Talk:Et tu, Brute?/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled User Comment

Shouldn't this be in Wikiquote?

It is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.20.241 (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"And you, Brutus?"

Many people seem to feel the need to render this phrase "And you Brutus?" This is presumably because the most common meaning of et is "and," and it is tempting (especially for the sort of people who like Latin) to render everything as literally as possible. But rendering the phrase this way is simply incorrect. Why? Because in English "And you, Brutus?" means something entirely different from "You too, Brutus?" The context of the quote clearly indicates that Caesar is saying "I can't believe you're involved with this too!" not "OK, your turn, what are you going to do, Brutus?" In English "And you" cannot possibly be equivalent to the first sentence. --Iustinus 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read my edit more carefully before you revert it, and note the context before jumping to conclusions: 'In English, it means "You too, Brutus?" or "Even you, Brutus?", but is commonly translated as simply "And you, Brutus?"' Could it be any more obvious, without outright saying "this translation is WRONG" (which is a blatant overstatement and prescriptionist interpretation, and is an absolutist enough statement that it will require a specific and authoritative citation so as not to violate WP:NOR), that my rendition of the intro is not endorsing the literalist translation of et as "And", merely stating that it exists? (In case you didn't notice, I said that the phrase means "eyb" and "y2b", but that it's also translated commonly as "ayb"; a rather eloquent way to distinguish the most accurate translations from the one that's the most embedded in the popular consciousness, without casting explicit judgment on them without the sources to back such judgment up.

I have no problem whatsoever with correcting common misconceptions, mistranslations, and misinterpretations of Latin phrases, as you are trying to do, but this should be done while mentioning what those incorrect renditions are (if they're noteworthy or widespread enough to merit mentioning, as this one must certainly is!)! Covering up the mistranslations as though they'd never even been made will just cause more confusion and ambiguity, and is close to censorship considering how noteworthy the most common translation of one of the most prevalent and influential Latin phrases in the enire English language is! In other words, if you feel so strongly that "And you, Brutus?" is not only technically (i.e. semantically) incorrect, but 100% unacceptable (which I'd be surprised to hear any native English speaker say, since it's very common to use "And X?!" in modern times to denote something at least approximating "X too?!" or "Even X?!", especially in colloquial contexts and with the and strongly emphasized), then you should be making sure that "And you, Brutus?" is mentioned in this article so that our readers can be probably informed on exactly how and why this translation is so deeply and irrevocably, at least in the context of Caesar's assassination, incorrect!

I got 14,600 results for "Even you", Brutus?, 76,000 results for "You too", Brutus?, 457,000 results for "And you", Brutus? on Google. ("Et tu" Brute? got a mere 396,000 results!) Close your eyes to the reality of the English-speaking world if you want, but don't try to force everyone else on Wikipedia to completely ignore one of the most important phrases in the English langugae, mistranslated though it may be from the original Latin, to suit your grammatical crusade to annihilate all mistranslations of et tu Brute from the face of the earth. Wikipedia is not the place. -Silence 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!

I might have been a little les absolutist in my edit if I had noticed that it was you. Even though I tend to disagree with you on issues of translation, I have nothing but respect for your work on the Latin Phrases page(s), so I apologize for offending you.

Your argument is strong, and indeed I have made a very similar case at cogito ergo sum. But I do not think "simply" covers it. I really don't think that "and you" means the same thing as "you too" in English, and I am surprised that you disagree with me on this. To me "And you, Brutus?" means something more like "The ball's in your court." I suppose if I stretch it, I could see Caesar saying "Immortal Gods! I'm being attacked by Casca. And Cassius. And Cinna. And you, Brutus? Then fall Caesar!" But without that sort of context such an interpretations seems very counterintuitive to me. --Iustinus 19:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"I might have been a little les absolutist in my edit if I had noticed that it was you. Even though I tend to disagree with you on issues of translation, I have nothing but respect for your work on the Latin Phrases page(s), so I apologize for offending you." - I'm honored and ashamed simultaneously; sorry if my above comment got a bit too hostile near the end (it's never nice to accuse someone of being on a "crusade" just for reverting a few edits). Also, if there are any translations on the you feel should be changed, I'd be glad to discuss them; I'm sure I've made mistakes on some of them, simply as a matter of odds considering how many phrases are on the list. Also, don't worry, you didn't offend me in the least; I'm a lot more layed-back about most edits and disagreements on Wikipedia than you'd think from reading my lengthy, overzealous rant-responses on these Talk pages. :) It's just hard to convey tones online; this is far from being a big enough deal to upset me.

"To me "And you, Brutus?" means something more like "The ball's in your court."" - Sure, it can mean that. But I think it's entirely a matter of word emphasis and context. "And you, Brutus?" is likely to mean something like what you suggest, but I'm pretty sure that the emphasis in the minds of most Latin-speakers (as opposed to the peons :3) who translate et as "and" is "And you, Brutus?!" (similarly to when you see that your house has been broken into and your valuables stole, and then you see even the TV gone and remark in anger and exasperation, "And the TV?!"). I certainly prefer (and invariably use) the "You too" translation or similar, but "And you" isn't so blatantly and clearly wrong that it's not even a matter of dispute, unlike many other common Latin-phrase translations. I agree with you, but don't agree that it's so simple a conclusion that we shouldn't explain this translation issue on "Et tu, Brute?", and even if it was that clear and black-and-white, we should still mention any incorrect translations that are common enough to be cultural fixtures in their own right, regardless of the quality of their latinitas.

"But I do not think "simply" covers it." - You're are correct. A more detailed explanation is in order. It certainly couldn't hurt; an article about a single, brief phrase has to struggle a little to escape stubhood anyway. :)

"But without that sort of context such an interpretations seems very counterintuitive to me." - Et mihi. :) -Silence 21:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe something like "The phrase is sometimes translated as 'and you, Brutus?', but this translation is unclear and potantially misleading" ... only less wordy than that, preferably.

As for other disagreements with you, it's not a matter of you making errors, as of you having a different philosophy of translation than I do. As a rule, you prefer to give as litteral a translation as possible, while still being accurate, whereas to my mind, in a page like List of Latin phrases, it would be better to focus on traditional translations (again, while still being accurate). The page, afterall, is about Latin phrases used in English, rather than about Latin itself. But honestly, I don't think it's worth it to discuss this much, because your overhaul of the pages is a fait accompli (a French phrase which someone once tried to add to that list), and even if I could sway you on this point, redoing the whole list would be a ridiculous waste of time at this point.

Bizarrely, in this particular disagreement, our usual roles were reversed, because the more litteral translation is apparently more common (based on your google evidence). As a result, you ended up giving me an argument that I would normally be giving you, namely "tradition over absolute accuracy."

--Iustinus 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• "As a rule, you prefer to give as litteral a translation as possible, while still being accurate, whereas to my mind, in a page like List of Latin phrases, it would be better to focus on traditional translations (again, while still being accurate)." - Actually, for many phrases on the List, I give the literal translation and a couple of traditional (or at least variant) ones. I feel that it's best to give both the most technically correct translation(s) and the most common translations for any phrase where interpretation or emphasis differs significantly (i.e. only rarely, but not never, for word order issues). This will not only give our readers more information on the topic and give them the discretion to choose whichever translation they prefer, but also prevents future edit-wars over which translation is "the best translation" out of a number of valid and good possibilities. The main issue I think you're objecting to, unless I'm mistaken, is that I use the literal translation for the "Translation" box and the other translations (or common mistranslations) for the general-info box. This is for four reasons:
  • (1) If I instead put the most common translation in the "Translation" box, issues would very frequently arise over which of a number of common translations is the most common. In many cases, it's very difficult to say, especially for the more complex Latin! This could lead to not only a lot of edit wars, but also a relatively arbitrary and disorganized way of presenting the phrases. Even worse, we would have to be careful to measure the "rightness" of a phrase versus the "commonality" of a phrase, which can lead to some very tough (and disputable) decisions and complex formulations. For example, we'd have to weigh the "rightness" (or accuracy) of 'And you, Brutus?' vs. its commonality; if it's common enough, we may have to use it even if it's not quite accurate, but how common is "common enough" when there's an issue (albeit not a life-alteringly bad translation flaw) with this specific translation? So in the end, using the more literal one (though I almost always try to pick literal translations that convey the meaning well too, and I'm almost never 100% literal, since that would just be meaningless ot English-speakers: for example, I do translate ab imo pectore as "from the depths of my heart", not as "from the deepest chest") is not only more consistent, but also helps prevent countless potential edit disputes by making literal accuracy a bigger issue than how common each translation is (a very, very, very difficult thing to accurately measure, Google be damned) for the chief definition.
  • (2) The literal translation is usually quite straightforward in its source: it's simply a rendering of the Latin. On the other hand, many of the more "common" translations have a history, or a specific style or source, which necessitates an introductory description when the phrase is mentioned. For example, I often have to give disclaimers like "Idiomatically/Metaphorically rendered as" or "Commonly mistranslated as" or "Sometimes simplified/summarized to" or what-have-you for the common translations of a Latin phrase, and if that phrase was the first one we mentioned and was in its own box separate from the rest, it would be very, very difficult and awkward to explain that translation. It might even require resorting to (shudder) parentheses!
  • (3) The other option would be to have more than one translation in the "translation" box, rather than picking one (sometimes almost arbitrarily, it may seem) and relegating the rest to the general-information box. I have considered this possibility in the past. But in the end, it would cause far, far too many organizational problems and would inconvenience the reader more than aiding him, as well as causing a lot more table-space waste and clutter than there is currently. Simpler is usually better, and the current style is, though not perfect, at least fairly simple and user-accessible.
  • (4) The most literal translation can in many cases be considered the most "basic" one, from which all other translations are assorted interpretations and slants on the literal rendering. From this perspective, it makes sense to start from the more literal and work outwards to the more figurative or interpretative, both aesthetically and logically. It just seems like a more natural way of thinking and learning about these Latin phrases, and thus what will give our readers the maximum benefit and the "smoothest ride" through the list.
• However, I am willing to discuss the future possibility of switching to reliance on "common" and "established" translations, as I'm sure there are at least a few very solid arguments for doing so instead of the current system. I currently greatly prefer this style of presenting the translations to our readers, but certainly not to the extent that my mind is closed to other possibilities.
• "The page, afterall, is about Latin phrases used in English, rather than about Latin itself." - ... Hm. After rethinking that line a few times, I'm not sure I agree. The page is called "List of Latin phrases", not "List of Latin phrases used in English"; the only reason English translations are even provided is because this is the English Wikipedia, not because there's any special connection between Latin or English that's worth analyzing more than other languages. As an example, if there was a Latin phrase that was incredibly common in Japan and was used in Japanese all the time, but had almost never been used in English, we'd be justified in including it here and giving an English translation. We're only biased towards English inasmuch as we expect our readers to know English: we're not biased towards English to the exclusion of Latin phrases that are noteworthy in other languages. By the same logic, a few really widespread/noteworthy Latin phrases from ancient Rome that didn't survive into the Middle Ages and etc. to be picked up by later authors might actually merit inclusion, though that's much more disputable (Wikipedia tolerates a temporal bias much more than a cultural one—probably because there are fewer people to offend, most people from ancient Rome being fairly dead).
• "and even if I could sway you on this point, redoing the whole list would be a ridiculous waste of time at this point." - Ridiculous wastes of time are my favorite game. ;) If you're comfortable with the current list (even though you don't find it ideal), then that's fine; if you ever do decide that a change might be worth the time and trouble, though, I'll gladly discuss the possibility. On Wikipedia more than anywhere else, nothing is truly a fait accompli. :)
• "As a result, you ended up giving me an argument that I would normally be giving you, namely "tradition over absolute accuracy."" - Not tradition over absolute accuracy: tradition along with absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is not paper; we have plenty of room to give our readers both the best translations and the most common ones. In fact, my philosophy on the Et tu, Brute? page mirrors my philosophy on the List of Latin phrases pages: start off by giving the most meaningful, accurate, or literal translations of the phrase ("You too, Brutus?", "Even you, Brutus?", etc.), then bring up and explain common mistranslations or alternative interpretations of the Latin. -Silence 10:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The only point I really want to answer at the moment is "After rethinking that line a few times, I'm not sure I agree. The page is called 'List of Latin phrases', not 'List of Latin phrases used in English'." OK, fair enough. If you know any Latin phrases that are more common in Japan than in the Anglo-sphere, please let me know ;) But certainly there are Latin phrases that are common in, say, Italian or German that aren't in English. But I guess what I mean is that most of the readers are more interested in the phrases themselves than in how the Latin works.

In any case, for the most part I'm willing to let the list stand as is.

As for this article, how about "...frequently, but possibly misleadingly rendered 'And you Brutus?'"

--Iustinus 17:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not his "last words". After that he says "Then fall, Caesar. Someone wasn't paying attention when they wrote this

Well, he does in Shakespeare, at least. --Iustinus 06:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare is not an Auctor. He's a playwright, he as no authority on Caius Iulius Caesar. Only historians near Caesar's time have authority, and then it must be heavily combed, as what we have left of that time are on scraps. It's heavily biased on whoever wanted to make undeniably great men (at that time, military and political) sound like what they wanted them to sound like. Gallian Wars is with us today, because it was simply descriptive. Who know what kind of proscriptive texts Caesar might have dictated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.123.148 (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Contra me?

I've seen a longer version of this quotation--"Et tu, Brute, contra me?". I don't have the play handy, so can anyone confirm if that is how it appears in the text? If not, then where did this version come from? Appleseed (Talk) 03:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea. HOnestly I have no idea where Shakespeare got the phrase, and I doubt he made it up himself. If anyone can enlighten us about the history of this phrase (beyond what is already listed in the article), I woudl be very grateful. --Iustinus 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All I can think of is that a version is sometimes seen: tu quoque, fili mii? Slac speak up! 12:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

IPA of whole phrase

An IPA transcription of the whole phrase, instead of just the "Brute" part, would be nice

SNOWCLONE??

A several millennia old phrase and we're throwing in a word coined in 2004 that's not in any dictionary?

I really don't see why people have such a problem with the word "snowclone." --Iustinus 06:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Et tu, tu quoque, καὶ σὺ τέκνον

I think it's high time we stopped arguing in the edit summary and started discussing this on the talk page. Here are my responses to the argument as it stands now:

1. Et tu Brute is clearly famous in languages other than ENglish, as a simple perusal of the interwiki links will show.
2. Et tu translates καὶ σὺ quite literally, so it is silly to claim that tu quoque is any more natural. It is true that Shakespeare (apparently) innovated the "Brute", but it is also true that τέκνον could just as easily, perhaps even more accurately, be translated as puer or something similar--the Greek is much less pregnant than the Latin, when it comes to implying paternity.
3. The claim that this phrase originates with Lhomond was taken directly from fr:Tu quoque mi fili, where it is stated:

   Elle est issue de la biographie de César contenue dans le De viris illustribus (Des grands hommes [de Rome]) (1779) de l'abbé Lhomond : « Quum Marcum Brutum, quem loco filii habebat, in se irruentem vidisset, dixit : « Tu quoque fili mi !»

4. I'm no expert at French literature, but it seems to me that given Lhomond's popularity, it is at least likely that he "popularized" the phrase, if he did not invent it. But honestly, can you find any earlier citations? I ask this not only for the sake of argument, but because I genuinely want to know if tu quoque fili mi and et tu Brute show up in the tradition before Lhomond and Shakespeare.

--Iustinus 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In the historical context, those in prior periods who would have given any thought to (or even known anything of) that period were members of the intelligentsia and relatively fluent in Latin and at least acquainted with archaic Greek, so much of this discussion would have never formally arisen... it's only in the modern context where such languages are considered dead, and are essentially unknown to even the well read public that the issue of popularization of specific phrases becomes meaningful. Both "Et tu" and "Tu quoque" are fairly simple & straight forward translations of the Greek "original" but the latter is arguably more natural to a Latin speaker, and as such it is not surprising that it is the version found in Latin text (which became a textbook for Latin as it fell out of common use). Looking at the distribution of languages/cultures which favour one form or the other, it is also evident that those languages that favour "Tu quoque" are generally also those with the strong linguistic ties to Latin itself (ie. the Romance Languages).

So the question arises — why did Shakespeare use "Et tu"? Simple: he was a playwright and writing for his audience; at that time he was closer to the Norman invasion than to our times and French was still considered a language of culture & aristocracy in Britain (Latin was also relatively commonly known) so ... "Et tu", while Latin is the same in French, and thus, although understood to be appropriately period, was easily understood by the actors & audience -- also the use of the familiar form "tu" in that age & context could imply the closeness explicit in "fili mi", while the more proper translation (Tu quoque) would go over the heads of the bulk of his audience. It's actually quite an imaginative solution for a theatrical version set in that time period (which of course is why Shakespeare has the enduring reputation that he does.--Invisifan 03:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Brute" certainly appears more French than Latin. Even recognizing that we're talking about the French of four centuries ago (as spoken by Englishmen), the level of familiarity implied by "my son" in the Greek original would be communicated in French by the use of the familiar pronoun "tu" plus the first name, and I believe this was also the case four centuries ago. Those members of Shakespeare's audience who understood French (a significant number) would have appreciated this. See tutoyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob99 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Those members of Shakespeare's audience who understood French (a significant number)" most of the audience would be the common people.  rdunnPLIB  08:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe some of this -- partly very speculative -- discussion could be corrected by realizing that "Et tu, Brute" is also very close to a palindrome, saying the same thing read backwards (if you turn the order of the pair of consonants "Br" and allow for some extra French aspiration at beginnign and end). This underscores the poetic, aesthetic, rhetoric, rhytmic, euphonic and perhaps even "mnemnonic" use with Shakespeare, and should put some talk about the correctness of the literal meaning etc. within brackets. It is the murder of Ceasar in the play with the same name. It's the pinnacle of the play. The wording is not likely to be left to chance or simply any couple of words. It is striking, could have been put on the billboards for the play if they had any back then -- and is still fumbled with here 400 years later. And "Brute" is, already back then I gather (from OED, if I got it right), signifying "brutality" (of mind, force, nature -- from the latin), and the phrase thus also displays the contrast between the more exquisite intelligence of Caesar (capable of finding the right phrase at an awkward moment) and the more dull nature of Brutus. P.J.J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.65.151 (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is a piece of crap

"et tu (..... ) is notable for what the expression was used for. Why is this getting into all the semantics about Latin? Not signifcant. It's the phrase to exclaim you've been betrayed, and the article doesn't even give it mention. --Lamrock 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the first paragraph in the article, which ends:

The quotation is widely used in Western culture as the epitome of betrayal.

Or the third paragraph:

Probably the most famous 3 words uttered, "Et tu, Brute?", this expression has come to mean ultimate betrayal by one's closest friend(s).

You must be confused by the excessive detail of the Talk page. --Habap 22:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion and not insignificant at all in my opinion. I just stumbled over "Et tu, Brute" used by someone else and recalled having learned "Tu quoque, fili" at school. So, I tried to find out about it here and just wanted to add that I seem to be an example for the fact that the "tu quoque" version is common in Germany, too - and much more than the "et tu" version, it seems to me. At least, this is true for people like me who did not read much Shakespeare, but learned Latin at school. Perhaps there is anybody who can verify or falsify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.41.78 (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare Cite

Several sources online suggest that this occurs in line 77 of III.i, not line 85. I don't have a paper copy handy. Anybody care to verify?

I verified with my copy; it's line 77. I'll add it as a reference now. Alexbrewer 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Couple Things

ok, first off, I think we should mention that this was also the name of a halo3 documentary. Also, I heard that before brutus stabbed julius, that julius died before the dagger pierced his heart. Think we should add these? Wii2-13 22:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Use in Other Media"

As "Et tu, Brute?" is such a widely quoted phrase including a "Use in Other Media" section seems valid. However, some of the examples don't seem to pass the notability test and I may prune a few, always subject to other contributors' views.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's getting too large now and I'm going to give it a try. As "Old" Moonraker I'm not too familiar with popular culture, so I hope I don't fall into the WP:IDONTKNOWIT pitfall: assistance welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything worth keeping: all of it seemed to be unsourced trivia. See Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been reinstated without comment or summary. To me it's still WP:TRIVIA, "A list of miscellaneous facts...to be avoided". As before, other editors views requested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, so I've removed the entire section with reference to WP:TRIVIA and WP:RECENT. --Xover (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Now seems due for another clearout. I'll do this soon, if no objections are made. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Kateshortforbob has beaten me to it, perhaps more leniently than I would have done! --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And User:Piano non troppo has finished the job. Community's thanks to all. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange Line

"Caesar's last words are not known with certainty and are a contested subject among scholars and historians alike." Historians are not scholars?!? Plclark (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-order some sentences

This was in deference to the WP:LEAD policy and to bring respective "Greek" and "Latin" sections closer together. As in the edit summary, further suggestions for improvement welcome.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Even you, Brutus"

The proper translation is certainly not "And you, Brutus." While "You too, Brutus" may be appropriate, I think the best translation is "Even you, Brutus?" Et, in this case, is an abbreviation of etiam. Both "You too" and "Even you" are acceptable translations of "Etiam tu," I think the latter is a little more clear. Either way, "Even you" should at least be mentioned as a possible translation, if not be the primary translation. Often in ancient Latin texts when a sentence begins with "et," it's appropriate to translate it that way.

140.247.12.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Questionability of Plutarch as a source

The last sentence of the "Context" section is "Plutarch also reports that Caesar said nothing and merely pulled his toga over his head when he saw Brutus among the conspirators." I think this is hardly a reliable source, as Plutarch wrote comedies, so I don't know how reliable this report can be - it could have been a satirical work - or if Plutarch can ever be considered a reliable historian at all. Blippy1998 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Plutarch wrote comedies? Surely you mean Plautus (And one must wonder what this says about your reliability as a source on this sort of thing. Unless you're trolling). Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I did mean Plautus, sorry. Should I delete this section? Blippy1998 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Move the page!!!!

It needs to be moved! It is properly spelled "Et tu, Bruté?" NOT "Et tu, Brute?". This is not French class. MarcusBrutusKillsCaesar (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you a. provide some citations for this spelling in proper Latin and b. explain why we should not use the spelling of the text in which the quotation appears (Julius Caesar)? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In my book, it says "Et tu, Bruté?" so this should at least be treated as important if not the proper spelling. But I believe it is the proper spelling. In my other book it says "Et tu, Brutè?" which confuses me even more. MarcusBrutusKillsCaesar (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have two versions and both say something different, how did you choose one? Which editions are they, and are they good ones? Have you considered that yours might be wrong while others are right? (The Arden edition, for instance, uses no accents.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeares original text - available in the British Museum, states "...ET TU BRUTE?..." there is no accent. In Latin "ET" means "AND" and is not shorthand for "ETIAM." ERGO the quote is as written by the Bard "Et tu Brute?" and the literal translation is "AND TOO BRUTUS" which in English is written and spoken as "And Brutus too".QED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.194.226 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Is their any authority for the phrase being French rather than Latin?

"Brute" does not seem Latin, and the phrase "Et tu, Brute?" looks like better French than Latin. The only tradition for Caesar having had last words is that he said "Kai su, teknon?" to Brutus -- Greek words meaning "And you, my son?" (Caesar was having an affair with Brutus's mother.) In Caesar's day, upper class Romans sometimes spoke Greek to each other, just as upper class Englishmen of Shakespeare's day sometimes spoke French to each other. Therefore, translating Caesar's last words into French could have been the best way to convey the social significance of "Kai su, teknon?"

Is anyone aware of any authority for the phrase being French rather than Latin (apart from the fact that, strictly speaking, it appears more French than Latin on its face)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob99 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what makes you think the phrase doesn't look like Latin, but "et" and "tu" are very common Latin words, and "Brute" is the regular vocative form of "Brutus". I see no reason to doubt that the phrase is Latin. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

French pronunciation

Some would-be helpers on the net seem to think that the expression is French. It is almost, for "et" and "tu" are French for "and" and "thou". But the French Wikipedia article "et tu quoque, filii" offers "Toi aussi, Brutus?" I don't have any idea where the reference to Romance languages dropping the "t" comes from. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)