The Chronicle of Higher Education today featured an article reporting on the claim by two rare-book dealers to have unearthed a dictionary, some 530 years old, that once belonged to a certain acclaimed author (http://chronicle.com/...)
Although the article will doubtless see life as a filler in various newspaper columns and click-through chatter sites, one can't but help feel that the real story has been missed.
As we don't know whether 'Shaksper', the merchant of Stratford, could even read (although we already do know that his daughter couldn't), let alone there being no proof that the merchant ever even owned a book, it would seem a pretty strong probability that this text, or at least said notations within, aren't his.
However, if the claim is that it belonged to the man who wrote under the name of 'Shakespeare', to whom much brouhaha and laud has since (mainly rightly) been attached, then I'd suggest a check against Marlowe's hand to be in order - a far more likely candidate for authorship than the merchant ever was.
(Of course, the Shakespeare industry being the Monsanto of British literature, don't be surprised if that's a possibility of which you haven't heard)
Sad that the article, in an otherwise genuine attempt at inocuous intrigue, continues the conflation of two such disparate strands.