Was C.I. Caesar Brutus' Father?

[Gaius Octavius]

Rather than "Et tu Brutus", Caesar was said to have said, in Greek, (phonetically), "Kia su Teknon.". "And thou my child.", as the stabs came about. So, do you all think that Brutus was the result of an affair Caesar had with Brutus' mother?

[P.Clodius]

Nope...and he is unlikely to have uttered any of those words. He was in his mid-teens when Brutus was born, and while it isn't impossible to father at that age, it is unlikely in Caesar's case.

[M. Porcius Cato]

In addition, having suffered multiple chest wounds and likely a punctured lung, how likely is it that Caesar said anything to Brutus? I thought the portrayal in Rome was spectacular: Caesar just looks like he's thinking "You too?"

[Primus Pilus]

I'm in complete agreement.. the "Et Tu Brute" has always seemed a Suetonian embellishment that was popularized centuries later by Shakespeare. Sorry for the length of this post but I figured the source material was appropriate here.

 

Plutarch, the first of the four to be published, makes no mention of it. Suetonius says simply: though some have written that when Marcus Brutus rushed at him, he said in Greek, "You too, my child?" implying that the statement is unconfirmed and less viable than the rest of the story. Appian makes no mention of it and Cassius Dio, who wrote several generations after the previous three, admits to the same unverifiable claim as Suetonius.

 

Enjoy for yourself...

 

From Plutarch Life of Caesar

Some of the partisans of Brutus took their places round the back of Caesar's chair, while others went to meet him, as though they would support the petition which Tillius Cimber presented to Caesar in behalf of his exiled brother, and they joined their entreaties to his and accompanied Caesar up to his chair. But when, after taking his seat, Caesar continued to repulse their petitions, and, as they pressed upon him with greater importunity, began to show anger towards one and another of them, Tillius seized his toga with both hands and pulled it down from his neck. This was the signal for the assault. It was Casca who gave him the first blow with his dagger, in the neck, not a mortal would, nor even a deep one, for which he was too much confused, as was natural at the beginning of a deed of great daring; so that Caesar turned about, grasped the knife, and held it fast. At almost the same instant both cried out, the smitten man in Latin: "Accursed Casca, what does thou?" and the smiter, in Greek, to his brother: "Brother, help!"

 

So the affair began, and those who were not privy to the plot were filled with consternation and horror at what was going on; they dared not fly, nor go to Caesar's help, nay, nor even utter a word. But those who had prepared themselves for the murder bared each of them his dagger, and Caesar, hemmed in on all sides, whichever way he turned confronting blows of weapons aimed at his face and eyes, driven hither and thither like a wild beast, was entangled in the hands of all; for all had to take part in the sacrifice and taste of the slaughter. Therefore Brutus also gave him one blow in the groin. And it is said by some writers that although Caesar defended himself against the rest and darted this way and that and cried aloud, when he saw that Brutus had drawn his dagger, he pulled his toga down over his head and sank, either by chance or because pushed there by his murderers, against the pedestal on which the statue of Pompey stood. And the pedestal was drenched with his blood, so that one might have thought that Pompey himself was presiding over this vengeance upon his enemy, who now lay prostrate at his feet, quivering from a multitude of wounds. For it is said that he received twenty-three; and many of the conspirators were wounded by one another, as they struggled to plant all those blows in one body.

 

 

From Suetonius "Life of Caesar"

As he took his seat, the conspirators gathered about him as if to pay their respects, and straightway Tillius Cimber, who had assumed the lead, came nearer as though to ask something; and when Caesar with a gesture put him off to another time, Cimber caught his toga by both shoulders; then as Caesar cried, "Why, this is violence!" one of the Cascas stabbed him from one side just below the throat. Caesar caught Casca's arm and ran it through with his stylus, but as he tried to leap to his feet, he was stopped by another wound. When he saw that he was beset on every side by drawn daggers, he muffled his head in his robe, and at the same time drew down its lap to his feet with his left hand, in order to fall more decently, with the lower part of his body also covered. And in this wise he was stabbed with three and twenty wounds, uttering not a word, but merely a groan at the first stroke, though some have written that when Marcus Brutus rushed at him, he said in Greek, "You too, my child?" All the conspirators made off, and he lay there lifeless for some time, and finally three common slaves put him on a litter and carried him home, with one arm hanging down. And of so many wounds none turned out to be mortal, in the opinion of the physician Antistius, except the second one in the breast.

 

 

From Appian: Civil War Book 2

The conspirators had left Trebonius, one of their number, to engage Antony in conversation at the door. The others, with concealed daggers, stood around Caesar like friends as he sat in his chair. Then one of them, Tillius Cimber, came up in front of him and petitioned him for the recall of his brother, who had been banished. When Caesar answered that the matter must be deferred, Cimber seized hold of his purple robe as though still urging his petition, and pulled it away so as to expose his neck, exclaiming, "Friends, what are you waiting for?" Then first Casca, who was standing over Caesar's head, drove his dagger at his throat, but swerved and wounded him in the breast. Caesar snatched his toga from Cimber, seized Casca's hand, sprang from his chair, turned around, and hurled Casca with great violence. While he was in this position another one stabbed him with a dagger in the side, which was stretched tense by his strained position. Cassius wounded him in the face, Brutus smote him in the thigh, and Bucolianus in the back. With rage and outcries Caesar turned now upon one and now upon another like a wild animal, but, after receiving the wound from Brutus he at last despaired and, veiling himself with his robe, composed himself for death and fell at the foot of Pompey's statue. They continued their attack after he had fallen until he had received twenty-three wounds. Several of them while thrusting with their swords wounded each other.

 

 

 

From Cassius Dio book 44

Now when he finally reached the senate, Trebonius kept Antony employed somewhere at a distance outside. For, though they had planned to kill both him and Lepidus, they feared they might be maligned as a result of the number they destroyed, on the ground that they had slain Caesar to gain supreme power and not to set free the city, as they pretended; and therefore they did not wish Antony even to be present at the slaying. As for Lepidus, he had set out on a campaign and was in the suburbs. When Trebonius, then, talked with Antony, the rest in a body surrounded Caesar, who was as easy of access and as affable as any one could be; and some conversed with him, while others made as if to present petitions to him, so that suspicion might be as far from his mind as possible. And when the right moment came, one of them approached him, as if to express his thanks for some favour or other, and pulled his toga from his shoulder, thus giving the signal that had been agreed upon by the conspirators. Thereupon they attacked him from many sides at once and wounded him to death, so that by reason of their numbers Caesar was unable to say or do anything, but veiling his face, was slain with many wounds. This is the truest account, though some have added that to Brutus, when he struck him a powerful blow, he said: "Thou, too, my son?"

[Primus Pilus]

And as for the original question (sorry for missing the point GO), I don't believe the ages make it plausible for Caesar to have been Brutus' father.

 

Caesar born in 100 or 102 BC would have made him either 15 or 17 when Brutus was born in 85 BC. (Somewhere around here we discussed the 100 or 102 BC birth for Caesar as well.) Servilia was roughly the same age but was already married to the elder Marcius Junius Brutus at the time. Plutarch makes mention of Servilia and Caesar in the 60's BC, roughly about the time that Caesar was coming to political prominence and developing adversarial relationships with members of Servilia's family.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Also, from Nicholas of Damascus, who actually had a chance to speak with those who were present:

 

Meanwhile the assassins were making ready, some of them stationing themselves beside his chair, others in front of it, others behind it. The augurs brought forward the victims for him to make his final sacrifice before his entry into the Senate Room. It was manifest that the omens were unfavorable. The augurs substituted one animal after another in the attempt to secure a more auspicious forecast. Finally they said that the indications from the gods where unfavorable and that there was plainly some sort of curse hiding in the victims. In disgust, Caesar turned away toward the setting sun, and the augurs interpreted this action still more unfavorably. The assassins were on hand and were pleased at all this. Caesar's friends begged that he postpone the present session on account of what the soothsayers had said; and for his part, he was just giving the order to do this, but suddenly the attendants came to summon him, saying that the Senate had a quorum. Then Caesar cast a look toward his friends. And Brutus approached him again and said, 'Come Sir, turn your back on these people's nonsense and do not postpone the business that deserves the attention of Caesar and of the great empire, but consider your own worth a favorable omen.' Thus persuading him, he at the same time took him by the hand and led him in, for the Senate-chamber was nearby. Caesar followed in silence. When he came in and the Senate saw him, the members rose out of respect to him. Those who intended to lay hands on him were all about him. The first to come to him was Tullius Cimber, whose brother Caesar had exiled, and stepping forward as though to make an urgent appeal on behalf of his brother, he seized Caesar's toga, seeming to act rather boldly for a suppliant, and thus prevented him from standing up and using his hands if he so wished. Caesar was very angry, but the men held to their purpose and all suddenly bared their daggers and rushed upon him. First Servilius Casca stabbed him on the left shoulder a little above the collar bone, at which he had aimed but missed through nervousness. Caesar sprang up to defend himself against him, and Casca called to his brother, speaking in Greek in his excitement. The latter obeyed him and drove his sword into Caesar's side. A moment before Cassius had struck him obliquely across the face. Decimus Brutus struck him through the thigh. Cassius Longinus was eager to give another stroke, but he missed and struck Marcus Brutus on the hand. Minucius, too, made a lunge at Caesar but he struck Rubrius on the thigh. It looked as if they were fighting over Caesar. He fell,under many wounds, before the statue of Pompey, and there was not one of them but struck him as he lay lifeless, to show that each of them had had a share in the deed, until he had received thirty-five wounds, and breathed his last.

[Gaius Octavius]

And as for the original question (sorry for missing the point GO), I don't believe the ages make it plausible for Caesar to have been Brutus' father.

 

Caesar born in 100 or 102 BC would have made him either 15 or 17 when Brutus was born in 85 BC. (Somewhere around here we discussed the 100 or 102 BC birth for Caesar as well.) Servilia was roughly the same age but was already married to the elder Marcius Junius Brutus at the time. Plutarch makes mention of Servilia and Caesar in the 60's BC, roughly about the time that Caesar was coming to political prominence and developing adversarial relationships with members of Servilia's family.

 

Yes, that was my point. Sorry that I didn't make myself clearer. Yet, seeing these five expositions of the event of Caesar's death, in one place, is most welcome.

 

Many years ago, I was having a discussion about Caesar with a friend. He slipped in that C. was B's father. I went the opposite. Neither of us could in any way back up our statements. My guts tell me that it is not the case, but my head holds that it is not beyond possibility. C. and Servillia were both in their teens, so it is not impossible. If I were being stabbed 23 or 35 times, my language would have been very much coarser. I guess that it might boil down to what the Romans of the time meant by 'my child (son)', if, in fact C. uttered these words.

[docoflove1974]

What about it figuratively meaning 'my child/son'? By that I mean: it's my understanding that Julius somewhat took young Brutus under his wing, and being that he new the family well, could refer to Brutus as 'my son' in informal circumstances. 'My child/son' implies an intimacy, true, but not necessarily a direct bloodline.

[Gaius Octavius]

What about it figuratively meaning 'my child/son'? By that I mean: it's my understanding that Julius somewhat took young Brutus under his wing, and being that he new the family well, could refer to Brutus as 'my son' in informal circumstances. 'My child/son' implies an intimacy, true, but not necessarily a direct bloodline.

 

In the Latin of the day?

[The Augusta]

What about it figuratively meaning 'my child/son'? By that I mean: it's my understanding that Julius somewhat took young Brutus under his wing, and being that he new the family well, could refer to Brutus as 'my son' in informal circumstances. 'My child/son' implies an intimacy, true, but not necessarily a direct bloodline.

 

Doc, this has always been my interpretation of it, if it was said at all.

[spittle]

In English 'My child/My son' may not be literal BUT is this the case in latin or Greek?

[Primus Pilus]

I don't doubt that if Caesar did say such a thing, that it should be meant as a simple term of endearment or friendship, rather than indications of family biology. I just doubt that someone in those particular circumstances would've had the time or wherewithal to pause and reflect so dramatically. Truly, just reading the accounts (especially that of Nicholaus... thanks for posting that one Cato... which is particularly brutal), it seems absurd that such an utterance would have been made.

 

As an aside, I am particularly fond of the following Suetonius account:

"And of so many wounds none turned out to be mortal, in the opinion of the physician Antistius, except the second one in the breast."

 

This is particularly impressive because it is clearly one of the earliest recorded autopsy's in history. What is more significant is perhaps the political implications of the announcement... that despite the assassins attempts to make Caesar's death a deed performed with anonymous unity, this surgeon suggests that only one conspirator was ultimately responsible for striking the blow that mattered. I suppose it is interesting that none of the ancient sources indicate who it might have been that struck that particular blow.

 

The idea may be ridiculous, because even without that particular wound, it seems likely that Caesar would have bled to death anyway once we consider the nature of ancient surgery and the length of time before Caesar was attended. This obviously does not change the involvement of each particular conspirator, nor their motivations, etc. However, I do wonder if Antistius had any particular political motivation (and if as a result it had any effect on the feelings of the people) or if he were truly attempting an honest medical appraisal.

 

Sorry for that tangent.

[Gaius Octavius]

P.P., personally, I don't mind the tangent.

[M. Porcius Cato]

As an aside, I am particularly fond of the following Suetonius account:

"And of so many wounds none turned out to be mortal, in the opinion of the physician Antistius, except the second one in the breast."

 

This is particularly impressive because it is clearly one of the earliest recorded autopsy's in history. What is more significant is perhaps the political implications of the announcement... that despite the assassins attempts to make Caesar's death a deed performed with anonymous unity, this surgeon suggests that only one conspirator was ultimately responsible for striking the blow that mattered. I suppose it is interesting that none of the ancient sources indicate who it might have been that struck that particular blow.

 

Far from being exulpatory, the autopsy must have been a political bombshell.

 

Think about this from the perspective of a veteran, a man trained to deliver death as swiftly and efficiently as possible. As a veteran, you would know exactly where to strike your blow and how to avoid slashing your comrades. To a veteran, the Liberators must have looked like incompetent school-boys, or--worse--sadists. It's no wonder that Antony brought a waxen figure of the Caesar to display his wounds. What could be more dramatic evidence--not ony to a veteran, but even to a butcher or a kitchen slave--that the state had been seized, not by men fit for leading armies, but by bookish philosophes?

 

In my opinion, this autopsy was a piece of high political theatre, designed perfectly to discredit the Liberators.

[Primus Pilus]

Far from being exulpatory, the autopsy must have been a political bombshell.

 

Think about this from the perspective of a veteran, a man trained to deliver death as swiftly and efficiently as possible. As a veteran, you would know exactly where to strike your blow and how to avoid slashing your comrades. To a veteran, the Liberators must have looked like incompetent school-boys, or--worse--sadists. It's no wonder that Antony brought a waxen figure of the Caesar to display his wounds. What could be more dramatic evidence--not ony to a veteran, but even to a butcher or a kitchen slave--that the state had been seized, not by men fit for leading armies, but by bookish philosophes?

 

In my opinion, this autopsy was a piece of high political theatre, designed perfectly to discredit the Liberators.

 

Yes, exactly what I was attempting and failed to elude to. My only remaining question is whether or not this was an invention of Suetonius, or if there truly was a surgeon by name of Antistius (who seems likely under our scenario to have been a Caesarean as well.) It is perhaps telling that of the 5 accounts, only Suetonius bothers with this; and he might be considered the least "Republican" of the 5 authors (admittedly and entirely subjective.)