This is one I highly recommend to anyone who is interested in seriously considering the case against the man from Stratford as the author of the plays, poems and sonnets. Ms. Price offers no alternative candidate of her own (tho Edward de Vere, my choice, is mentioned more than once), but instead presents all the unambiguous information we have about Will Shaksper to thoroughly demolish his claim to the "throne".

Ranging upwards of a hundred bucks, this is not a cheap volume, but worth saving the pennies to acquire.

Now, I embark upon " 'Shakespeare' Identified", by J. Thomas Looney (pronounce LOH-NEE), the British scholar whose 1920s volume first presented the strong case for de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, as the man behind the pseudonym.

To me the authorship debate is mostly a secondary concern, as the plays are not neither more not less depending on the author. But in terms of understanding the theatrical environment at the time, it would be an issue better settled.

Though I have not yet watched every play, nor have I read more than a few snippets here and there about the "evidence" against "The Stratford Man", there were some things that I picked up on.

Some writers seem to suggest that the comprehensive knowledge and understanding of every different "class" in Elizabethan England means he must have been a Nobleman.  As I see it, it speaks more in favor of him being a commoner. "Upstairs" don't usually pay attention to what happens "downstairs", but "downstairs" know everything.

Some sources seem to suggest he had power, authority or wealth outside the theater that necessitated a pseudonym, and I don't quite see that either. But I suppose it's possible.

And for all the "debate" around the authorship question,  the only thing anyone seems to agree on is that "The Stratford Man" could not possibly have been Shakespeare. As if there was something about him that made him "unworthy".  That he was too common, too ordinary, just a working stiff doing a bit of acting, making some money writing, investing and running a theatre. More like a shopkeeper or accountant than "the most human human who ever lived " (to quote the Doctor)

I suppose at some point I'll try reading the Ogburn book again or another of the "not the real Shakespeare" books. It's just the last time I was a bit turned off by him making a few leaps that didn't quite make sense to me. Though I'm hard pressed to remember them now.

I suppose it is a valid question, I just don't see why the Stratford Man would be so unlikely, with there not really being any evidence for the others. At least his name was Shakespeare (or something close enough to it in a world that predates proper spelling).

This has long been seen to number among many elements that point to the Author as a nobleman -- and, if he was, his anonymity makes perfect sense. It was most unseemly for a courtier to be seen to have a "profession", such as writing for the public stage. Plus, actors and theatrical folk were legally classified in Elizabethan England as "vagabonds".

It should be seen, then, that it would be far easier for a Lord to "step down" to the level of the common man, than for one of those common men to move easily in the rarified air of palaces and courts.

"It should be seen, then, that it would be far easier for a Lord to "step down" to the level of the common man, than for one of those common men to move easily in the rarified air of palaces and courts. "

In an age where the nobility needed help even to dress, servants moved around everywhere easily enough, and servants always gossip.  And players (actors) moved around in all sorts of circles. So some commoners did have virtually unlimited access to "the rarified air". They just didn't benefit much from it, and were treated mainly as furniture, but that doesn't mean they didn't have eyes and ears.  

Whereas the nobility, even when they moved among the commoners, usually maintained a distance where actually getting to understand the perspective of the common man might not be so easy.

Which is not to say that Shakespeare must have been a commoner or that he couldn't have been a nobleman, just that it's not one of the easier issues to settle. From my perspective, I think I actually read that argument from Ogburn and he treated it as it was a given, as if it settled things, and as I recall it was a "leap" like that which turned me off his book. It lost credibility with me because it didn't seem like he thought the argument needed further discussion.

But as I say, it's been a while since I tried reading that book.