humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Apr 8, 3:17=A0pm, Tom Reedy wrote:
> I notice on that page an antiStratfordian begins his rant with a
> typical antiStrat exaggeration--that is to say, a lie:
>
> "In April of last year, The New York Times conducted a survey of all
> Shakespeare professors around the country and found that one out of
> six said there is ample cause for doubt about William Shakespeare of
> Stratford as the author of the plays and poems conventionally
> attributed to him."
>
> If anyone did a survey of "all Shakespeare professors around the
> country," that is news to me. This is a typical antistrat statement.
>
> TR


=3D=3D> There actually was such a survey, but it didn't find what was
claimed.

Last year the NYTimes surveyed "a random sample of colleges and
universities in the United States that offer degree programs in
English." It's at this site:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/edlife/22shakespeare-survey.html=
?_r=3D1&oref=3Dslogin

Now -- the major results :

* * * * *
Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William
Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and
poems in the canon?

Yes=3D6% , No=3D82%, Possibly=3D11%, I don't know=3D1%

* * * * *
Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare
authorship question?

Has profound implications for the field=3D2%, An exciting opportunity
for scholarship=3D3%, A theory without convincing evidence=3D61%, A waste
of time and classroom distraction=3D32%, No opinion=3D2%

* * * * *

So: only 6% of all these people clearly think there's "good reason" to
question Will's authorship. Only 5% think it rises to the level of
being "exciting opportunity for scholarship."

93% call it *either* a waste of time and a distraction, or a theory
without convincing evidence. I'd say that's pretty conclusive about
where things stand.

hj