Talk:Marcus Junius Brutus/Archive 1

No longer senator?

The bit about being offered a compromise etc - this seems to me to be right out of the TV show Rome - also there is no citation for the statement. I always thought the assassins held up under siege somewhere in the city?? Can anyone with any knowledge speak to this???JP (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

After the assassination, Brutus reportedly gave a measured speech on the Capitol that was well received, but another Senator by the name of Cinna gave a blustering anti-Caesar speech that was ill received and riled up the mob. At that point the conspirators retreated inside the Capitol and held themselves up there. The next day the Senate, including Anthony met in some Temple and voted for amnesty and honors for all the conspirators. Antony sent his son to the Capitol as a hostage and the conspirators then came out and everybody was reconciled, for the moment at least. As currently written, it stinks of the script from Rome HBO.Bogan444 (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentences: After the assassination, Brutus was approached with a compromise; if Caesar was declared a tyrant, then all of Caesars' appointments to the Senate were null and void. This meant that Brutus would no longer be a Senator and elections would have to be held.

Was Brutus not a Senator before Ceasars term as dictator? In which case surely it should read 'This meant that Brutus would no longer be Praetor,' as opposed to 'no longer be a Senator' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.120.136 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The above contributor is correct. Brutus was a senator before the assassination, so nullification of Caesar's acta would not have meant that Brutus would no longer have been a senator if Caesar was declared a tyrant. However, Brutus urban praetorship would have been invalid. I have edited to entry to reflect this. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comic history of Rome?

Who's going around adding images from the comic history of rome? It seems wildly inappropriate. I wouldn't put a picture of Snoopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snoopy_wwi_ace_lb.jpg) in an article about the Red Baron.

"Brutal" from Brutus

Doesn't Brutal come from Brutus, as he was brutal to Caesar? --Shultz 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. 'Brutal' comes from the word 'brutus', certainly, but 'brutus' is Latin for 'coarse'. It was given to the first Brutus as a nickname because he pretended to be stupid in order to survive in the court of Tarquin.

I have heard that Brutal comes from Brutus a lot, however. Should it not at least be mentioned as a common misconception?

I wondered that to, I was going to put that in my history project, until I saw this.::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avazelda13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How is 'Caepio' prounounced? CORRECTION: Caesar is best pronounced as "ceh-sar," therefore, "Caepio" is pronounced "Ceh-pio" as in centennial NOT Kai-pee-o!

"Kai pee o" is probably closest to the original Roman pronunciation. NO. The closest Roman pronunciation is "Seh-pio," or "Ceh-pio".

Or "Kai pyo" in a Russian sense. Poetry seems to support the previous statement, but it should also be of note that spoken Latin and written Latin are indeed different, though no one knows how big the differences was (a lot or a little) and spoken suggests at certain points 'Caepjo'. For instance, a word so common place as "talk" comes from Greek and doesn't show up until after the fall of the Roman Empire (Parabolare)-whereas the Latin written word for this is Loquor. The point is, the written word isn't quite the spoken, as Loquor is seldom used (I don't think it is used) in Italy, Spain or France, and I'm pretty sure just about any Roman area showing the word was probably parabloare.J. M. 09:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm a little concerned about Bobby Milligan, who may be making specious additions to the database. User created article Romulus_Junius_Brutus_Caepio_de_Montford, which has come up for VfD, and Luke Bright, which has been nominated for nonsense deletion. I'm concerned that user may also be represented by IP address 195.172.150.2, which has also been making connections and creating articles (such as Tiberius_Junius_Brutus), and seems to have vandalised Junius_Brutus_Booth in [this] edit. Please be aware, and check carefully any additions. Best regards, EvilPhoenix

"Shakespeare has Marc Antony describe Brutus as "the noblest Roman of them all" in the final scene of Julius Caesar." - this per se is not quite correct and might need some clarification. Marc Antony does indeed call Brutus "the noblest Roman of them all" but he does repeat it a couple of times during his speech. The further along in the speech, the more "the noblest Roman of them all" turns into an insult.

You're thinking of the "honourable man" speech from Act 3 Scene 2. In the very last scene of the play Antony says "This was the noblest Roman of them all: / All the conspirators, save only he, / Did that they did in envy of great Caesar; / He only, in a general-honest thought / And common good to all, made one of them."

This is not appropriate for a biographical article. Shakespeare is not a source, and I've seen no evidence Antony ever said anything positive about Caesar. Romanticized history is not accurate history J. M. 09:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What, it's inappropriate under the subject heading "Later evaluations of Brutus"!? I understand you're worried about inaccuracy, but it's totally clear that historical accuracy isn't being claimed. As a summary of the overriding cultural perception of Brutus it's totally valid, and the article would be poorer without it.

---

What was wrong with "it is more likely that they were in Greek, chiefly spoken by Roman officials: "Kai su, teknon?" ("You too, my son?")" - something that was added by me but then removed later? -- Andrevan

---

Where does the "Tu quoque, Brute, fili mi" quoted in the article come from? I'm only familiar with the form given by Suetonius, which is in Greek and doesn't mention Brutus by name (και συ, τεκνον). --Zundark, 2002 Feb 20

Personally I don't know where it comes from, though it is traditionally and proverbially reported in this form or in the alternative form Et tu, Brute, fili mi (obviously of same meaning - also in brief form Et tu, Brute). Unfortunately, in none of the texts I have read now there is a mention of source - I miss Svetonius, though.

I could not generically exclude the possibility that the greek form would perhaps be a bit unfaithful since:

• • most likely it is a legend, or a spectacular rendering of the murder chronicle, reported by romans from Rome,presumedly meant to be read by other romans; why a passage to greek? cui prodest?
  • even if it wasn't a legend J.C. said something, I wonder what a great intellectual J.C. should have been: his (roman) son was now stabbing him in (roman) senate and he just found an appropriate _greek_ quote to celebrate the event...

Svetonius is obviously a capital resource for studying Roman age, but some doubts might be justified; we shouldn't forget that in Middle Age all the latin production (as well as greek one) passed through copysts.

However, don't know source but can say that I have heard it or read it litterally thousands of times, but only in the two said latin forms (80% the form in the article); I also happened to see it is known in the same way abroad too (i.e. in England and in Germany).

Well, the Roman senatorial class was relentlessly bilingual and Graecified. It wouldn't surprise me that Julius Caesar spoke in Greek in such a situation at all. Suetonius's only advantage, however, is being a cited source. He is much, much later, after all. I've heard the Latin, too, but that means little, since we're talking about "famous last words". What I want to know is the 'adopted son' bit. Octavius is adopted in the will. Brutus was a protege (sorta), but adoption was a serious legal proceding which I do not think applies to this situation. MichaelTinkler

---

Just a note: eventually this page will have to be moved to a disambiguation link. The reasons are simple: not only do we have two historical Brutuses -- M. Junius & L. Junius -- but also Geoffrey of Monmouth's Brutus, the founder of the British race, & Popeye's antagonist. I'm more concerned about the British Brutus, though, & at the moment am pondering the best article title for him. -- llywrch 17:19 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

---

The Latin quote 'Romanorum populus , nos es quondam iterum solvo!' is total bunk. It is obviously derived from the English 'translation', but it makes absolutely no sense in Latin (the Latin would mean something like "people of the romans, you are us formerly; again I free!"). I'm not sure where the English quotation comes from, or if there is any actual Latin behind it, but this isn't it. Mraig 04:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The age comment

I think the fact of Julius Caesar being 15 when Brutus was born is a poor argument against the fact that Caesar might have been Brutus' father. If you want to imply that the affair may have started when Julius Caesar was age twenty five, ten years after Brutus was born, that is fine because it deals in chronological terms. To say 'because Caesar was fifteen years old' implies that Caesar and Servilia would not have had sexual interaction when he was that age, which is not a valid argument. Most historians agree that sexual interaction began during the early teen years since by that time you were considered an adult.

~WoodrowS

Perhaps not but the fact that Caesar's affair didn't start with Servilia until he was 10 is proof enough. NeoRicen 06:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's unlikely, but there is not prood enough in these matters sadly. We can't assume anything other then to say it's unlikely. --82.34.129.135 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

How was his father killed due to Sulla's proscriptions in 77 BC when Sulla died in 78BC?

Pompey was the one who killed Iunius Brutus, not Sulla. I think his death may have just been an aftermath of what happened during the rein of Sulla. --82.34.129.62 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Brutus and the people

Does Brutus loose the trust and loyalty of the Roman people after he kills Caesar? I am confused on this because he dies as an "honorable man," however it seems as though the people dislike him after he assasins Caesar

• Caesar was a dictator, he is romanticized now, but certainly not everyone felt comfortable under the hand of the "kind tyrant" caesar. --66.158.232.98 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Loose" = "free from restraint." Try "lose." 173.72.111.113 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Garth Bamgle

Name of Brutus' father

Can someone please check naming convention for Brutus' branch of the Junii? Brutus was an only son, and somehow, it seems a bit contradictory for his father to have had the praenomen Decimus, and for Brutus to be named Marcus.

We don't know enough about Brutus' parents to say he was their only son, he may have had brothers. I've read several times that Brutus' legal father was Decimus Junius Brutus, but others say Marcus Junius Brutus. I just assume we don't know for sure. --82.34.129.75 15:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't know if Marcus Junius Brutus was his father's first legitimate child. We aren't even sure if Servilia was his first wife. Given the enormously high maternal and neonatal death rates at the time, we can't make any assumptions either. --Charlene 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Family tree template SCREWED UP!

The {{{Brutus family tree}}} template is messing up the Article towards the bottom. I don't know how to fix it. Maybe someone else can? -BiancaOfHell 06:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of things, I've found that the tree part of the family tree seems to want to be at the bottom of the page cause when I previewed Porcia Catonis after putting the tree at the bottom, the tree wasn't screwed up. --82.34.129.135 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing sections?

I read through this article and was startled to see that it ends abruptly with the assassination of Caesar. Older versions of the page discuss Brutus' fate, but at some point this was removed. What happened?? Venicemenace 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding content

This page is incomplete, over the next few days I will be adding some content. Please do not just delete the new content, as it will take a few days for all of it to be added.

21kev 19:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

TV series

How much of the "Aftermath" series is due to the TV series Rome, and how much of it is due to historical research? Since the episodes dealing with the aftermath of Caesar's assassination have aired, the Aftermath section has been completely rewritten and now very closely follows the plot of the TV series. Like any good entertainment product, the writers took dramatic license with history, and it concerns me that this article appears to use the script as a primary source. It would be nice if someone could review the section for historical accuracy. Orpheus 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I added three external links to back up what I posted. I am now looking for a link to verify the letter from Cicero to Brutus. If I can not find proof, then I will delete that part. Is this the kind of information you were wanting? Should the links go in the internal link section? The "aftermath" section did not exist until last week. This section ended with the assassination of Julius Caesar, it was if Brutus disappeared from history. This was not the case, so I added more information. 21kev 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great - more information is wonderful. If you provide references then there's absolutely no problem. Rather than just putting links though, you should use the ref tag (see WP:REF for more information). I was just a bit concerned that the section seemed to mirror the script almost exactly, but if the script mirrors reality then that's ok. Orpheus 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sumanura

Meaning of a sentence

This sentence: "However, Butes was pressured into joining the conspiracy against Caesar by the other senators [10] and he also discovered messages bunadan on the busts of his ancestors[11]" has me confused. exactly what is meant by the latter half? In what context do these messages have a relevance on Brutus decision to join the assasins? Hopefully somebody in the know could clear this up, or maybe remove the last part of the sentence if it makes as little sense as it does to me. Abel29a 07:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the sentence is referring to Plutarch, who saw that people had written on the Statue of Brutus' jing killing ancestor things like "O that we had Brutus now!" and "Brutus, art thou asleep?". I say the whole sentence is poorly written, but the latter part of it is actually better referenced than the first part, which seems to advance the "reluctant assassin" Brutus of drama and film without any real soulution User:Bogan444|Bogan444]] (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) [[Media:www.hoha.comdo me#REDIRECT [[66789[www.hohahahahah.loser]]]]]

Artwork over bust

I think this image looks unprofessional and detracts from the article. It appears to be just some guy's photoshop cut-and-paste job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.101.143.89 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Et tu brute citation?

concerning the sentence However, there is a strong possibility that his last words were said in Greek as opposed to Latin, which shows the influence of Greece on Roman aristocrats, in the brutus in popular culture section, can we get a citation/reference on that, as the last part sounds kinda like an opinion?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdman5783 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This citation from Shakespeare is wrong, Caesar was talkint to another Brutus, this one was his bastard son, as you can see in: Ronald Syme, "Bastards in the Roman Aristocracy," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104 (1960), p. 327.--Dafne07 (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ashes

What happened to Brutus' ashes eventually? Did they get passed down through the family and still exist somewhere, or did they disappear from history? --70.128.122.92 21:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They probably remained in the family until the sack of Rome where nearly all such things were destroyed. --82.34.129.154 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Inventor of the omelette

This kinda stuff really needs to be referenced. I've removed it until a reputable citation can be provided. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Brutus' Death

I noticed that the 25th citation is not historical, but rather referring to the death of the fictionalized Brutus in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar." Hopefully a more regular contributor has a better historical source for this on hand, but if not, I would be willing to see if I can find a better one (if extant) for information on his death. Thanks.

Kjt921 (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've slightly rejigged the account of Brutus' death to follow Plutarch's version. The references have also been changed to reflect this. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Portrait

The portrait of the bust which claims to be of M. J. Brutus is not his. I think it should be replaced. I can't do it myself at this time as I don't have a picture taken by myself of the proper bust.Wehemesut (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Best translation of "Et tu, Brute?"

I've noticed that recently there's been some swapping back and forth between alternative translations of "Et tu, Brute?" in the article. It has been switched between "And you, Brutus?" and "Even you, Brutus?" Is it possible to discuss this and perhaps reach a consensus? I myself must admit that when I first saw that it was switched I almost reverted it to "And you," but I figured that as there are likely to be almost as many opinions as offered translations, it would make more sense to discuss this here before potentially being engaged in an edit conflict. Personally I prefer "And you, Brutus?" since it is the literal translation. I know that literal translations are not always the best, necessarily, but I feel that it works here. I suppose "even you" or "you too" could work. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Vincent Valentine 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Antonius vs. Antony

It is strange that on this page Antony is only referred to as Antonius, even though in every other relevant article he is called Antony, after being introduced properly. I understand that technically his name was Antonius, but I think names should be consistent. Does anyone mind if I change it here?--TEHodson 08:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally (or not), somebody just went through the article on Cassius and changed Antony to Antonius. This is a vexing problem for anyone who regularly writes about the late Republic. Although he's obviously much more familiar to Anglophone readers as Mark Antony, I do sometimes find it awkward if I have a sentence with three or four names that have not been anglicized, and Mark Antony's stuck there in the middle. In those cases, I might do something like "Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony)'". It's also a problem with Pompeius Magnus/Pompey the Great; if all the other names retain their Latin forms, "Pompey" seems odd and in need of explanation. The Antony problem is acute when his brother Lucius Antonius pops up in the same paragraph; it seems outright confusing to speak of "Lucius Antonius" but "Mark Antony." So my feeling is, yes, use Mark Antony when it seems natural to do so, but on first ref we might bracket "Marcus Antonius"; or vice versa. So my opinion (and only an opinion) is that you should do what you think best serves the reader in a given context, while making the reader aware of both the Latin and anglicized forms of the name. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems excessively pious to be so strictly Latinized with people who are what you might call "household names." Anything which makes the reader stop and think, "Who?" is not helpful, even if it is technically "correct". I'll wait a couple of days and see if anyone else weighs in, then will do a parenthetical and change it elsewhere. And maybe go annoy them on the Cassius page by doing the same thing. Keeping this particular cast of characters straight is hard enough. "Pick a name and stick to it," I say. Then, of course, I realize they're all dead and can't hear me.--TEHodson 01:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I was arguing for the Latin form. In general he should be called "Mark Antony," per WP:ROMANS, but there are some contexts, such as List of Roman consuls, where the Latin nomenclature is used, or where the family name Antonius is in play. I don't think this has much to do with the Brutus article, but I thought you were raising an actual question. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you were arguing for it, and I am raising an actual question! My comments are directed at any others who may have an opinon, as this talk page is supposed to be for discussions about problems before just going in and changing things--at least that's what I think should happen. For those who work hard on articles it can be very jarring when someone just swoops in and makes a change that is both particular to the article and broader in implication. If we're going to try to standardize usage, it'll mean checking other pages (as you pionted out, the Cassius article just changed in the other direction) so it's best, I think, to try to reach consensus before doing so. Your comments seemed to agree with me, and obviously I didn't acknowledge that, for which I apologize. I was merely continuing the conversation and explaining myself more thoroughly (and making a joke, though perhaps a slight one). I do intend to come back and change Antonius to Antony in a couple of days, after allowing time for others to comment if they wish to. I will then follow links to other articles and do the same. Okay?--TEHodson 06:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in general I agree that it should be "Mark Antony" or just "Antony"; however, I don't want to argue for "consistency," because of what I said above. There are contexts in which the Latin nomenclature is relevant, or clarifies family relations, 'sall I'm sayin'. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Check.--TEHodson 20:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though this thread is three-plus years old, I went ahead an changed Mark Antony from Markcus Antonius as I was very confused my reading this. As mentioned above, it is also the only page that has this confusion. Dinkytown talk 21:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Assassin?

Was Marcus Junius Brutus part of the Assassin order (Ḥashshāshīn)? He was mentioned as one in The Assassins Creed Video Game series.

No, video games aren't reliable sources, and the Assassin Order is entirely the wrong geographic area. I get the sense that this was simply trolling.

Secondary sourcing

My very esteemed colleagues here must remember that we are to provide material, most all, from secondary sources, not from the original (primary) sources, as these necessarily require OR in their selection and interpretation (hence the OR and Cleanup tags). In this case it seems likely that much of the interpretative framework in this article came from the "Further reading" list, but none of these appear as citations in the reflist (hence the FR tag, last part of which is relevant). Absolutely no offense meant here; love these articles, but we are to sprinkle primary sources in as examples, not rely on them for the most of content. Per WP policy that is. Otherwise, imagine in the sciences, if we allowed editor's to decide which primary medical or scientific article deserved including... Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Plutarch wrote his account long afterwards and so is secondary in nature. Accounts written thousands of years later seem unlikely to add anything new and so I'd rather we cited the classics. Anyway, I have removed the banner tag as it seems too general to be useful. It is better to address specific passages if they seem to need attention. Andrew D. (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)