Skip to main content

Waugaman inaugurates authorship web-log: The Oxfreudian

Georgetown University psychiatry professor Richard M. Waugaman, MD has launched a new web-log about the Shakespeare authorship controversy. He has christened his space, The Oxfreudian. This quirky title is apt because Sigmund Freud was an early proponent of Thomas J. Looney's work on the Shakespeare authorship question, and an ardent Oxfordian. Waugaman said,
Freud's intellect has deeply impressed me since I first read him in college. Under Walter Kaufmann's direction, I did my college senior thesis on Nietzsche's influence on Freud. We studied Freud during my psychoanalytic training, then I read (or re-read) all his 23 volumes during the years after I graduated from the psychoanalytic institute. I puzzled over Freud's endorsement of Looney's authorship hypothesis. Then I put it out of my mind. Until 2002, when William Niederkorn's New York Times article introduced me to Roger Stritmatter's dissertation showing that de Vere's Geneva Bible might be the smoking gun that proves Freud was correct about de Vere. That excited me so much that I got Reader's privileges at the Folger, just to hold Shakespeare's Bible in my hands. I had no idea that I would get so hooked that I would devote 10-15 hours a week to Shakespeare research during the ensuing years.
Waugaman has written many articles highlighting psychological aspects of the Shakespeare authorship question. Links to Waugaman's work -- including his recent "The Bisexuality of Shakespeare's Sonnets and Implications for DeVere's Authorship" from the Oct. 2010 Psychoanalytic Review and "What's in a Manicle: the deVere Psalms as a New Shakespearean Source" from the 2010 edition of Brief Chronicles -- are a feature of the new Oxfreudian site. Waugaman said,
Research on de Vere has become part of my identity. I still love psychoanalysis, and I still conduct the clinical practice of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy some 30 hours per week. The connections between psychoanalysis and Shakespeare are strong, and they help me integrate two vital parts of my identity. One of my goals is to persuade my fellow psychoanalysts to join me in Oxfreudian studies. Psychoanalysts have long been interested in literature, and especially in Shakespeare.
In addition to providing access to his articles, Waugaman's new blog may turn the tables on Stratfordians -- like James Shapiro in Contested Will -- who find reason to doubt the mental health of anyone who cannot, or will not, swallow the traditional Stratfordian gruel. Waugaman said:
One of the many psychological aspects of Shakespeare research is trying to understand the groupthink that has led centuries of scholars so far astray. It's true of the history of every intellectual discipline. The history of science, for example, is full of similar stories -- the establishment abuses its power in order to suppress new ideas. The new ideas are later proven to be correct, but those in power don't like to be proven wrong, despite the intellectual ideal of the pursuit of truth.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Was King Richard III a Control Freak? Science News ... from universities, journals, and other research organizations   Mar. 4, 2013 — University of Leicester psychologists believe Richard III was not a psychopath -- but he may have had control freak tendencies. University of Leicester psychologists have made an analysis of Richard III's character -- aiming to get to the man behind the bones. Professor Mark Lansdale, Head of the University's School of Psychology, and forensic psychologist Dr Julian Boon have put together a psychological analysis of Richard III based on the consensus among historians relating to Richard's experiences and actions. They found that, while there was no evidence for Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III as a psychopath, he may have had "intolerance to uncertainty syndrome" -- which may have manifested in control freak tendencies. The academics presented their findings on Saturday, March 2 at the University

What's a popp'rin' pear?

James Wheaton reported yesterday in the Jackson Citizen Patriot that the Michigan Shakespeare Festival high school tour of Romeo and Juliet was criticized for inappropriate content -- " So me take issue with sexual innuendoes in Michigan Shakespeare Festival’s High School Tour performances of ‘Romeo & Juliet’" : Western [High School] parent Rosie Crowley said she was upset when she heard students laughing about sexual content in the play afterwards. Her son didn’t attend the performance Tuesday because of another commitment, she said.  “I think the theater company should have left out any references that were rated R,” Crowley said. “I would say that I’ve read Shakespeare, and what I was told from the students, I’ve never read anything that bad.”  She said she objected to scenes that involved pelvic thrusting and breast touching and to a line in which Mercutio makes suggestive comments to Romeo after looking up the skirt of a female. The problem with cutting out the naug

Winkler lights the match

by Linda Theil When asked by an interviewer why all the experts disagree with her on the legitimacy of the Shakespeare authorship question, journalist and author Elizabeth Winkler  calmly replied, "You've asked the wrong experts." * With that simple declaration Winkler exploded the topic of Shakespearean authorship forever. Anti-Stratfordians need no smoking gun, no convincing narrative, no reason who, how, when, or why because within the works lies the unassailable argument: Shakespeare's knowledge. Ask the lawyers. Ask the psychologists. Ask the librarians. Ask the historians. Ask the dramaturges. Ask the mathematicians. Ask the Greek scholars. Ask the physicists. Ask the astronomers. Ask the courtiers. Ask the bibliophiles. Ask the Italians. Ask the French. Ask the Russians. Ask the English. Ask everyone. Current academic agreement on a bevy of Shakespearean collaborators springs from an unspoken awareness of how much assistance the Stratfordian presumptive would h