CHRONICLE columnist Frank Greenall's lengthy series on the origins of the works of a certain William Shakespeare has been a distinctly different way of marking the 400th anniversary of the death of the bard of Avon.
His contention that Shakespeare was not, in fact, the author of the universally-acclaimed works of Shakespeare has prompted plenty of comment and not a little bit of head-scratching.
Lecturers from Monash University in Victoria, Australia, and an academic from Britain - plus a number of local folk - are among those whose interest has been piqued enough to respond to Greenall's treatise. The great man wrote: "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool" - and several of our correspondents consider Greenall more foolish than wise.
However, books, plays, films and numerous papers have been produced proclaiming Shakespeare to be - or, rather, not to be the man behind this wonderful canon of work. Was it another who was born great, and the Stratford actor and theatre owner merely had greatness thrust upon him? Greenall called it "a delicious mystery" and it is in the sense that it is one unlikely to be resolved to the satisfaction of all. When the 500th anniversary of Shakespeare's death is commemorated in April 2116, the debate may rage again. The arguments are, of course, much ado about nothing - it matters less who wrote those words than that they live on, delighting people through the centuries and offering a sobering perspective on human endeavour.
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
