Thesis: Ribner's general purpose to "to treat Shakespeare's development as a growth in moral vision" (1), and he describes Hamlet as a play in which the hero "learns to accept the order of the universe and to become a passive instrument in the hands of a purposive and benevolent God" (66). Evaluation: It's true that in the fifth act Hamlet seems to be in an accepting mood, but it's hard to swallow most of the rest of Ribner's insistently Christian interpretation. For example, look at his commentary on Fortinbras: Fortinbras will expose his mortal life 'to all that fortune, death and danger dare, / Even for an egg-shell' (IV.iv.52-53), but he knows also how to accept his fate and the moral law of the universe in the manner of the mature stoical man. His uncle's command that he abandon his Danish expedition is an assertion of moral law, and this Fortinbras accepts, although it blunts his original purpose. This act of submission is parallel to the final submission of Hamlet. Its result also is victory. His original unlawful adventure might have won him some land in the hazard of uncertain battle; his submission makes him the new king of Denmark, for providence guides him to Elsinore at the proper moment. He attains the kind of victory over natural impulse which makes him the perfect ruler for the new Denmark which will follow the destruction of the ancient evil of which Claudius has been symbol. Fortinbras stands for the rebirth of order. (87)Ribner is deaf to the saracasm of Hamlet's "even for an egg-shell." As for "moral law," it's only Hitler's kind of moral law which says it's ok to beat up on the Poles just because you can. In addition, Ribner often makes assertions for which there is simply no textual support. For instance, he says that Hamlet "must settle the moral issue of private revenge in a benevolent universal order in which God has retained the punishment of the wicked as his own prerogative" (67). Look as you will in Hamlet, you won't find Hamlet trying to "settle the moral issue of private revenge"; furthermore, Ribner never even attempts to show where or when Hamlet does so. Bottom Line: Dogmatic. |