I will continue to look into the matter. Consider it open for discussion. Use the opinion and editoral pages.
Following are photos of the source upon which I will depend for the present. The file size is only about 400 kb each, but on dial up there might be delay while they load.
The probable source of the dispute is a disagreement on the spiritual nature of man. A movement appears to deny it.
Long before Shakespeare, such a movement had a clear voice and some established cultural acceptance, such as might be taken "seriously." On tombstones from ancient Rome we find inscriptions such as this one from Marcus Antonius Encolpus
Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler.
But having stopped, listen and learn, then go your way.
There is no boat in Hades, no ferryman Charon,
no caretaker Aiakos, no dog Cerebrus.
All we who are dead below
have become bones and ashes, but nothing else.
I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler,
lest even while dead I seem loquacious to you.
(Corpus Inscriptionem Latinarium vol. 6 no. 14672 (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1882))
Ancient Rome was a bizarre mix of the civilized and the uncivilized in the same culture trying to take control of it. The most stunning example is the Roman Colosseum which used Dorian, Ionian and Corinthian capital types, demonstrating a knowledge and appreciation of other cultures, yet the building was a place where human beings were killed for sport.
Since that time the game has been on for who is the more "educated" or "cultured" in the world. It is probably the "first" or perhaps "most notable" example of the uncivilized using argumentum ad verecundiam.
By Shakespeare's time and in England civilization had made considerable gains. There were no real killings for sport in the Globe theater.
Saying "we are such stuff as dreams are made of" indicates a spiritual nature of man, to say on is saying the much the same thing really but in a weaker way.
My opinion is that a wordsmith like Shakespeare would use the more vibrant form. But Shakespeare was no theologian and his plays were not church pageants. So a strong argument could be made that he was not educated in the Bible sufficiently to understand the need to acknowledge the spirituality of man. So this debate will likely never end.
We should also consider what he would have used in various times and places. Would he use what that culture needed most or would most likely accept? And we should consider that his own opinion could change over time.
Another brilliant writer became more spiritual toward the latter part of his life, H.G. Wells. That story is on my website here.
