Hamlet Act 3 Scene 1 Analysis

Hamlet is unique in its revenge genre as it has more than one revenge plots occurring within it. The Dominating one is of Hamlet and his desire to avenge his Father by killing his uncle. Throughout the play we see Hamlet in ideal situations to carry out his revenge, but choosing not to do so. In Act III Scene II we see Hamlet using the play that has been set up to try to test the innocence of his Uncle and king by gauging his reaction to a staging of the events of how he supposedly murdered Hamlets father. In this scene we see the so called ‘Mousetrap’ being played out as Hamlet witnesses Claudius reaction to the play and witnesses his reaction, from this he draws accurately that Claudius is guilty. He has confirmed the ghosts message as true, ‘O good Horatio I’ll take the ghost’s word for a thousand pound,’ and has from that found his resolve and is now fully willing to avenge his father by killing Claudius. From Claudius sudden exit ‘The king rises’ and his poor reason for doing so ‘Give me light. Away!’ it leaves Hamlet and the audience fairly certain of Claudius guilt. This leads us to disagree that Hamlets methods of enacting revenge are ineffective as the ‘Mousetrap’ was very successful for Hamlet in finding his resolve and evidence for
him to exact his revenge. To some extent though the Mousetrap was only effective for Hamlet as it convinced him that of Claudius’ guilt but it doesn’t wholly convince the audience and possibly Horatio, as we can see from Horatio’s lack of enthusiasm and joy but instead simply agreeing with Hamlet on what he saw not what he has drawn from it; ‘Hamlet: Upon the poisoning, Horatio: I did very well note him’. He like the reader, the queen and other members of the court will more likely to assume that it was Hamlet’s incessant taunting and insults that has disturbed the King and caused him to leave it in such a manner. The intended audience of this play which was a late Tudor/early Stuart one also may be more drawn to it as the idea of killing a brother, or uncle such as Hamlet intends, as one of the greatest atrocities of which man was capable which comes, like revenge, from the Romans, and may be more hesitant to accept that someone in such a position of power and noble birth should be incapable of. Also it seems far more likely that it is Hamlets taunts that has caused the kings unrest as the Mousetrap does not provide solid evidence of Claudius’ guilt and that it is more a dramatic imperative that Claudius is guilty of killing Hamlets father as otherwise the play would not fit the criteria of its genre and lead it on to a far cry from what is intended. From this we can see that Hamlet’s methods are ineffective but they have to be correct for the play to carry on. In Act III Scene we see Hamlet finding himself in an ideal situation to carry out his revenge, he has just discovered that Claudius is guilty of murdering his father and now has Claudius alone and unaware; prime for the kill. However Hamlet for some reason stays his blade, and chooses that this type of revenge is not for him, either a clash between his Christian ideals of ‘do unto others as done to you’ and his Renaissance Roman ideals of revenge. Somehow this culminates in Hamlet seeing this revenge as not being up to scratch as he sees it as leading to Claudius forgiveness in the eyes of God, ‘To take him in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and seasoned for passage?’ Hamlet’s choice to not kill Claudius here leads to his own death as well as the needless death of all the other characters, it also shows how his methods of enacting revenge are ineffective as he was basically given Claudius on a silver platter but refused to kill him due to his ideals contradicting his desires. One can see Hamlets actions during the final scene to show his methods of revenge as being very effective.
After witnessing the death of his mother and Laertes confessing to Hamlet about what Claudius has done, ‘The King, the King’s to blame.’ Hamlet wastes no time in avenging his mother as he forces Claudius to finish the poison, ‘Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damnéd Dane, Drink off the potion.’ This also could suggest that Hamlet’s previous delays in enacting his revenge were based only on non-conclusive evidence which in such a mind as Hamlets could very easily have manifested itself into doubt about what he had to do. But finally having conclusive concrete evidence of Claudius Hamlet does not delay in slaying
him. Hamlets ability to carry out revenge seems to depend greatly on the presence of his mother and whether she is involved. We can see that when Hamlet is sent to speak with his mother after the Overall we can see in this that Hamlets methods of enacting revenge seem rather dependant on his state of mind, whether he is thinking rationally with a level head which leads to him procrastinating and overthink and subsequently be ineffective, or if his he is enraged, forced to react quickly, or spurned on by the presence of his mother whose presence infatuates and aggravates him. Overall though one must admit that Hamlet did in fact manage to kill Claudius which means to some extend are effective though not greatly as in doing so it lead to the deaths of almost all of the main characters in this play. Had Hamlet been more like his Fortinbras, who can be seen as a foil character, then he would have reacted upon learning immediately of Claudius guilt and slew him whilst he prayed but instead Hamlet delayed it and led to a more ineffective method of revenge.