Julius Caesar: An Experiment in Point of View

Abstract

ECENT studies of Julius Caesar reveal a significant trend in Shakespearian criticism; for better or for worse, critics have become increasingly tentative in their interpretations. Where in past they plunged confidently into a play to pluck out heart of its mystery, they are now inclined to submit reverently to complexity of Shakespeare's vision and accept as an integral part of meaning a dilemma which must not be violated. Perhaps some of color of Shakespearian criticism has been lost; it was comforting for neophyte to discover one critic arguing vehemently that Julius Caesar was intended as a bitter denunciation of tyrant Caesar, while another critic would insist with equal vigor and certitude that play was intended as an expose of Brutus and a resounding affirmation, therefore, of monarchical principle.' But if recent interpretations lack flair and gusto of earlier criticism, they have gained, in my opinion, in accuracy. The focal point of recent studies of Julius Caesar has been very ambivalence of a play which has allowed for such contradictory responses. Bonjour, noting confusion of good and evil which marks every character in play, has concluded, for example, that play is intended to reveal the value of suspended judgment.2 Traversi has also recognized fundamental equivocality of play; he finds that Caesar is cast as an ambivalent figure, but this