For John Keats, one-time medic turned Romantic poet, the works of William Shakespeare were, quite simply, "enough".

It was a view shared by the majority of his contemporaries and successors but not, it would appear, by the dons of Cambridge University who are considering scrapping their exam paper on the bard to make way for more modern literature.

The highly controversial move - which is set to draw accusations of "dumbing down" - would mean the playwright would no longer be given privileged status but would be studied alongside his contemporaries as part of a paper spanning works from 1550 to 1700.

In addition, there would be a compulsory Shakespeare question in a separate paper on tragedies. But there would be no requirement to answer any more than the two questions on his entire canon, comprising 37 plays, two narrative poems and 148 sonnets.

The proposal, which is unlikely to come into force for three years, is being considered because the university wants to make more room for Victorian and 20th century authors, currently crammed into a single paper covering literature from 1830 to the present day.

"Every year that paper becomes more of a monstrosity because it becomes longer, and something has to be done about it," said Anne Barton, a fellow of Trinity College.

In addition, the faculty believes that few students read the entire canon and that many of them merely regurgitate their A-level texts in the exam room.

"If the Shakespeare paper is made a compulsory part of the renaissance paper, it's not the end of the world," said Professor Barton. "In fact, I think there's a good deal to be said for putting him in the context of contemporary literature, both dramatic and non-dramatic."

She added: "There's no question of scrapping Shakespeare as a compulsory part of the degree and to accuse us of 'dumbing down' is ridiculous."

But the recommendation, which follows Oxford University's recent move to make its Anglo Saxon course optional, has drawn strong criticism from academics outside the university.

"Of course I think it's absolutely necessary to study Shakespeare", said Frank Kermode, the university's former King Edward VII professor of English, who added he would be "very surprised" if the proposal succeeded.

"The whole of our literature has to be estimated in relation to him. This seems to me a foolishness. It would certainly change the whole balance of the course and would be a net loss to put it mildly."

John Carey, Merton professor of English literature at Oxford University, said: "I'm personally in favour of a compulsory paper because Shakespeare seems to be the one writer who everyone who comes afterwards has read.

"All the writers after him have read, learned, allude to, react against him. So, unless you know your Shakespeare, you don't read post-Shakespeare literature properly.

"I do think you have to read the whole canon if you are reading Shakespeare - and if it's just an option on a renaissance paper, people won't do it."

"Keats in his letters said 'Shakespeare is enough for us' and I think that if you had to choose one author, he'd be the one. Is he enough? Well, he's a start."

Useful link
Cambridge English course requirementsl