can hardly say: "The King sought to increase the Crown" though one could say "The King sought to increase imperial power." That might be a criticism of the definition, but I doubt that any definition that captures most of the usage is going to also capture the restrictions on apt usage without losing legibility and intelligibility. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You've prompted me to expand our entry. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at a random selection of entries, it's hard to find a definition that, on close inspection, doesn't need improvement. I wish improving English entries based on lexicographic standards coincided with more people's interests here. It only sometimes corresponds to mine. DCDuring TALK 02:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sating such a thing is impossible, just this, Caesar, seems not to be used this way. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I have four citations in which it is used that way. Would you like to discuss them? DCDuring TALK 21:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The 1957 one is especially good, IMO. I think this sense is plausible. I don't think Chuck's "warm puppy" is analogous, because I don't see citations like "I hired someone to feed my happiness while I was on holiday" or "I petted my happiness". - -sche (discuss) 03:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)