Shakespeare has long been a man for every season and every reader.

Those up on the healthy cottage industry surrounding The Bard know that Catholics have claimed him as a closet Catholic, gays have claimed him as a closet homosexual, aristocrats have claimed that someone more worldly and sophisticated than the son of a glove maker must have written the plays ascribed to Shakespeare, and . . . well, you get the idea.

In many ways, Shakespeare is the poster child for the third law of Marshall McLuhan's tetrad of media: Reversal, or every form pushed to the limit of its potential reverses its characteristics. For example, the classic reversal of the convenience of the automobile is that it becomes inconvenient to travel via car because so many cars mean traffic jams.

How does Shakespeare fit into this? Well, he was, as we all learned in Shakespeare 101, the popular entertainment of his day. Some teachers have likened him to an Elizabethan Steven Spielberg or Jerry Seinfeld to connect with their students. However, like all older media that are being replaced in some way by newer media, the older media once considered pop art becomes high art.

Furthermore, Shakespeare is old in another significant way: he lived in a time when records were not as accurate or detailed as they are today. Therefore, his life is forever shrouded in a veil of mystery. And, as we know, age imparts authenticity to any object. Hence, the claim-ation by every segment of today's society of some aspect of the person whose genius and virtue is as unassailable as, perhaps, only Einstein, Ghandi, and MLK Jr.

So, are we surprised, then, that a new supposed portrait of Shakespeare, which scholar Stanley Wells believes to be authentic, has surfaced, hidden among the relics of a faded aristocracy?

Perhaps Wells is right, but the vast history of false starts concerning the details of Shakespeare's life suggest he is wrong. And what is most damning regarding Wells' opinion in Time magazine's article comes from his own mouth:

"The Cobbe portrait will show people a man who was of high social status," says Wells. "He's very well dressed. He's wearing a very beautiful and expensive Italian lace collar. A lot of people have the wrong image of Shakespeare, and I'm pleased that the picture confirms my own feelings — this is the portrait of a gentleman."

I'm pleased that the picture confirms my own feelings.

Isn't this what all media do, whether they be books, paintings, television, or the Internet?