I agree. As I said in an earlier post, Shakepeare's intended audience was not incarcerated teenagers. People paid to see Shakespeare's plays, and those of other popular playwrights of his day, because they enjoyed them. The Elizabethan theater scene was "American Idol" meets "Survivor" crossed with "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." As it were.
The great novels of the past, of various eras and nations, were popular, read voluntarily by the general public. They were not forced on prisoners of the state.
In my opinion, if literature is worthy of being described as "classic," it will attract uncoerced readers in every generation.
Depends if you're talking about the folks in the stalls, or the "groundlings". The groundlings came for the low entertainment, Bottom, Quince, and the other "players" doing their bawdy slapstick while Lysander and Hermia, Oberon and Titania kept the educated entertained.
You would NOT approve of the way gentlemen's sons and daughters were taught in those days. Rote learning, and failure to recite letter perfect was punished most severely . . even Roger Ascham, who was considered a most humane and enlightened teacher, advocated frequent use of beating with a stick to encourage learning. Queen (then Princess) Elizabeth herself was beaten for mistakes in her Latin. Now that's "forcing". The Elizabethans recognized that kids often are too young to recognize what is good for them. They were more serious about it than anybody today -- we are contaminated by the awful Dr. Spock and "self led learning". I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that the English prose of the late 16th and early 17th century is the best that has ever been written. Your average 17th century gentleman or lady had a command of the language that isn't even aspired to in these latter and degenerate days.
The groundlings, on the other hand, were sent out to 'prentice and received no education at all, other than what they might pick up along the way themselves, if motivated.