Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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
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
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).
*
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
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
Knowyouthehand?
'Tis Hamlet'scharacter.
'Naked'!
King.
Andin a postscript
here,he says'alone.'
Can youdeviseme?
(IV.vii.50-52)
314
SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
Per linMr
taz
hawcfupcrfJciem
Fig.4
intellgito.
316
SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
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
320
SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
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'...'
,'',-.
..~~
....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'- '".:
~
?Y~~~~~Fi.
1,.
(Z
-~~4L~~~~
322
SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
HAMLET'S HAND
323
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
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,
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
29 William Fulwood, The Enemyof Idleness (1568; London: Edward Allde, 1621 ed. cited),
pp. 1-2.