Professional Documents
Culture Documents
When psychoanalysts and other people hear the claim that Edward
de Vere, Earl of Oxford (1550-1604) wrote the works of William Shakespeare, they often react with two questions: Why would he have used
a pseudonym? and What difference does it make, anyway, who
wrote the plays? In this article, I will first give some background on de
Vere, and consider possible reasons he used one or more pseudonyms.
I will then explore the second question by narrowing our focus to a
single playThe Tempest. I make several points about the relevance of
de Veres authorship to The Tempest.
Many of us felt embarrassed when we first learned that Freud concluded Edward de Vere wrote the works of Shakespeare. Freuds belief
in de Vere now seems less eccentric, as gradually accumulating eviRichard M. Waugaman, M.D., Reader, Folger Shakespeare Library; Training and
Supervising Analyst Emeritus, Washington Psychoanalytic Institute; Clinical Professor
of Psychiatry, Georgetown University School of Medicine.
I am grateful to Elisabeth P. Waugaman, Ph.D., and Roger Stritmatter, Ph.D., for their
consistent support for my work on de Vere.
Journal of The American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 37(4) 627644, 2009
2009 The American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry
628
WAUGAMAN
629
known, really was Shakespeare, then we have much to modify in our analytic constructions, perhaps also much to gain. It would surely repay an
analysts interest to look into the matter... Would you not like to look into
whether a reliable analysis of Shakespeare can be constructed on the basis
of this new hypothesis? (Freud, 1928, p. 643)
630
WAUGAMAN
raised only by conspiracy theorists, and by snobs who cannot believe a relatively uneducated commoner could have written such great
works.
There was in fact little concern with who wrote the works (or with
biographies in general) until the late 18th century. Significant interest in
the life story of the author only began after the renowned Shakespearean actor David Garricks 1769 Stratford Jubilee led to Shakespeares
apotheosis as a secular deity, filling the void that the late stages of the
Enlightenment left after undermining traditional religious belief in
many intellectuals.
But subsequent intensive archival research failed to turn up any documents that supported the authorship claim of Shakespeare of Stratford.
Two prominent researchers (William Henry Ireland and John Payne
Collier) then compensated for this lack by forging the missing records.
Although dishonest, they were simply trying to feed the popular hunger for facts about the worlds greatest literary celebrity.
Each was highly successful until their forgeries were exposed. It was
only a few years later that the first serious challenges to the traditional
author were published. I would speculate that pathological group dynamics then led scholars seriously astray, as they displaced their rage
for having been duped by the forgeries onto anyone who dared to challenge their authorship orthodoxy. It should be easy for psychoanalysts
to imagine just how this happened. Think of our fields struggle to face
the tragic reality of child abuse as a pathogenic force, and of the many
other examples where yesterdays theoretical renegades became todays mainstream analysts. Research in social psychology has amply
documented how easily even the simplest acts of perception may be
distorted by group process. Literary scholars lack a reliable methodology for settling authorship disputes. As a result, tradition and authority
often replace objective arguments based on the evidence. (And Shakespeareans do not just ridicule us Oxfordiansthey also ridicule one
another.)
Scholars who support the traditional authorship theory claim that
many contemporary documents prove that everyone knew Shakespeare
of Stratford was the author. That line of reasoning crumbles when we
recognize that Elizabethan references to the name William Shakespeare were in all likelihood references to the pseudonym that began
appearing in print in 1593. What we know about the traditional Shakespeare of Stratford from the historical record shows no connections with
a literary career. The long history of slanderous attacks on anyone who
challenges traditional beliefs about who wrote Shakespeare have grown
more vicious and more frequent as the traditional authorship case has
been collapsing. For example, Stephen Greenblatt recently claimed that
631
632
WAUGAMAN
633
but he keeps his doubts to himself, not wanting to jeopardize his livelihood (and Stratford remains one of Britains largest sources of tourist
revenue).
One reason I have chosen The Tempest to show connections with de
Vere is that this play, more than any other, has traditionally been used to
argue that de Vere could not possibly have written the works of Shakespeare. There have been no definite literary sources for Shakespeare
that were published after 1604, the year of de Veres death. Yet, through
circular reasoning, the composition of the plays have been speculatively dated based on Shakespeare of Stratford having lived from 1564 to
1616. And it has long been assumed that The Tempest could not have
been written by de Vere because it was falsely assumed it had to have
been written after 1610. This crucial assumption is based on a 1610 letter about a shipwreck on a voyage to Bermuda. If that letter was indeed
the source for The Tempest, it would disprove de Veres authorship. But
this challenge to de Veres authorship has been discredited by evidence
that the letter in question was not published until after 1616; further,
the letter borrows from accounts published decades earlier, describing
some of the many shipwrecks in the Americas (see Stritmatter & Kositsky, 2007).
I do not wish to minimize the extraordinary richness of Shakespeares
imagination when I highlight some autobiographical parallels in The
Tempest. It is a false dichotomy to imply that literary works rely either on
creativity or on the writers life experiences, on nature or nurture. Since
Shakespeares day, the roots of his genius have been misunderstood as
stemming from nature alone. Falling into the trap of false dichotomies
that Shakespeare always avoided, many critics have misused Shakespeares work to argue that native genius alone can produce his extraordinary creativity. As a result, scholars were slow to acknowledge
the wide range of books in several languages that deeply influenced
Shakespeare (Gillespie, 2004).
I accept the traditional theory that The Tempest constitutes the authors farewell to the stage, because I believe de Vere wrote it during
the last two years of his life. I therefore connect its content with several
salient events from those years1603 and 1604. Queen Elizabeth died
in March of 1603. Soon after King James took the throne, he released
the Earl of Southampton (probably de Veres former lover) from his
two years imprisonment in the Tower of London. This was the earl to
whom Shakespeare dedicated his two long poems and, many scholars
believe, the young man to whom the first 126 sonnets were written.
The Tempest was published as the first play in the First Folio, the
1623 first complete edition of Shakespeares plays. It is a play for which
a major literary source for the plot is unknown. One possibility is that it
634
WAUGAMAN
635
that de Vere wrote The Tempest for his daughter Susan. (It was later performed at the wedding of King James daughter.)
Exile, imprisonment and confinement are central themes that get repeated in several ways throughout the plot of The Tempest. As the play
opens, we find Prospero and Miranda confined on the island by Antonio, Alonoso, and Sebastian. We learn that Ariel had been imprisoned
in a tree by Sycorax before Prospero frees him. In the epilogue, Prospero
asks the audience not to imprison Prospero further. As I have noted, I
would speculate that King Jamess release of the Earl of Southampton
from the Tower of London was one of the contemporary events in 1603
that inspired these references to confinement. There is now persuasive
evidence that the Earls imprisonment was based on the treachery of
de Veres brother-in-law Robert Cecil, who spread a false rumor that
Southampton and the Earl of Essex were trying to overthrow Queen
Elizabeth (see Hammer, 2008). I suspect de Vere knew of this treachery
at the time, and that it thus influenced the theme of political corruption
in The Tempest.
In The Tempest, Prospero relinquishes his magical power in several
stages, from early in the play. Just after he tells Miranda it is time for
him to tell her the truth about her origins, he asks her to help him take
off his magic garment. After he puts it down, he says to his cloak, Lie
there my art (Act I, Scene 2). Why? I wonder if he is enacting a step in
his daughters emotional development, symbolically helping her to see
her father in less idealized terms, as less of an omnipotent magician,
so she can soon shift her primary emotional attachment from him, the
only real human being she has known for the past twelve years, and be
able to fall in love with the young man Prospero wants her to marry.
Recall that Prospero has been on the island for 12 years when the
play takes place. Ariel was imprisoned in the pine tree Sycorax put him
in for 12 years. And Prospero threatens to punish Ariel by imprisoning
him in a tree again for another 12 years. I do not think these repeated
references to twelve are accidental. De Vere was 12 when his father
died; that was a major loss and a major turning point in his life. His
grief over his fathers death was probably revived by losing the Queen
and facing his own death.
A persons age when a parental figure dies often becomes a crucial
span of years for them in later life. For example, Ezra Pounds pattern
of making major life changes at 12-year intervals has been linked to the
death of his influential grandmother when he was 12 (Kavka, in Pollock, 1970). From what we know, de Vere idolized his father, and had an
idyllic life until he lost his father and was sent by the Queen to be raised
by William Cecil. Cecil is mocked in Hamlet as the character Polonius,
but, now deceased, he is depicted much more favorably in The Tempest
636
WAUGAMAN
637
has been dealing with his sexual feelings during these past 12 years on
the island. (Is Ariel the young Earl of Southampton?)
In the epilogue, Prospero entreats us, the audience, to release him
not to confine him to this bare island by our spell. Prospero has just
freed Ariel. In the very next line, he announces that his charms are all
oerthrown (Epilogue). By some magical transmutation, the magical
power he relinquished has now become ours.
Part of the plays magical charm is the amount of music and song in
it. One of Calibans loveliest lines is his reassurance of Stephano and
Trinculo when Ariels music frightens themBe not afeard; the isle is
full of noises,/ Sounds, and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not
(Act III, Scene 2). Several works of music were dedicated to de Vere. A
few of his musical compositions for lute, keyboard, and ensemble exist.
Since I believe de Vere published literary works under pseudonyms,
did he also write additional musical compositions under pseudonyms?
That intriguing speculation was made by Ann-Louise Silver (personal
communication, March 21, 2009). John Farmer dedicated compositions
to de Vere in 1591 and in 1599. He wrote in the latter that de Veres musical talent was greater than most professional musicians. Some literary
works dedicated to de Vere may have actually been written by him; the
same may be true of musical compositions dedicated to him. (As is the
case with most of the documented facts about de Vere, by sharp contrast, we know nothing of the musical interests of the traditional author
from Stratford.)
Some of de Veres earliest published poems were in Paradise of Dainty
Devises, the most popular collection of Elizabethan song lyrics. That is,
these were all poems meant to be sung. Two poems attributed to William Shakespeare in the 1598 The Passionate Pilgrim were reattributed to
Ignoto in the 1600 Englands Helicon. I assume de Vere used Ignoto
as another pseudonym. De Veres poetry was thus closely linked with
music.
The anonymous 1589 Art of English Poesy argued that poetry is intrinsically connected with music. It called poetry a kind of musical
speech (see Whigham & Rebhorn, 2007, p. 98). The worlds first poets were also the first musicians. Poetry is a skill to speak and write
harmonically; and verses or rhyme be a kind of musical utterance, by
reason of a certain congruity in sounds pleasing to the ear (p. 154).
Much internal evidence, as well as some external evidence, points to de
Vere as the anonymous author of The Art of English Poetry (Waugaman,
2009).
I now return to Prosperos abandonment of his magical powerin
the first scene of Act V, just before he appears to Alonso and his followers, he asks Ariel to release them. Ariel has persuaded Prospero to
638
WAUGAMAN
639
640
WAUGAMAN
641
REFERENCES
Anderson, M. (2005). Shakespeare by another name: The life of Edward de Vere. New
York: Gotham Books.
Farina, W. (2006). De Vere as Shakespeare: An Oxfordian reading of the canon. Jefferson,
NC: McFarland.
Feldman, A.B. (1953a). The confessions of William Shakespeare. American Imago, 10,
113-165.
Feldman, A.B. (1953b). Shakespeare worship. Psychological Journal of the National
Psychoanalytic Association for Psychology, 2, 57-72.
Feldman, A.B. (1954). Othello In Reality. American Imago, 11, 1-179.
Feldman, A.B. (1955a). Imaginary incest: A study of Shakespeares Pericles. American Imago, 12, 117-155.
Feldman, A.B. (1955b). Shakespeares Early Errors. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 36, 114-133.
Freud, S. (1925). An autobiographical study. Standard Edition, 20, 1-74.
Freud, S. (1928). Letter from Sigmund Freud to Ernest Jones, March 11, 1928. In
Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones 1908-1939.
Freud, S. (1930). The Goethe Prize. Standard Edition, 21, 205-214.
Gillespie, S. (2004). Shakespeares books: A dictionary of Shakespeares sources. New York:
Continuum.
Gray, H.D. (1920). Sources of the Tempest, Modern Language Notes.
Greenwood, G. G. (1908). The Shakespeare problem restated. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
642
WAUGAMAN
Griffin, R.J. (2003). The faces of anonymity: Anonymous and pseudonymous publication
from the sixteenth to the twentieth century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hammer, P.E.J. (2008). Shakespeares Richard II, the Play of 7 February 1601, and the
Essex Rising. Shakespeare Quarterly, 59, 1-35.
James, H. (1999). Major stories and essays. New York: Library of America.
Kerrigan, J. (Ed.) (1986). William Shakespeare: The Sonnets and A Lovers Complaint.
Looney, J.T. (1920). Shakespeare identified as Edward de Vere. London: Cecil Palmer.
Mullan, J. (2007). Anonymity: A secret history of English literature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uinversity Press.
North, M. (2003). The anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of discretion in Tudor-Stuart
England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ogburn, C. (1984). The mysterious William Shakespeare: The myth and the reality.
McLean, VA: EMP Publications.
Orgel, S. (2001). Prosperos wife. In Murphy, P.M. (Ed.), The Tempest: Critical essays
(pp. 231-244). New York: Routledge.
Pollock, G.H. (1970). Anniversary reactions, trauma, and mourning. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 39, 347-371.
Price, D. (2001). Shakespeares unauthorized biography: New evidence of an authorship
problem. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Shakespeare, W. (1996). The Riverside Shakespeare (Second Edition). Houghton Mifflin.
Sobran, J. (1997). Alias Shakespeare: Solving the greatest literary mystery of all time. New
York: The Free Press.
Stritmatter, R.A. (2003). Edward de Veres Bible. Northampton, MA: Oxenford Press.
Stritmatter, R.A., & Kositsky, L. (2007). Shakespeare and the voyagers revisited. Review of English Studies, 58, 447-472.
Waugaman, R.M. (2007a). A Wanderlust Poem, newly attributed to Edward de Vere.
Shakespeare Matters, 7(1), 21-23.
Waugaman, R.M. (2007b). Review of The Dissociative Mind, by Elizabeth H. Howell. International Journal of Psycho-analysis, 88, 267-271.
Waugaman, R.M. (2007c). Unconscious communication in Shakespeare: Et tu,
Brute? echoes Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabbachthani? Psychiatry, 70, 52-58.
Waugaman, R.M. (2008a). A Snail Poem, newly attributed to Edward de Vere. Shakespeare Matters, 7(2), 6-11.
Waugaman, R.M. (2008b). Review of John Mullans anonymity: A secret history of
English literature. Shakespeare Matters, 7(3), 10-15.
Waugaman, R.M. (2008c, June). Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain: Pseudonym as Act of
Reparation. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of American Psychoanalytic
Association.
Waugaman, R.M. (2008d). The pseudonymous author of Shakespeares works. Princeton Alumni Weekly On-line, March 19; retrieved October 5, 2009. http://www.
princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html.
Waugaman, R.M. (2009, April). Who wrote The Arte of English Poesy? Did he also
write the works of Shakespeare? Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the
Shakespeare Association of America.
Waugaman, R.M. (in press-a). The bisexuality of Shakespeares Sonnets and impli-
643