Why didn't Octavius name himself king of Rome and not Emporer?

Romans wanted to keep the idea of the Republic and they had an aversion towards monarchic and oligarchic titles. That is why Octavian never proclaimed himself an emperor nor king but got the title of the commandant, the divine son, and first citizen from the Senate.

Explanation:

While we call Octavian Augustus the first Roman emperor today, he never claimed that title himself. His titles included Princeps Civitas, which means First Citizen of the State, and full title Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus, but the title of Imperator in Latin would translate to the commandant because it comes from imperare – to order or to command. These titles were given to him by the Senate and he did not claim them himself.

This wasn’t because he was too shy or modest to think of himself as emperor, but because the tiles of king and emperor were connected to ideas of dictatorship in Roman beliefs. Roman people had aversion to the idea of someone having complete, monarch power. This was among things why they have assassinated Caesar in the first place – once he himself thought he was the sole ruler, Roman people have turned against him.

Therefore, while Octavian held the powers of the emperor, he did not claim any of the monarch titles himself as he wanted to keep the illusion of the Republic and democracy.

your answer would be (a)

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005