Explore the significance of letters in one or more Shakespeare play.

Shakespeare writes the reading of letters more frequently than the reading of books. Whilst much attention has been paid to the act of writing such letters (for example Michael Bolton’s 2011 article in EMLS), little scholarly attention has been turned to the reading of them. Steward Alan observes that “at a conservative estimate, 111 letters appear on stage in the course of Shakespeare's plays” (Stewart, 2008, p.1). In the case of the letter and, to an extent, the book, meaning is actualised in reading. An unread letter holds in it the latent power of intent and the intention to act. The role of the reader is of exaggerated importance in drama because the audience themselves cannot read the written material. The letter is a prop to a far lesser extent than the book: it resides strictly within the plot and works to advance it. Desiderius Erasmus discusses letters “as if you were whispering in a corner with a dear friend” (qtd. in Jardine, 2015, p.151). Erasmus suggests that the letter becomes a tangible manifestation of the writer, an extension of their intention if you will. Although Stephen Orgel has averred that renaissance plays compulsively “turn to scenes of writing, to letters and documents, to written discourse as the mode of action” (Orgel, 1992, p.124), in the world of Shakespeare’s plays at least, what is more common is a turn to reading.             A text can only be written once, but it can be read an infinite number of times. Hamlet’s letter to Ophelia, for example, is read and thus interpreted twice. As Louise D. Cary asserts “this letter . . . circulates beyond its intended recipient, finding its way into the hands of Polonius, who reads and re-transmits it” (Cary, 1994, p.789-90).  Polonius’s assurance that he “will be faithful” (Shakespeare, 2016a, II.ii.114) in actuality works to the opposite effect. His promise reminds us that he has the opportunity to not be faithful, his reading of the letter “produces greater room for distortion, for accident, for interpretation” (Cary, 1994, p.90). The scene establishes Hamlet as a writer though his words are not performed in his own voice, instead his “voice is ventriloquised and distorted by that of Polonius” (Lehrer, 2014, p.845). Instances such as these oppose Simon Palfrey and Tiffany Stern’s suggestion that actors were given “only their lines to speak” (Palfrey; Stern, 2007, p.16). This would suggest that the Hamlet actor is entirely oblivious to his alleged ordeal with pirates as well as his confessional letter of love to Ophelia, a concept both improbable and impractical.