humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Apr 8, 3:02=A0pm, hj wrote:
> 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.

No, there was no survey of "all Shakespeare professors around the
country." I know that's what he wants you to think, that thousands
upon thousands of Shakespeare professors were polled, but that didn't
happen. It was a random sample, not even weighted, and they got far
from a 100 per cent response.

They (or in this case, Mark Anderson) try to give the impression that
one-sixth of all professors have some doubts about Shakespeare's
authorship. How much more motivation to answer such a survey would the
doubters have than the believers in the historical record? I daresay
close to all of them would answer such a survey while most of the
others would toss it in the trash.

Tr

>
> Last year the NYTimes surveyed "a random sample of colleges and
> universities in the United States that offer degree programs in
> English." =A0It's at this site:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education=
/edlife/22shakespeare-surv...
>
> 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% , =A0No=3D82%, =A0Possibly=3D11%, =A0I don't know=3D1%
>
> * * * * *
> Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare
> authorship question?
>
> Has profound implications for the field=3D2%, =A0An 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.
>
> =A0 hj