You are on page 1of 22

George Washington University

Hamlet's Hand
Author(s): Jonathan Goldberg
Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 307-327
Published by: Folger Shakespeare Library in association with George Washington University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2870929
Accessed: 28/09/2010 10:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=folger.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

George Washington University and Folger Shakespeare Library are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Shakespeare Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Hamlet's Hand
JONATHAN GOLDBERG

IN

HIS 1942-43 LECTURES ON PARMENIDES, Heidegger inveighs against the

he writes,"and, thereby,
. . . hides handwriting,"
typewriter:
"typewriting
unddamitdenCharakter
character"("die Maschinenschrift.
. . die Handschrift
verbirgt"). As Heidegger'susage remindsus, characteris, precisely,a scriptive formation;individualsare deliveredin theirhands, authenticated
by their
signatures.Historiansof literacydependuponthesemarks.2For manyof them,
as forHeidegger,the evidenceof the individualhand impliesa metaphysical
it is explicitwhenHeideggerpositsas essentiallyhumantheposinvestment;
session of language-and the possession of the hand. As he puts it in Was
Heisst Denken: "only a beingwho can speak, thatis, think,can have hands."3
I begin with a moderninstancein the historyof Westernphilosophythat
Derridahas summarizedas logocentrism,althoughI mightas easily have invoked ancientor Renaissanceexamples,Gregoryof Nyssa, forinstance,who
writesthat"it was above all forlanguagethatnatureaddedhandsto ourbodies."
of rationalnature,"he continues,since "it is,
"Hands are the characteristic
in effect,one of the marksof thepresenceof reason to expressitselfthrough
letters."4Or I mighthave citedtheSpanishwritingmasterAndresBrun,writing
in 1583: "Plato says thatthe differencewhich divides us humansfromthe
animalsis thatwe have thepowerof speech and theydo not. I, however,say
thatthe difference
is thatwe know how to writebut theydo not. .. ."5
(Human) Being in the hand. Yet Heideggeralso proclaimsSocrates "the
purestthinkerof the West. ... He wrotenothing";6the minddoes not need
a hand. And Gregoryof Nyssa would subordinatethe hand to speech-this
even thoughhe equates rationality
withthe hand. The Spanish writingmaster
1 Martin

am Main: VittorioKlostermann,1982), p. 119. My


Heidegger,Parmenides(Frankfurt
on HeideggertakesofffromJacquesDerrida,"GeschlechtII: Heidegger'sHand," in
commentary
Deconstruction
and Philosophy,ed. JohnSallis (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 16196.
2 On thedifficulty
of equatingliteracywiththe abilityto write,see R. S. Schofield,"The Measurementof Literacyin Pre-Industrial
England," in Literacyin TraditionalSocieties, ed. Jack
Goody (Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1968). On theproblemsof measuringliteracythrough
signatures,see David Cressy,Literacyand theSocial Order(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press,
1980). For an incisivecritiqueof the theoreticaland ideological implicationsof muchworkdone
by historiansof literacy,see Brian V. Street,Literacyin Theoryand Practice (Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1984).
3 Martin
Heidegger,Whatis Called Thinking?,trans.Fred D. Wieck and J. Glenn Gray (New
York: Harper& Row, 1968), p. 16; cf. Parmenides,p. 118.
4 Gregoryof Nyssa, La Creation de l'Homme, trans.Jean Laplace (Paris: Editionsdu Cerf,
1943), pp. 112-13, 107 (148c-149e, 144c). I am gratefulto WilliamKlein forthisreference.Cf.
AndreLeroi-Gourhan,
Le Geste et la Parole, 2 vols. (Paris: Albin Michel, 1964), Vol. I, 40-42,
of Gregory'sremarks.
endorsement
44-56, fora modernanthropologist's
5 See Scribes and Sources, ed. A. S.
Osley (Boston: David R. Godine, 1980), p. 180. S&S will
designatereferencesto thisinvaluablesource.
6
Whatis Called Thinking?,p. 17.

308

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

outPlatosPlato by installingwritingin place of speech as the sign of a transcendentaldifference.In these instances,the metaphysicalhand barelymaintains an essentialhumanity,nor does it easily uphold transcendental
Being.
theseformulations
aboutthehand
Pretendingto an instrumental
transparency,
pointinsteadto a recalcitrance-point,in a word,to writingas the founding
instanceof thatwhichcauses the metaphysicalfoundationsto founder.
Heideggerinveighsagainstthemachineand also, like AndresBrun,against
the animal. "No animal has a hand," he writes.7But what if the hand, and
withit materiality,
and withit the individual,had no foundationbut thecharacteristicmark,a markno hand could own? As in FrederickEngels's fragessay, "The PartPlayed by Labour in theTransition
mentaryand exploratory
fromApe to Man,"8 whereEngels speculates,accurately,accordingto Elaine
fromape to man had been
Scarry,"that the crucial locationof the transition
of the
in the hand,theorganof making,ratherthanin theskull,theattendant
has
fashioned
even
of
simian
hand
ever
the
crudest
of
"No
organ thinking."9
stoneknives," Engels writes(p. 81), and it is onlywhenthehand makesthat
the hand becomes human.The humanhand "is not only the organof labour,
it is also theproductof labour," he emphasizes. The hand is made by what
it makes. It is, it has being,preciselyas an artifact.The handthatextendsinto
is itselfmaterialized,thefoundinginstanceof a
matterthroughtheinstrument
dimension,an instancethatfinds
being-in-the-hand
strippedof itsmetaphysical
its echo-or so I intendto argue-in a Shakespeareanmomentlike this one
in Hamlet: Claudius receives a letterfromHamlet: "Know you the hand?"
Laertes asks; " 'Tis Hamlet's character,"the king replies (IV.vii.50).'0 The
play offersan equation of hand and character,but it is not the same as Heidegger's. Nor is it in KingLear whenEdmundreads a letterascribedto Edgar:
"You know the characterto be yourbrother's?"(I.ii.61); nor, again, when
Malvolio(mis)recognizes
Olivia's "sweetRomanhand" (Twelfth
Night,III.iv.26).
In theseinstances,thecharacteristic
handhas been charactered,made by what
has been made. In these instances,the hand, materializedas writing,is emphaticallya social hand, the disownedmarkof materialproduction.
Sentience,as Elaine Scarrysays, is "itself an artifact"(p. 255) when the
hand is extendedintothematerialsit makes,and it gains fromthosematerials
the abilityto participatein the world of thingsmade. For Scarry, "the socializationof sentience"is whatcharacterizeshumanbeing,the abilityof our
languageand ourobjects-indeed, of our languageas an object-to be shared.
But sharing(or communicating)may sentimentalizethe notionof labor that
Scarrytakes fromEngels. For Engels, the liberationof the voice thatfollows
upon theliberationof thehand is a factof labor. "Men in themakingarrived
to say to one another"(p. 83), he writes;
at thepointwheretheyhad something
as
an
from
labor
arose
thus
artifact,not as somethingowned but as
language
in
Edenic
some
made.
fantasyof originswould suchsociability
something
Only
of natureor of humannature.Or, as Engels says,
producethe transparency
only at some laterstage in thehistoryof man would theabilityto
profoundly,
7 "Kein Tier hat eine Hand," Parmenides,p. 118.
8 In Karl Marx and FrederickEngels, SelectedWorks,2 vols. (Moscow:
ForeignLanguagePublishingHouse, 1962), Vol. 2, 80-92.
9 The Body in Pain (New York: OxfordUniv. Press, 1985), p. 252. I am gratefulto Michael
Warnerfordrawingthisdiscussionto my attention.
10All citationsfromThe CompletePelican Shakespeare,ed. AlfredHarbage(Baltimore:Penguin
Books, 1969).

HAMLET'S HAND

309

communicatebe takenas a sign of the superiority


of our mindsratherthanof
our hands. "All meritfortheswiftadvance of civilisationwas ascribedto the
mind,to thedevelopmentand activityof thebrain. . . . And so therearose in
thecourseof timethatidealisticoutlookon theworld" (p. 87). The beingthat
locates theShakespeareancharacterwould seem, however,to residein a hand
whose sociabilityis notEdenic. Yet theShakespeareanhandalso would appear
not to have forgotten
its materiality.
and socialityof theShakespearean
Derridamightsituateforus themateriality
in OfGramstatement
handand theShakespeareancharacter.His programmatic
matologygeneralizesthelabor of thehand as the site of a culturalgraphology
an informing
transinvestedin graphicsubstancesand instruments,
materiality
formednot onlyby the hand but by idealization.As opposed to the idealistic
he recognizesthat"actradition,whichDerridasummarizesas logocentrism,
cess to thewritten
signsassuresthesacredpowerof keepingexistenceoperative
withinthe trace;"" he insistson the ideological forceof the scriptiveorder.
NeitherEngels's vision of a momentwhen man emergesas a social being (a
moment,by the way, thatis virtuallyEdenic, despite Engels's materialism)
can withstand
Derrida's analysis
nor'Scarry'shopes forhumancommunication
of the alliance of power and writing.
If we are to explorethe culturalgraphologythatlocates the Shakespearean
character,it mustbe emphasizedthatHamlet's fairhand, his character,is a
recognizableprincelymark.12 ElizabethI, forexample,had been taughta fine
italic hand by Ascham, as her brotherbeforeher had been; indeed, Ascham
it was "most praiseworthy
of all,"
foundthatof thequeen's accomplishments
as he writesin The Schoolmaster,that"withinthewalls of herprivychamber
she hathobtainedthatexcellencyof learning,to understand,
speak, and write,
both wittilywithhead and fairwithhand, as scarce one or two rare wits in
have in manyyearsreachedunto." 3 Jeande Beau Chesne,
boththeuniversities
authorof thefirstwritingbook publishedin England,tutoredPrincessElizabeth
(daughterof JamesVI and I), writingout copies forher practice;in the dedicatorypoem to a set of copy-textsthatsurvivesin Beau Chesne's hand,'4 the
royalwritingmasteroffershimselfand his pen, as if he were producedby his
own labor: the princessis asked to receive with"a good eye" boththe work
and the worker.But if he is in the hand thatshe is to regard,so, too, is she.
The dedicatorypoem remindshis royalreaderthatthenamesof princescannot
be read, would not survive,withoutthe pen.
PrinceHenry,Elizabeth'sbrotherand theheirapparent,had his writingmasters too, Peter Bales and JohnDavies of Hereford;and MartinBillingsley,
authorof The Pens Excellencie or The SecretariesDelight (1618), taughtthe
1 Of Grammatology,
trans.GayatriChakravorty
Spivak (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniv. Press,
1976), p. 92.
12 On connections
betweenhandwriting
and Englishroyalty,see Sir EdwardMaundeThompson,
"Handwriting,"in Shakespeare's England, eds. SidneyLee and C. T. Onions, 2 vols. (Oxford:
ClarendonPress, 1916), Vol. I, 284-310; AmbroseHeal, The English Writing-Masters
and their
Copy-Books,1570-1800 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1931). There are some interesting
anecdotes in Isaac D'Israeli, "The Historyof WritingMasters," in Curiositiesof Literature,6
vols. (London: EdwardMoxon, 1834), Vol. 5, 284-99.
13 RogerAscham,The Schoolmaster,
ed. LawrenceV. Ryan(Ithaca: CornellUniv. Press, 1967),
p. 56.
14
NewberryLibraryWing Ms. ZW 639.B 382: "Recevez d'un bon oeil PRINCESSE, je vous
prie,/ L'ouvrage & l'ouvrierde qui le coeur n'oublie /Les tres-humbles
respectsqui par luy vous
son deus."

310

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

futureCharlesI. "And whatshouldI say of theExcellencyof thisArt?" Billingsleyasks; "Is it not one of the hands by whichnot only this,but al other
are vpholden?The keywhichopensa passage to thedescrying
common-wealths
and findingout of innumerable
treasures?The handmaidto memory?The Registerand Recorderof all Arts?And the verymouthwherebya man familiarly
conferreth
withhis friend,thoughthedistanceof thousandsof milesbe betwixt
them?" (C2v-C3r). Billingsley'shand undergoesthe idealizationof material
the hand thatwritesis metamorphosed
intothe hand thatupholds
investiture;
all commonwealths.
The forceof themetaphorserves,fora moment,to obscure
the veryliteralityof the statement(thereis no power placed in the hands of
of thestatement-allcommonwealths,
notjust
illiterates),just as thegenerality
England, are upheldby the hand thatwrites-allows forspecificsocial conto be ignored.Theyemerge,however,in themetaphors
thatdescribe
figurations
as
a
or
handmaid
to
to
treasures
the
writing
key
memory,invokingtherebya
technicalhierarchy
inflected
withclass and sexualarrangements.
The supporting
hand becomes a subordinatehand, an outsideprovidingthe means of access
to a morehighlyvalued interiority,
a treasurythatis one withthe mind. Yet
the ambiguityof this instrument-support
and upholder,(male) key and (feThese
male) maid-arises preciselyfromtheideologicaland idealizingargument.
insides are producedby the outside;writing,whichregistersand records,inscribessocialitywithinits domain.
Whatemergesat theend of thispassage is themouththatthepen produces,
"the verymouthwherebya man familiarlyconferreth
withhis friend." The
truemouthis thisartifice.As Engels suggested,languageis theproductof what
thehand makes; and, as Derridasuggests,it is preciselythatmaterialfactthat
languageobscures.The socialitythatarises in Billingsley'saccount,even the
privatedomain,is made by the hand. Ascham,we mightrecall, had foundit
remarkablethatthequeen could make herbedchamberintoan alternativeuniversity.But Billingsley'scelebrationof thepen's excellencymightilluminate
how ordinarysociability,privacy,and public communicationare ideological
constructs.
locatestheschoolhousewithintheworld;thusAschamspeaks
Writing
of his book as "a New Year's gift" (p. 9)-it is partof a social systemand
it reinforcesthatsystem-and, in the nextsentence,he refersto his book as
"my poor schoolhouse," a metaphorthatexpands over the followingpages.
The book can enteranybedchamber;theschoolhousecan be erectedanywhere.
Thus, JohnHart,theElizabethanspellingreformer,
promotedhis new orthographyin a fantasyin whichhis new letterscould be seen everywhere"drawen
on thewalles, pillers,and postes of churches,tounesand houses";15buthe is
quick to assurehis readersthatsuch legibilitywill notdisruptthesocial order;
eyes thatcan read leave the handsfree: "theirhandesmaybe otherwysewell
occupied, in woorkingfortheirliuing" (A6r). And if theirworkis writing,
thehandis insertedintosocial practice.For writing,likereading,occurswithin
the privatizedsocial space thatcharactersengenderand thatengenderscharacter.
Ascham's New Year's giftof the book as schoolhouse,or Hart's inscribed
landscape, suggeststhatroyal inscriptionoffersa model forliteracyand its
extension,foras FranqoisFuretand JacquesOzouf concludein theirstudyof
readingand writingin France, writingas a privateand silentmarkengenders
15A Methodeor comfortable
for all unlearned...
beginning

to read English(1570), fol. A6r.

HAMLET'S HAND

311

"the individual"-but it is, as theyadd, "the individualin his social context."16Subjectivityis opened up at preciselythe cost of subscriptionto the
of rule-the pen-into thehandof citizens
societythatonlyputstheinstrument
it has alreadyruled.Hence, it is no accidentthatthelargestcache of documents
available to historiansof literacyin the early modernperiod includesloyalty
and marriagelicenses: explicitsigns, thatis, thatthose
oaths,courtaffidavits,
who writesubscribeto the laws, thatthe privaterealm is placed underthe
scrutinyof churchand state and producedby it. Hence, the titlepage of the
1602 printing
of thefirstEnglishcopy-book(publishedinitiallyin 1570), writtenby Jeande Beau Chesne, the futureroyaltutor,and JohnBaildon, depicts
two angels writing;above them, guaranteeingtheirmarksbeyond the transcendentalwarrantof thatimage, are two allegoricalfigures,Pietyand Justice;
corner,displaystheroyalcoat of arms
Piety,the figurein the upper-left-hand
(fig. 1).
*

or a carpenter?"(V.i.47"Who builds stronger


thana mason,a shipwright,
while
a
his
and
The
on
Clown
insists
riddle,
48).
literary(or literate)audience
is
"a
theClown has a material
riddle
answer
to
the
think
that
the
writer,"
might
answer: "Say 'a grave-maker'" (1. 55).

of character,the
Hamletoffersnumerousinstancesof theliteralembodiment
thatproducesHamlet's letteras the markof charsocially scriptiveformation
acter.17 Hamlet,burdenedby memory,encountersa ghost,stagesa play, both
hauntedby the memoryof earlierscripts;and althoughthe highlytheatrical
Senecan Ghost speaks only to him, Hamlet receives the Ghost's words as a
scriptivecommand,one thatre-markshis hauntedmemoryas a locus of inscription,erasure,and reinscription:
Remember
thee?
Yea, fromthetableof mymemory
I'll wipeawayall trivialfondrecords,
all pressures
All sawsof books,all forms,
past
Thatyouthandobservation
copiedthere,
all aloneshalllive
Andthycommandment
Within
thebookandvolumeof mybrain,
withbasermatter.
Unmixed
(I.v.97-104)
In these lines, subjectivityis a scene of writing.Hamletproceedsto writein
his copy-bookwhat is inscribedin his brain, initiatinga career continually
to the actorsrepeattheGhost's
investedin scriptivegestures.His instructions
commands;theyare to hold "the mirrorup to nature,"to producean "image"
that will give "the very age and body of the time his formand pressure"
(III.ii.20-23). The actor'sbody-Hamlet's body-thus standsas a letter,"form
16
Reading and Writing:Literacyin France fromCalvin to JulesFerry(Cambridge:Cambridge
Univ. Press; Paris: Editionsde la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 1982), p. 314.
17 I draw on my discussionin Voice TerminalEcho (New York: Methuen,1986), pp. 86-100;
Yale FrenchStudies,55/56(1977), 53-93.
see also Daniel Sibony, "Hamlet: A Writing-Effect,"

BOO

LanA. vvd-5 gligi h al, rzmc-r'rct~lrre


zei--,3"t I
Ifts',fiffr
SIT

Fig. I

DF BEAV
'BY TORN
read CjK lo bn Baifdon.

TORTU

LZ? kmi*
hJmpPiwealAt

7 R I C 11A R D

lHEClNE

I FL

:
:

x 6`1-2.?

^?; Wwnit
^

ifrmwh
Ser-m
:

i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;

.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_

13

Xig.

~ ~

?t.
L?'??

Capad~l~TlrZe-

g3

?t?~~~~~~~~r~~Fg.
.

--L-

Nau
hc~1.
a?Nr

?,

? ";~VV

A.1

OVGHT
YOV
k~a~a
?

hold
your

rlu

nc~

Pennc.

TO

HAMLET'S HAND

313

and pressure"hereechoingthe ghostlycopy-bookcommand:thebody as the


locus of inscription,to be read ratherthanheard, actingas dumb show, inscrutableas thesilentletterthatassuresprivacy.Hamlethas no soonerwritten,
and had produced,a scriptfortheplay withintheplay (scriptingtheoral world
of theatricalperformance)thanthe Ghost returns,now seen only by Hamlet;
of Hamlet's scriptiveworld. Yet from
the Ghosthas enteredtheperformance
the startthe Ghost exists withina scriptiveorder,and not merelythatof the
Senecan tragedyin whichhis linesare written.For whenHoratiooffersto vouch
fortheGhost,he tellsHamlet,"I knewyourfather./These handsare notmore
like" (I.ii.211-12). The identityof the Ghost is confirmed
by the identityof
the hand. This is not surprising;the Ghost exists only withinsimilitude,appearing"in the same figurelike the king that's dead," "Most like," "Mark
it, Horatio" (I.i.41, 44, 43). And Horatiomarksit by likeningthelikenessto
the hand thatmarks.
to Denmark,he arrivesin letters,
Not surprisingly,
then,whenHamletreturns
firstto Horatio(in IV.vi) and thento Claudius.
Laertes.

Knowyouthehand?
'Tis Hamlet'scharacter.
'Naked'!
King.
Andin a postscript
here,he says'alone.'
Can youdeviseme?
(IV.vii.50-52)

ThatletterpresentsHamletas merebody,unclothedwithsocial trappings,solitary,Hamletas theprivateindividualproducedby script;the naked, solitary


thatClaudius literallyfindsbaffling
body is a character,a scriptiveformation
and opaque. "What shouldthismean? ... Is it some abuse, and no suchthing?
. . .Can you devise me?" A letterthe messengersays he has fromsomeone
named Claudio (1. 40), and to which Laertes answers, "I am lost in it, my
lord" (1. 53). "I beg leave to see yourkinglyeyes," the lettersays (11.4445); but in thisletter-scene,seeing is reading,and being does not go beyond
the letter,copies observed,a circuitfromClaudio to Claudius whereall charas Hamletwas fromthefirst,in his "inkycloak"
actersare lost in theletter;18
(I.ii.77),

like Rosaline in Love's Labor's Lost, "Beauteous as ink . . . / Fair

as a textB in a copy-book" (V.ii.41-42).


Or as fairas the textA in Beau Chesne and Baildon's copy-book(fig. 2),
wherethe letterhas flourishednot only to producenaturalgrowthssprouting
fromits swirlsbuteven to serveas thesupportfora figureon therightblowing
a horn.The letterproducesthepersonwho speaks at a distance:theembodied
the mouthhere,as in Billingsley'streatise,
characteris a scriptiveformation;
is producedby the letter.The speakingsubject, as Engels suggested,is the
productof the labor of the hand. "All men are by natureequal," the copytextreads, "made all by one workmanof like myre,& howesoeverwe deceave
our selves as dereuntoGod is thepoorestbegger,as themostepompousPrince
liuing in the worlde" (Blr); the text(ascribedto Plato) resoundsin Hamlet's
naked arrival,clothedin the letterwhose circuitbafflesand nonethelesspro18 JamesL. Calderwoodmeditateson this chain of substitute
names in To Be and Not to Be:
Negation and Metadrama in Hamlet (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1983), p. 113 ff.,but
reachesconclusionsaboutHamletbecominghimselfquite opposed to thoseI draw. ThatHamlet's
"inky cloak" investshim in writingwas notedby Daniel Sibony,p. 67.

314

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

duces the king withina sphereof nominationand visibility,"devised" a la


lettre,in the letter,literally.
In the copy-bookhe preparedforPrincessElizabeth, Beau Chesne offered
a Frenchversionof the same textthatappears in his printedcopy-book."We
are all bornnaked and neithernaturenor God has any regardto greatness,".
he writes;thegraveis everyone'sdestination.In themarginof thecopy-book,
anotherhand(perhapsthehandof PrincessElizabeth)has written"Dieu, non;
il n'a point," the fiercenegationsof the letterthatHamletalso inscribes,and
in whichhe has been written.
And not him alone; considerLaertes. Polonius preparesLaertes forhis departurein the termsthatthe Ghost uses two scenes later with Hamlet, the
language of the copy-book:"And these few preceptsin thymemory/ Look
thou character"(I.iii.58-59). Here, too, the mind is imaginedas a writing
tablet,and Laertes's characteris generatedas the locus of commonplaces,a
in "This above
repositoryforthemoralsaws thatPoloniusutters,culminating
is
"own
self"
thesuperficies
Laertes's
be
true"
own
self
to
thine
(I.iii.78).
all,
of thecharactermightbe no more
of Polonius's sententiae,and theinteriority
thanthe depthof the incisionof charactersin stoneor wax.
withina pedagogicaland ideologicalapparatus."WritLaertesis charactered
Browneexplainsin The New Invention,Intituled
David
needes
must
be,"
ing
"or else therecould be litle Civile order"
Andrews,
1622),
(St.
Calligraphia
(**2r). Even royalhands subscribedto thisbelief. JamesI, who wrotean exceedinglylegible versionof an italic hand, pauses in a 1603 letterto Prince
and to hope thattheprincewill come to
Henryto praise Henry'shandwriting
"endite" as well as he writes."Not thatI commendnot a fairhandwriting,"
Jameswrites,but he urgesthe princeto writea letterthatis whollyhis, "as
well matteras form,as well formedby yourmindas drawnby yourfingers."19
Yet, as thelanguageof thelettersuggests,whatis formedby themindis also
formedby the fingers,and the matterof the mindmay be in the hand. And,
indeed, like Polonius or the Ghost, Jamesinsiststhatthe mindof the prince
shouldbe furnishedwithwriting:"For ye may rememberthatin my book to
you, I warnyou to be warywiththatkind of wit thatmay flyout at the end
of yourfingers."For theprinceto "endite" as well as he writes,he needs not
butalso his father's
onlythetrainingof his handthatBales or Davies furnished
a last will and
a
letter-and
as
wrote
that
James
Doron
Basilikon
text, the
testament-to PrinceHenry,ghostlymarksthatsurvivethe king who predethepoint,James'sletterconcludes
ceases himselfto producethem.To reinforce
withquotations(in Latin) fromtheBible and Virgil,exemplarypreceptsculled
texts.This princewill be mosthimselfwhenhe is mostfully
fromauthoritative
his
when
inscribed,
"being" is entirelythe productof his hand-a hand, of
course, producedentirelyby writing.
The civil orderof inscription,
implicitin James'slettersto his son, is perhaps
John
like
in
a
text
more explicit
Brinsley'sLudus Literarius(1612), a pedaPrince
to
dedicated
treatise
Henryand PrinceCharles, "the flourishing
gogical
branches. . . of thathappyspreadingCedar" (2v), the king. Brinsley'smetaphorimplicatesShakespeareas well, since his wordsecho thelinestheSoothsayerspeaksat theend of Cymbelineexplicating(aftersome delayand deferral)
the textthatPosthumushad foundinscribedon a tabletattachedto his breast
19 G.P.V. Akrigg,ed., LettersofKingJamesVI & I (Berkeley:Univ. of CaliforniaPress, 1984),
p. 219.

Lscertm Cgbo tem

Per linMr

taz
hawcfupcrfJciem

Fig.4

intellgito.

316

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

by Jupiter."The loftycedar,royalCymbeline,/ Personatesthee,and thylopped


branchespoint/Thytwo sons forth"(V.v.452-54). Posthumusclaimsthathis
book-or is it moreproperlyJupiter's?-is a "rare one"; its value derivesnot
No "garment/ Nobler
merelyfromits regal donorbut fromits transparency.
thanthatitcovers" (V.iv. 134-35), it is (or so he hopes) "As good as promise"
rereading
(1. 137). Yet, whatthistextpromisesand deliversin theprotracted
and revelationof the Soothsayeris itselfinscribedwithinpedagogic and ideological practices;in the Soothsayer'sexplicationof Jupiter'stext,natureis
so thatit is nothingless thana royalemblembook, whilePosthumus's
mystified
hopefulreadingleads towardsthepossibilitythatmakestheexternaltextnothwe
revelationof his own interiority
(an interiority,
ing shortof a transparent
mightrecall, however,thathad been figureda momentbeforein a dreamin
of the unconwhichJupiterhad appeared). In such a moment,the historicity
scious is staged. That the "person" is an artificeis suggested,moreover,in
the Soothsayer'sexplication;the text he reads figurespersonation,and the
Soothsayer'struth-whichI take to be the truthof the Shakespeareancharacter-is thatpersonsexist withinthe realmof the personated.
These Shakespeareanechoes have a place in Brinsley'streatise,whichdescribesa typicaleducationalschemethatbeginsin readingand ends in writing.
Brinsleyhopes thatstudentswill enterthe grammarschool alreadyable "to
reade English: as namelythattheycould reade the new Testamentperfectly"
Englishis
(p. 13). The workof the primersis to insurereligiousconformity;
textsas the
the same thingas thetextof theNew Testament.Such elementary
psalms or The Schoole of Vertueor The Schoole of good mannersshould be
reread, Brinsleyurges: "For, the second readingof any booke dooth much
incouragechildren,because it seemethto bee so easie then;and also it doth
imprintit themore" (p. 17). The disciplineof the hand-copying-begins in
of "precepts
repetitivereading;whatis made easy and naturalis an imprinting
of ciuilitie" (p. 18). Brinsley'sschoolchildrenare impressedwiththe letter,
thatcorrespondswiththe externalprintby creatingthat
given an interiority
as thedepthof inscription.The disciplineof writinginvolves"good
interiority
copies, continualeyingthemwel, a delightin writing"(p. 39), a delightBrinsley producesby seizing the hand at one in the afternoonwhenit is "warmest
and nimblest"(p. 32). His copy-texts,like thoseof mostcopy-books,are the
same kindof moralsaws thatPolonius speaks-for if he would make his son
a text,it is theone he himselfis (the Ghost,of course,would writea revenge
tragedy,and the copia of Hamlet, howevermuchit exceeds thatmodel, does
not offera theoryof compositionotherthanimitation).
It is preciselybecause thereis no notionof humancharactersave as a locus
of inscriptionthatthe literalact of copyingcan be an ideological practice.
Renaissance writingmasters,intentupon havingtheirpupils replicateas perfectlyand as exactlyas possible the hands thattheytaught,did not promote
any notionof the individualhand, nor the idea thatthe hand is a means for
theyprovidehands,
Copy-booksdo notsimplyoffercopy-texts;
self-expression.
numerousvarietiesof handsand thetextssuitableto them:texthand;documents
in special courthands(Chancery,CommonPleas, King's Bench or Exchequer
hands, for instance);Latin (as well as Italian, French,and English) textsin
italic scriptor Roman majuscules; business formsin various secretaryhands
(true secretary,engrossingsecretary,bastardsecretary,small bastard). In a
typicalcopy-book,biblical citationsaccountforabouthalfthetexts,and these
can be writtenin virtuallyany hand. Theirdisciplinaryforcerunsthroughall

HAMLET'S HAND

317

hands. Othertexts,withtheirspecial uses, special pencutsand penholds,reinforcethe factthatthe hand thatwritesis insertedwithinthe practicesof inscriptionand is conformedto them.The individualproducedby writingis not
an individualizedsubjectbut one conforming
to the charactersinscribed-the
lettersand, ultimately,the words of the copy-texts.Writingwell is a social
markis a class marker.And thehuman
sign,a signof socialization.The written
hand-the materialhand, the individualhand-is the hand producedby the
No wonder,then,
copy-bookand thepracticeitmaintainsthrough
reinscription.
if Polonius's directionsto Laertes appear to clothe him in inauthenticity;
the
of
is
these
The
in
character
but
marks.
hand
moves
nothing
"being"
language,
and itsmovementretracesthe"being" of theindividualinscribedwithinsocial
practice.
Considerthe illustration
thatappears in Beau Chesne and Baildon's Booke
ContainingDivers SortesofHands (fig. 3). The handsin thebook are notonly
thevarietiesof handwriting
thata skilledhandcan perform;
thebook illustrates
the hand itself,the hands producedby thesehands. "How you oughtto hold
yourPenne," thepictureis labelled: in theabsoluteworldof theseinjunctions,
thepossiblepositionsare either"good" or "naught." Perhapswhatis as striking as the productionof the hand withinthatmoral frameworkis the literal
framein whichthe hand is depicted.These are hands thatseem to have been
detachedfrombodies, severed arms ruled by the pictorialframe.And such
illustrations
are commonplace;in fact,no writing-book
of the period ever illustratespenholdby picturinga hand attachedto a body. It is as if such detachmentwere necessaryforthesocializationof thehandor fortheplacement
of thehandwithina social network:"thyloppedbranchespoint/Thytwo sons
forth"(Cym., V.v.453-54). The textsthatappointhandspointto hands that
are made by such texts,handswritingthatare theproductsof thelabor of the
hand.
A picturelike the one in Beau Chesne and Baildon illustratesthe material
circuitfroma hand writingto handwriting,
a productionof value-good or
of thehandinserted
naught-and an implicitidealizationand dematerialization
withinthepracticeof writing.For thehand appearsto be producedby or regulatedby theframe;thebodyhas been detachedfromthehand,and thematerial
productionof lettershas been moralized,spiritualized,placed, in short,within
a regimeof value thatappearsto takeits sourcefromsome transcendent
realm.
"Good" and "naught" are judgmentsas absolute as the one God registered
creatingthe world;thehandshereupholdthosevalues. Or, to make mypoint
moreradically,the handshereproducethesevalues, and are producedwithin
a systemof writing."Only by labour," Engels writes,"has the humanhand
attainedthehighdegreeof perfectionthathas enabled it to conjureintobeing
the paintingsof a Raphael, the statuesof a Thorwaldsen,the music of a Paganini" (pp. 81-82). Or, we mightadd, thewritingof a Shakespeareor of the
thelabor of productionhave
Shakespeareancharacter.And onlyby forgetting
these hands been grantedtranscendent
status.
The framein Beau Chesne's copy-bookis disciplinary,and we mightnote
thatthepictureof thehands is precededby a page of rules: how to make ink,
how to hold a pen, how to sit, how to writefair.These are rules thatappear
to be directedat the makingof materialsand instruments,
ink and quill, but
thatalso producethe body and the hand. "To writeveryfair.. / . . . false
writingeschew: /Neatlyand cleanlyyourhandforto frame"(A2V). The hand
is inserted-framed-within
a setofpracticesthatregulatethebodyand itsmove-

..

...

.....

-..:;

A;41

~~~/'

eg.

s non Chenifta

e-?,
'-"CO/

rmnadA;

./

co

-X'

uwrntradvbyosono a
mfra
cty
fewurr:.

Ct*ercunus
jrt~Cat

Fig. 5

cy fi (n

HAMLET'S HAND

319

ments,a set of regulationsat once moraland aesthetic.These are rulesto write


"comely" and "seemly"; a realmof value-aesthetic judgmentsthatare also
social discriminations-valuesproducedby a handthathas alreadysubscribed
to the framein whichthe hand is placed.
the regimen
is the value of illustration,
For the value of these illustrations
Schoolmaster(1590),
of copyingthatregulatesthehand.20Thus in The Writing
PeterBales, the tutorof PrinceHenry,versifieshis preceptsabout letterformation:
Firsthauean eyeuntoyourcoppieset:
is fet:
Andmarkeit well,howeveriestroake
Thenas before,goe softly
withyourhand,
Whenin yourmindetheshapethereof
is scand...
(R1r)
"Look here upon this picture,and on this,/ The counterfeit
of
presentment
two brothers"(Ham., III.iv.54-55). HamletdrawsGertrude'seye to two pictureslike thoseof thehandsthatare good and naughtin Beau Chesne. "Thou
turn'stmineeyes intomyverysoul, / And thereI see such black and grained
spots/ As will not leave theirtinct" (11.90-92), Gertruderesponds.Viewing
the simulacra-these counterfeit
productions-she is movedto discoveran inthatparticipatesin whathas been seen. In hercloset, Gertrudeenters
teriority
the privatespace thatwritingaffords.The eye trainedwithinthe counterfeits
a mindshaped by the
of the copy-bookdiscoversmomentarily
an interiority,
hand. "Mind, hand, and eye, mustall togethergoe" (RIr), Bales insists.The
regimenthere,as muchas whenHamletofferstheimagesof two kings,insists
on thesocial productionofthebody,sight,andmind(exteriority
and interiority)
as the domainof the hand.
Thus, to take anotherexample, considerthe hands thatillustrateGerardus
Mercator'sLiterarumLatinarum(1540) (fig. 4), the firstbook demonstrating
theitalichandto be publishedin theNetherlands.Here thearmsare even more
visiblydetachedfrombodies; andheretheyare also morevisiblyinsertedwithin
an orderof writing."Bona gubernatio"and "Mala gubernatio"are the acillustrates
what
labels pointingoutthehands:theitalichandwriting
companying
the hand should produce,the well-governedhand. And the labels beside the
fingersand arm indicategood and bad pen-hold,fingerswell and badly arcalami," "bene
ranged.The vocabularyof suchjudgments,"bona comprehensio
succedentesdigiti," is drawn,as we mightexpectby now, fromhandwriting.
The hand thatholds also comprehends;the well-arrangedfingersproducethe
in short,theorderedhandis a welllettersin a line. In Mercator'sillustration,
and
is
one;
producedby social practicesand
governed
handwriting
produces
regulations.And thesocial sphereis conceivedof throughthepracticeof writing. Here, too, the frameof writingwould seem to be as well the locus of
moral and aestheticjudgment,while "comprehensio"mightsuggestthatthe
mindarises fromthe hand.
Whatthehandproducesis suggestedeven further
by theelegantillustration
to the 1574 Lo ScrittorUtile of GuilantonioHercolani (fig. 5), a copy-book
thathad initiallyappearedin Bologna in 1571 (as Essemplareutiledi tuttele
sortidi lettere)and thatwas thefirstcopy-bookto use copper-plateengravings
20
Here my discussionoverlapswiththatof Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing(Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1983), pp. 133-39 et passim.

320

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

ratherthanwoodcuts.These hands,writingon a desk, are themosteerilydisembodiedmembers.Here, theydemonstrate


thebasic strokesthatformletters;
theseare namedin themiddleof theillustration:
"traverso,""taglio," "corpo."
The strokesthatproduceletterssuggestembodiment;lettershave tails ("taglio") and bodies ("corpo") even when the hands thatproducethemseem to
be disembodied,lopped offto be producedby the hands writing.Characters
are embodiedletters,we mightthenobserve: the humanbody is a scriptive
formation.
in Beau Chesne and Baildon's book, two
Here, as in theillustration
hands are depictedwritingproperly.The pointof this is spelled out in Hercolani's labels: one hand demonstrates
the penhold appropriatefor a lordly
writer("e cosi signorilmente
tiensila penna"); theotheris fitformoreordinary
hands ("e communemente
cosi tiensila penna"). Letteringis a social practice
thatmaintainsthe social structure;
the hand is not merelynatural-as disembodimentwould suggest.But it is, or so the copy-bookwould seem to affirm,
itself,are social productions.
naturallysocial. Hands and bodies, materiality
to Richard
And, so, to take one finalexample:if we look at thefrontispiece
Gethinge's1619 Calligraphotechnia(fig. 6), we finda portraitof the writing
master,his pens circledwithan immortalcrown,his arttranscendent
and, to
makethesame point,his hand,detached,culminating
in swags of clothwhose
knotperhapsreplicatestheswirlinghandwriting
thatdemonstrates
absolutecontrolover a pen thathas scarcelybeen liftedfromthepaper, and whichwrites
itselfin theseinscriptions:
quill and plumeare thewordsinscribedin theswirls
above and below thehand. Portrait,
hand,writing;each suggeststheproduction
of the writerwithina set of reinforcing
frames.That such regulationand productionof humancharacteris a social and nota naturalphenomenonGethinge's
book adds further
witness.The titlepage facingthisfrontispiece
producesone
additionalpiece of evidence-the factthatthe sign thathungover Gethinge's
place of businessdepicteda hand.

At the end of the play, Hamlet, with all the urgencyof the Ghost, asks
Horatioifhe remembers:"You do rememberall thecircumstance?""Rememberit,mylord!" (V.ii.2-3), Horatioreplies;and then,likeProsperowithAriel,
Hamlet proceeds to recountwhat has been remembered.Handingthe king's
commissionoverto Horatio(V.ii.26), Hamletproceedsto thestoryof thesubstitutionof lettersalreadyenactedbeforeour eyes:21
roundwithvillainies,
Beingthusbenetted
Or I couldmakea prologue
to mybrains,
Theyhadbeguntheplay.I satme down,
Deviseda newcommission,
wroteit fair.
I oncedidholdit, as ourstatists
do,
A basenessto writefair,andlaboredmuch
How to forget
thatlearning,
but,sir,now
It didme yeoman'sservice.Wiltthouknow
Th' effect
of whatI wrote?
(V.ii.29-37)
The textis alreadywithinhis head, a play in progressto whichhe subscribes,
21The connectionbetweenthis
was notedby Sir Edward
passage and thehistoryof handwriting
Maunde Thompsonon page 287 of his essay on "Handwriting,"cited in note 12.

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'

/ I II

,?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:

I~~~~.,

,~~_..

....

.....'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....t

??'~

iFL;

r?'

Ir,.'

:,.:
~ .~*~
~~~~~~~~.
.:S.
,

,,

~m

."~.!~,'~'
,,',.~

"

,!

r~~~~~,
'.,
'.":.".,,' .:,."'",,4
t;L.-.,S/i,,.xl'...'
,'',-.

..~~

....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'- '".:
~

' '~ '~/""'~~~~57


~ /.;,,,,,....,,"'":-""/"
~.....~~
~~:,.~b .
L: 4?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;..

?Y~~~~~Fi.

1,.

(Z

-~~4L~~~~

322

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

of the letter,a social


literally:he descendsto the base matter,the materiality
descentto theyeoman'ssecretarialskill,manuallaborthatnonethelessproduces
the royal word; not only are literateskills suborned,Hamletalso has to hand
markof oral culture)to falsifyand ratifythe
the royal seal (the proprietary
document.His father'sseal: Hamlethas turnedtheGhost'swordsintothescript
thathe has written.
How was thissealed?
Horatio.
Hamlet.
Why,evenin thatwas heavenordinant.
I hadmyfather's
signetin mypurse,
Whichwas themodelof thatDanishseal,
Foldedthewritup in theformof th' other,
Subscribed
it,gave'tth' impression,
placedit safely,
The changeling
neverknown.
(V.ii.47-53)
In the ninthdialogue of his Linguae Latinae Exercitatio(1538), JuanVives
presentsthelamentsof a writingmaster;thenobility,he claims, "thinkit fine
and proper. . . not to know how to shape theirlettersproperly.You would
thinkthatit was a lot of chickensscratching
about;unlessyouknowbeforehand
who the writerwas, you'd neverguess. . . . We see themsigningletterscomposed by theirsecretarieswithtotallyillegiblesignatures;norwouldyou know
who sentthe letterunless you were told by thebeareror you recognisedyour
seal" (S&S, pp. 40-41). The masterofferslegibilityas thepath
correspondent's
to truenobility.It is not mistakenadvice; Guicciardini,forinstance,reports
in his Ricordithatas a youngman he too scornedthe skill of writingfair,but
then came to recognizethatsuch abilityopened the way to royal service.22
butit does notauthenticate
an individual.
Legibilityofferssocial legitimation;
"None butbesthandsmayalwayesbestplease" (A2V), a versein Beau Chesne
and Baildon's copy-bookenjoins.
We mightadd a cautionarytale to suchsocial productionof thehand. Among
are rarecommodities.In thededroyalsecretaries,PierreHamon's productions
Hamon extols the
icationto Charles IX thatprefaceshis 1566 writing-book,
pen as the giverof all graces,thepen, he writes,lentto him so thathe might
servehis monarch.Yet Hamon became his taskall too well; so skilledwas his
hand thathis signaturecould not be distinguishedfromthe king's, and he is
art. It is difficult
reportedto have paid withhis life forhis perfectcounterfeit
to know if the storyis to be credited,however;it may well be a modernstory
thatregistersour discomfort
withthesocial productionof thehand. Thereare,
and sixteenthcenturies
afterall, recordsof royalinjunctionsfromthefifteenth
"O, 'tis mostsweet/
commandingsecretariesto imitatetheroyalsignature.23
When in one line two craftsdirectlymeet" (Ham., III.iv.210-11), so Hamlet
respondsto the factthat"there's letterssealed" (III.iv.203) and proceedsto
his subornationof the seal and the hand. Hamletachieves the secretarialperfectionof sheerinstrumentality,
royalpower.
22 FrancescoGuicciardini,
Maximsand Reflections,trans.Mario Domandi (Philadelphia:Univ.
of PennsylvaniaPress, 1965), p. 86 (C 179).
23
See Scribes and Sources, p. 215, on Hamon (the NewberryLibraryowns a copy of his Alphabet de plusieurs sortes de Lettres[1566] thatincludes a page in Hamon's hand); on royal
injunctionscommandingsecretarialimitation,see Paul Saenger, "Silent Reading: Its Impacton
Late Medieval Scriptand Society," Viator, 13 (1982), 367-414, esp. p. 406.

HAMLET'S HAND

323

Hamlet's hand is insertedwithinsocial practices;the markof "character"


becomes a characteristic
mark(thatis, a markof class and social standing);it
becomes the hand of power preciselybecause the hand is not individualized;
the fairhand is legible, but its verylegibilitymeans thatit cannotbe owned
as a markof individuality.It representstranscendent
and appearsto
authority
be de-corporealized,movingin languagebutnotthroughan individual'sbody.
The handreplacesthe seal as a markof propertyand ownership.But the seal,
the markpreferred
by culturesthatconducttheirbusinessorally,was, as Michael Clanchyhas argued,a prototypeforthe disownedmark,since it could
be used by anyone;forClanchy,moveabletypetakes its cue fromthe seal.24
And the handwritten
signature,suspectedfromthe firstas capable of forgery,
is no moresecure a markof ownershipor of propriety.Hamlet's skilledhand
insurestheforceof thedocumenthe inscribes;butit does notrevealthewriter.
The documentwritten
of social practice.
fairhas theanonymity
and inevitability
Hamletwritesa royalcommission.Suborninghis father'sseal, makinghimself
theimageof Claudius,Hamletachieves,momentarily,
theformofpowerwithin
thescriptiveworldwhichreplaces(whichhas always alreadyreplaced)theoral
in the course of the play. Claudius, recall, murdersthe old king by pouring
poison in his ear. Hamlet dies by the hand-the poisoned tip of a sword. In
theveryscene in whichLaerteswitnessestheletterthatHamletsendsto Claudius, Claudius bears witnessto Laertes's hand by recallingthe praise of the
masterswordsmanLamord. MargaretFergusonhas remindedus thatthename
is a pun on the orderof death-and language-in whichHamletmoves to be
incorpsed.Hamletmoves to occupy "the place of thekingas theplay defines
it," Fergusonwrites,withsome disapproval,"a role associated .. .with the
power to kill."25 That role, Hamlet's embodiment,we would add, rehearses
the scriptiveorder;it also mightbe attachedto the "desp'ratehand" (V.i.207)
of Ophelia thattookherown life,grasping"dead men's fingers"(IV.vii. 170).
Vives's writingmasterturnsto the lads, havingimpressedupon themtheir
need to writefair."Did you come hereproperlyarmedforyourtask?" he asks,
and the youngman firsttakeshim literallyand needs to be disabused: "Come
now! I'm not talkingabout the bloodthirsty
arms of the soldierbut those of
the writer,whichwe need now. Have you yourpen-case and quills?" (S&S,
p. 41). The violenceof theletter:"I will speak daggersto her,butuse none,"
Hamletsays, as he proceedsto his mother'scloset (III.ii.381). "These words
like daggersenterin mineears" (III.iv.96), she testifies.The hand,as Claudius
to themouth"(I.ii.48), an instrumentality
thatproremarks,is "instrumental
duces the mouthas well as thehand withinthe scriptiveorder.Claudius sends
theplay; and Hamletwritesthe dead character,folding
dispatchesthroughout
Rosencrantzand Guildenstern,Claudius and Laertes in his path. This is the
writer'spath:for"manywearingrapiersare afraidof goosequills" (II.ii.336).
The pen, mightierthanthe sword, is a mortalinstrument.
"The treacherous
is in thyhand" (V.ii.305).
instrument
For the pen producesthe character,the letter,and the person,and the etymology of characterreveals the violence of this engendering.In Greek, to
charactermeansto brandor sharpen,and a characteris as muchtheinstrument
thatengravesor brands.Hamlet's place in the scriptiveorder,in theeconomy
24From Memoryto Written
Record: England, 1066-1307 (Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniv.
Press, 1979), p. 248.
25"Hamlet: Lettersand
Spirits,"in Shakespeareand theQuestionofTheory,eds. PatriciaParker
Hartman(New York: Methuen,1985), pp. 292-309, esp. p. 299.
and Geoffrey

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

324

of death,is markedin his finalutterances.Twice he says the impossiblesentence upon which,as Derridainsists,writingrests.Hamletsays twice, "I am
dead" (V.ii.322,

327).26

Hamlet's characteris-literally-the character.And so, we mightturnto


theletter(in thesecond-quartoand Folio textsof theplay) thatmarksHamlet's
returnto Denmarkand the markthatauthenticates
the characteras character.
How is the letterto Horatio signed?In the second quarto(1604/5), the final
line of the letteris printedin italics. It reads: "So that thou knowestthine
Hamlet" (L3r). In the Folio (1623), the lettercloses printing"He thatthou
knowestthine," in italics, withthe name "Hamlet" printedin Roman (TLN
3001). Thus in thequartotextHamlet's signatureformspartof theclosingline
of theletter-the onlyline of theletterprintedin italictype(fig. 7). The italic
signature,Hamlet,is notproducedsimplyas partof theline, foritalictypeis
also used in theletterforthenamesHoratio, Rosencrans,Guyldensterne,
and
in
but
not
a
that
dismark
Hamlet's
Italics
England.
signature,
typeface
may
tinguishesit fromotherpropernames or fromthe hand thathas producedthe
formulaof subscription.Moreover,therestof the letteris printedin the same
distinguishesit as
typefaceas the restof the play. Nothingin the typography
Hamlet's writing.
In the Folio, on the otherhand, Hamlet's signatureis printedin the same
typeas therestofthetextoftheplayand thesametypeas thenames"Horatio,"
"Rosincrance," and "Guildensterne"thatappear in the letter;save forthem,
is in italics(fig. 8). Do
theentirebody of theletteras well as the subscription
marktheletteras notpartof theplay, or notpartof the script
italicstherefore
producedby thehandthatwrotetherestof thetext?But in thatcase, to whom
does theletterbelong whenthe signatureis notin the same hand as the letter,
butinsteadmarkedthesame way as thehandthatproducestherestof thetext?
In posingthesetypographic
questionsof character,I meanto situateHamlet's
for instance,
and printing,remembering,
hand in the historyof handwriting
thatincreasinglyin the sixteenthcentury,and invariablyby the close of the
period, English royaltywrotetheirprivatecorrespondencein an italic hand,
but also thatothers,aspiringto this markof privilege,signedtheirlettersin
italic, althoughthe restof theirletter(whetherwrittenby themselvesor by a
secretary)usuallyremainedin secretarialhand.Recalling,too, thatmanuscripts
in secretary
ofElizabethanplaysareusuallywritten
hand-except forthenames
of characters,stage directions,and the like, whichare writtenin italic. Italic
servesto markwhatis notpartof the script,and in some scriptssuch matters
are writtenin Latin, observingthe proprietyof scriptto text. The playscript
in the same way thatthe privatelettermarksthe
thusmarksthe extra-textual
lies in beingwrittenin a foreignhandthat
therefore
propername; its propriety
servesas a markof class (or class aspiration).The signaturemarksdifferance.
I am assumingthattheitalictypeused in theFolio and quartotextsof Hamlet's
letterto Horatio correspondsto an italic hand, and I depend too on the fact
that,whetherin quartoor Folio (and notonlyin thecase of Hamlet), thetypefaces in lettersand of propernames withinthemalmostalways play offthe
letter;the letter-whetheras
multiplescriptsthatcharacterizethehandwritten
a printedletteror as a printedplayscript-marksHamlet's name and signature
26
The sentenceis memorablyutteredby Poe's M. Valdemar,an epigraphto JacquesDerrida,
Univ. Press, 1973);
Speech and Phenomena,trans.David B. Allison (Evanston,Ill.: Northwestern
see pp. 96-97 fora discussionof its significance.

sar. A Ihallfirand plcafciim,there'sa Letterforyoufir,itcame


fio ti'En'bafador tliatwasboundforE,(lani, if yourname be Horatio,as I am letto knowitis.
Hor. Horati, whln thouflalthaueouer-lookttlis,giucthcfr
fellowesConicmcancsto theKI ng, theyhaueLettersforh:m: Erewee
weretwodaicsold atSea, a Pyratof verywartlkeappointment
gaue
vschafe,finding
ourfclucstooflowoffail, v crputon a compelled
valour,and inthegrappleI boorded tlcm, on theinflantthy got
cleercofour lhyp,fo1 alonebecametheyrprifoner,theyhauedealt
withme lakethicuesof mercic,
buttheyknewwhattheydid, I am to
doe a turncforthem,lettheKing haue theLttcLs 1 hauc fent,and
repayrethouto me withas muchfpeedcas thou wouldeflflicdeath,
lhauc wordcstofpcakcin hinecare will makethecdumb yetarc

Fig. 7

forthebordofthematter,thWegocadfellowa
theymuchtoo lTght
willbringthee hlcrc
I am,Jfo/encraw
and GCyldenetrre
hold thcyr
courfcforEngland,ofthemI laue muchto tellthee,faewell.
So t at thoukpnowel
thineH nml/t,

Hor. Come I willyouwayforthereyourletters,


And doo' rlc fpcedicr
tltaryou maydi ect me
them.
cxeunt,
To himfrolnwhlomyoubroughtl

ReadstheLetter.

thoutaletbaueouerloosd
thbef
this,giue
H Oratio,When
meanestothe
hbaeLetters

Fig.8

Fellcweoesom
King: They
twodayes
oldat Sea, a Pyrateof very
forhim.Erewewere
ourfeles too
Warlicke
appointment
gaee vs Chace. Finding
we
on
In
elled
the
ofSaile, put comp Valoutr.
rappleI
flow
them:Onthein/iant
boarded
our
clere
fi
the
of
egot
Sbippe,
their
became
hae dealtwithmee,like
They
alnwe
Prifoner.
tbe did. Iam todoe
Theenes
knew
wkhat
ofc.Zercy,butthey
the
tbem.
theLetters
Let
I kaxu
Kin
haue
tmrnefor
agood
andrpairethoutomewith
as much
fent,
wouldef
h^ftas thou
I banewords
topeakeinyour
makethee
eare,Wtll
fJedeath.
are
much
theboreoftheMatter.
dwmbe,yetthey toolightfor
willbring
theewhere
I am.Rofincrance
Thefe
goodFellowes
holdtheir
courfi
andGuildcnflerne,
forEngland.Of them
1bhaemucbtotellthee,Farewell.
He thatthoukyowejf
thine,
Hamlet.
Come,TwillgiueyouwayfortheefyourLetters,
Anddo'tthefpeedier,
thatyoumaydirectme
fromwhomyoubroughtthem.
Tohimn
Exit.

326

SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

to the letter
as a textualproperty.In whichcase, it is perhapsworthreturning
to Claudius withwhich I began; in the Folio versionof the letter,Hamlet's
signatureappears in the ordinarytypefaceof the rest of the play; the quarto
letter,printedin the same type,has no signatureat all. "Hamlet's character"
is producedwithoutthe propername.
Whatcan a signatureauthenticate,
especiallyin a culturethatdoes notseem
to place anyparticularvalue on thespellingof thepropername or on thehand
A pedagoguecomplains:"our Englishpropernamesare
in whichit is written?
writtenas it pleaseththe painter,"he writes;27the propername mightbe the
primeexample of what Claudius calls the "painted word" (III.i.53). For all
writingexistswithinthe sphereof the visible, indeed definesthatsphereand
orderin whichthe hand
withit the socialityof sight.This is the counterfeit
participates.Claudius notesit whenhe reflectsupon his "cursed hand," "Offense's gilded hand" (III.iii.43, 58). As emphaticas Hamlet's insistenceon
is theGhost'sremorseat his dispatch"by a brother's
thepicturesofthebrothers
hand" (I.v.74). The brother'sname we mightsuspectto be Cain, on whose
the
brow, or so a writingmastersuggests,God wrotethe firstinscription,28
markthatdescends as the benefitof clergy;the hand thatwritesis mystified
theorder
in thatsocial orderwhereliteracywould seem to insureimmortality,
in whichthe individualis a marklike the signature.Is thiswhyClaudius has
a namethatcan onlybe read, butwhichno one in theplay ever speaks?Guaranteeingthe social orderare two kings;Hamlethas the name of one, and the
otherwithholdshis name, or has it withheld,or has it in his hand. Or in Hamlet's: "So, uncle, thereyou are" (I.v.110), Hamletwriteson a pad thatmay
be his mind. Writeslike the hand thatwritesthe propername Cellebrinoon
the titlepage of EustachioCellebrino's 1525 Il modo di Impararedi Scrivere
(see cover illustration).
The signatureis producedby thehandproducedby writing.Hence, as hardly
needs to be recalled,thesix indisputableShakespeareanautographsrevealthat
he neverspelthis ownnamethesamewaytwice;he wrotethemall in a secretary
hand, the ordinaryhand fora text;and had he signedin italic (and we do not
knowthathe could not),thenamewould be no morehis own, no moreproper.
Whetherwrittenin secretaryor italic hand, the propername is in the hand.
Being is in the hand, but not as Heideggeralleged. For the individualsubject
is re-markedeitherway, producedby one hand or another.
David Browne,who styledhimselfKing James'sofficialScottishscribe,attemptedto face the problemof the authentichand in an objectionto his New
Invention,IntituledCalligraphia; if all writefair,it had been objected,then
all handswill be the same "and so make the Subscriptionof Evidence doubtfull" (p. 188). Brownecan only replyby pointingto "naturalldisparity"or
to the use of seals and witnesses.A lapsed hand, or an illiteratehand, is all
thatBrownecan summonup againstthe charge.For properlyemployed,subscribingto the regimeof copy and its royal impress,thereis no proprietyin
the hand that signs-as one can see, for example, simplyby perusingany
collectionof Elizabethanand Jacobeansignaturesthatdisplaythe literacyof
writersin theirabilityto sign or writein both italic and in secretary.These
are factsaboutthe hand thatoffendthe Heideggeriancharacter,but thatpoint
to thebeingof theShakespeareansubject,to Hamletboundedby thehand,the
Cited by David Cressy,Literacyand the Social Order, p. 25.
28David Browne,The New Invention,IntituledCalligraphia (St. Andrews,1622), **4V.
27

HAMLET'SHAND

327

letter,a characterwho returnsto life-to death-in a letter.Whatis a letter?

Here is a typical Elizabethan definition. "An Epistle . . . or letter is nothing

else, but a declaration,by Writingof the mindesof such as bee absent,one


of themto another,euen as thoughtheywere present."29
"Stand and unfoldyourself"(Ham., I.i.2). Letters(characters)are, literally,
themselves,like Hamlet,as the"glass
letters,and theystagepresence,offering
of fashion"(III.i. 153), or, like thedead Hotspur,as "the markand glass, copy
and book / That fashionedothers" (2 HenryIV, II.iii.31-32). "To make true
dictionof him,his semblableis his mirror,and who else would tracehim,his
umbrage,nothingmore" (V.ii. 117).

Texts forlife. "Do you see nothingthere?" (III.iv.132).


Texts fornoting,tracing,copying.
Texts fornothing."This nothing'smorethanmatter"(IV.v. 173). Nothing
more.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Jeande Beau Chesne
DiversSortesofHands. . ., title-page.
Figure1. A BookeContaining
and JohnBaildon (1570; London: 1602). Photograph
courtesyof the Bodleian Library,
Oxford,fromDouce B 675.
DiversSortesofHands. .., sig. A3r.Photograph
courtesy
Figure2. A BookeContaining
of theBodleianLibrary,Oxford,fromDouce B 675.
DiversSortesofHands. .., sig. B r. Photograph
courtesy
Figure3. A BookeContaining
of theBodleianLibrary,Oxford,fromDouce B 675.
Figure4. LiterarumLatinarum,fols. B1V and B2r. GerardusMercator(Netherlands:
D.C., fromtheRo1540). Photograph
providedby theLibraryof Congress,Washington,
senwaldCollection.
Hercolani(Bologna: 1574). Photograph
Figure5. Lo ScrittorUtile,fol. 4. Giuliantonio
Ill.
of
the
Chicago,
Library,
Newberry
courtesy
Courfol.2v.RichardGething(London:1619). Photograph
Figure6. Calligraphotechnia,
London.
British
of
the
Library,
tesy
Figure7. FolioHamlet,p. 275, detail.WilliamShakespeare(London:1623). Reproduced
D.C.
fromtheFolgerLibrarycollection,Washington,
Figure8. Q2 Hamlet,fols. L2Vand L3r,detail.WilliamShakespeare(London1604/5).
Library,San Marino,Calif.
Photograph
providedby theHuntington

29 William Fulwood, The Enemyof Idleness (1568; London: Edward Allde, 1621 ed. cited),
pp. 1-2.

You might also like