National Republican., 1883-01-17
AN UNAppKRc1ATED POET.
Shakespeare is Less Familiar 20 English
Readers than Thacleray or Dickens.

heuucrB imam InucAkefny OF Dichthss
w S. Gilbert, In The London NeiGs
The theory that am about to PROFOUND is
SO audacious that at the request Of the editor
of this paper / begin by stating that he hasno
sympathy whatever with it, He is family
man, and his life i5 q valuable life, and he is
quite right tobe cautious. For myself have
the courage of my opinions. have no doubt
but that the editor has the courage of his
opinions, but ho has not the courage of my
opinions, and, indeed, it would be unreasona-
bic to expect it of him.
My theory is that the people Of England
have no real appreciation of the merits OF
their most distinguished poet. l do not refer
to u thoughtful few, of whom l am one, and
the reader is another, but to the mass of Eng
lish-speaking men and women, educated and
otherwise. l am prepared for tho storm of
indignant rcioinder with which this express
sion of opinion will be met l am prepared
to hear that the people of these islands hail
Shakespeare as the greatest poet, the most pro-
found thinker, and the most accomplished dra-
matist the world has ever produced. But who
reads him? read him, and you read him, and
probably Mr.. Irving reads him, but how many
more read him? A few, no doubt, but how
many? j do not mean how many dip into
him2" / mean how many read him right
through, as they read Dickens, Thackeray,
to read Byron, and Walter Scott and Cooper,
and Marryat? Not to have read every novel
of Thackeray is to be Mt serious social
disadvantage. No man with any pretense
to cultivated mind will publicly admit that
he is not familiar with every important poem
of Tcnnyson. But how many Englishmen can
lay their hands on their hearts and say they
have read Tho Two Gentlemen of Verona"
arom beginning to end2 or "Alls Well that
Ends Well?" or " Richard the SecOndT' or
tho first, second, and third parts of Henry
the SiXth?" or Julius CesarW or "Corio-
lanus" or "Troilus and Cressida" or
"Cymbelinep or cloves Labor LostP or
"Timon of Athens?" a few, no doubt, but
how many? do not mean that these plays
are never " looked into" but how many have
read them as they have read The New
comes" or "David Copperneld," or Adam
Bedo," or "Ivanhoe," or "Childe Harold"
or the "Idylls of the King" A few, no
doubt, but how many? The gentleman who is
reading these lines knows all about them, but
how many of his friends are as well informed
as he? Let him invite the first acquaintance
he meets (who has no professional connection
with the stage) to favor him with sketch of
the plot of "Cymbeline," and mark the result.
The chances are tbn to one that that acquaint-
anee if he ventures on an answer at all, will
describe "Cymbeline" as q woman. of
"Troius and Cressida" he will be equally
ignorant.
The truth is that Shakespeare is not light
reading. But an absolute ignorance of tho
works of Shakespeare is most properly held
to be disgraceful, and SO 1t comes to pass that
when n play of Shakespeare is adequately
presented people rush to see it in oSder to
familiariZe themselves in tho readiest and
easiest and most agreeable way, with works
with which il is cOnsidered-and most rightly
that all Englishmen should be familiar.