Dr. Gonnella and I agree that Hamlet's long agonizing delay in acting against Claudius for the suspected murder of Hamlet's father is justified. As a youthful university student, Hamlet resents having to take on the burden of revenge. The risks involved in confronting the divine authority of a king are awesome, and in killing Claudius out of hate and for self-serving ambition, Hamlet himself would be damned. Furthermore-and here I differ with Gonnella's claim that the regicide is "unambiguously clear"-Hamlet delays because he is unsure of Claudius's guilt. Only we, the audience, ever know that Claudius is guilty; the grapes of certitude are always suspended just beyond Hamlet's reach.

I have trouble with Dr. Gonnella's view that Hamlet finally takes rapid and decisive action. Yes, he goes to his death bravely in the duel, but not as one in charge of events; rather, he is more like a leaf caught up passively in the stream of fate. Yes, he does eventually kill Claudius, but he does so in self-defense; he kills not because he knows Claudius is guilty (nor for evil personal gain) but because the king poisoned his wine and Laertes's foil.

From my perspective as a physician, Hamlet the diagnostician has sound reasons for his delay. I have difficulty, however, with his eventual abdication of his mission and his shifting of the responsibility for the king's fate to providence. In practice and in life, we problem solvers do not have the option of disengagement. Taking a stand despite danger, uncertainty, and ambiguity is our game.