Five mutually dependent theses about handwriting versus typewriting (and some related questions) inspire my research:

thesis one, handwriting is directly produced by the hand while typewriting is produced by a technological device (what is a quill or pen? what role plays the cumbersome training of the hands?);

thesis two, a handwritten text is a unique and authentic trace of an individual at a specific moment in time while a typed text is iterable and reproducible and can at best be traced back to a unique device but not to an individual (Derrida points to the paradoxical nature of the signature which is supposed to be singular and unique but necessarily has to be reproducible at any time);

thesis three, we communicate our own thoughts, ideas, and representations. Handwriting does so in a direct, immediate way while typed writing always leaves some doubts about the authenticity of the content (the forensics of handwriting analysis, for example, implies that an identified author is responsible for a document’s content while digital forensics often refers to the ‘integrity’ of a text as representing its authenticity);

thesis four, reproducing handwriting equals forgery but reproducing typewriting equals the creation of another original or another copy of something that always was a copy to begin with (medieval manuscripts, however, were often intentionally written in a way that made them easy to duplicate);

thesis five, handwriting implies at least the presence of the author while typing only implies absence, that of the addressee and of the author (at the moment of reception, however, the author of the handwritten text is as absent as the typist; in both cases, Derrida writes of a ‘break in presence’ rather than absence).

Currently, I am trying to tackle the concept of authenticity. On one hand, it seems so inherently bound up with everything related to handwriting and the signature. On the other hand, it is an extremely elusive notion and often, I find myself doubting its usefulness if not existence.
I find the four types of authenticities between which John Mackenzie Owen distinguishes, a bit excessive. Owen's four authenticities are:

- type 1: authenticity with reference to identity ('that's me')
- type 2: authenticity with reference to connotation ('that's what I mean')
- type 3: original authenticity ('that was me then: it's not me anymore')
- type 4: current authenticity ('that's me now')

Owen, John Mackenzie. 2005. Authenticity and Objectivity in Scientific Communication: Implications of Digital Media. In Sign here! Handwriting in the Age of New Media, S. Neef, J. Van Dijck, E. Ketelaar, eds. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press. 60-75.

In my view, two main problems arise with this distinction: first, at which point in time does type 4 transform into type 3 authenticity? In other words, it seems exceedingly difficult to determine the moment when 'now' changes into 'not anymore.' Who is determining this moment? The usefulness as well as the practicality of this distinction appear questionable, then. And second, how does type 1 (identity) relate to the idea (by the court system, for example) that a handwritten text or signature proves the writer's physical presence at the moment of its creation? More precisely, how are 'identity' and the physical act of writing connected? Is it not rather the case, here, that 'identity' is very closely related to the writer's intentions, that is, type 2 authenticity so that the distinction between type 1 and 2, too, is quite problematic?

I would suggest two meanings of authenticity:

• authenticity as the bond between a text and the physical presence of a writer, implying the genuine production of the document by an identifiable person or group of persons. This physical authenticity is very relevant in legal contexts, particularly in the case of signatures.
• authenticity as the faithful representation in a text of the intended meaning of the writer. This semiotic authenticity does not necessarily apply to signatures. Dekeyser notes in the context of (European) court practice that "even signatures that are illegible to the point that they give no clue whatsoever about the signatory's identity are often accepted."

For my research, I am primarily interested in physical authenticity, that is, all kinds of notions and ideas about the corporeal bond between a writer and his or her handwritten document.