What is the proper response to history's wittiest of artists?

Shakespeare. This is a name, I fear, of dread to most. It is a name conjuring a variety of despised school memories, of pomp and snobbery, of incomprehensible language, lengthy speeches and unintelligible analogies, of snooty Oxford gentlemen and intimidating critics. How far alas from Shakespeare's original intent of writing! It seems to me that Shakespeare is viewed more as a means of solemn study than a means of open, hearty enjoyment.

Why is it that the world seems stricken with a conviction that the proper response to history's wittiest of artists is one of grave academics!

Shakespeare wrote for the entertainment of the common man, and decidedly not to provide a large body of data for historical linguists and literary critics. I do not deny his usefulness in this regard, I merely deny that his purpose is to be useful in this regard. In fact his purpose might be seen when he says in many different ways, and in many different places,

"If the tale we have told in any way content ye, for that honest purpose it was meant ye, we have our end"[1].

That is, if you (the audience) are pleased and contented by the play you have seen, then its purpose has been accomplished. He does not say that if you understood all the subtitles of his genius, or if you are able to recall his profound reasoning and reflect more deeply upon society as a whole, then you have done his play justice, but merely that if you are pleased, if the play has kept a "little dull time from us", then he has accomplished his will.

I do not here intend to disregard or make light of Shakespeare's great and unrivaled literary genius, nor the sometimes difficult language discrepancy between us and him. I do, however, say that one has woefully missed the point if Shakespeare's genius and language so absorbs one's mind that when one is told that a certain unfortunate lady,

"hath more hair then wit, more faults than hairs, and more wealth than faults"[2] , one is able to remain grave. Aye, if a man is able to recite the fullness of the context surrounding that statement, if he understands precisely what Shakespeare was referring to when he mentioned 'wealth' and the philosophies surrounding the concept, if he can trace the etymology of the indicative verb 'hath', but he cannot laugh at the joke, then he appreciates Shakespeare's meaning far less than the ignorant layman who cannot keep from laughing.

G. K. Chesterton says, in a chapter concerning ancient myths;

[The Everlasting Man, Man and Mythology]

"When the professor is told by the Polynesian that once there was nothing except a great feathered serpent, unless the learned man feels a thrill and a half temptation to wish it were true, he is no judge of such things at all. When he is assured, on the best Red Indian authority, that a primitive hero carried the sun and moon and stars in a box, unless he clasps his hands and almost kicks his legs as a child would at such a charming fancy, he knows nothing about the matter."

I would submit that when the Shakespearean critic hears Hermia scream to her rival,

"How low am

I, thou painted maypole, speak; I am not yet so low But that my nails can reach unto thine eyes!" [4]

Unless the learned man feels an inclination to laugh nervously at the hilarious and violent jealousy of an offended women, he is no judge of such things. Unless he can weep at the cruel injustice done to sweet and innocent Desdemona, unless the world closes around him into a cage of dread and guilt at the blood that can never be washed from the hands of Macbeth, he has no understanding of Shakespeare's meaning.

I admit that there is a language difference between our English and the English used in Shakespeare's time that makes the enjoyment of Shakespeare without some study, difficult at times, but this does not nullify the fact that the point of the study is understanding for the sake of enjoyment. Nevertheless how often does academics usurp plain enjoyment and thus exclude all true appreciation. How often does study forget its purpose and make itself the supreme and noble end. The study of Shakespeare is to be subservient to the plain enjoyment of Shakespeare.

To be enjoyed is the expressed purpose of Shakespeare, insofar as study forwards this end (as it often does), it is indeed commendable. I do not condemn the study of Shakespeare, I only condemn the type of study that condemns Shakespeare.

[1] The Two Noble Kinsmen; Epilogue [2] The Two Gentlemen of Verona; Act III, Scene II [4] A Midsummer Night's Dream; A