Indian font romeo and
![indian font romeo and indian font romeo and](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/64/c2/b4/64c2b4ace72641921fae11d5cb185099.jpg)
This approach to Shakespeare, or to any drama, has many implications. If we treat them only as drama or only as poems, we distort them. Shakespeare was a dramatist who wrote dramatic poems. The answer to the questions-or rather, my answer-is that the more ways we study Shakespeare, the better.
![indian font romeo and indian font romeo and](https://s3.us-east-2.wasabisys.com/jainqq-hq/555491eed328519015f8702733a56ebe8f08306ff35765ebdc6272c7a8e75013.jpg)
In fact, it was Shakespeare’s works that helped persuade people that drama was more than simply entertainment.) Should not Shakespeare, therefore, be studied as drama? Should Shakespeare courses be taught in Theatre Arts departments rather than English departments? Such questions point to an unfortunate aspect of educational institutions, the division of knowledge into seemingly independent fields. (Incidentally, in Shakespeare’s time, plays were hardly considered literature at all. It is true that he wrote a number of poems-the sonnets, “Venus and Adonis,” and “The Rape of Lucrece” are the most famous-but generally when people think of Shakespeare, they are thinking of his plays.
![indian font romeo and indian font romeo and](https://weandthecolor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/1-Avenir-Next-World-font-family-696x1052.jpg)
One question that we might consider, however, is why Shakespeare is always taught in English literature classes. Whether Shakespeare says these things better than anyone else, whether he says the same things to all people, and whether what he says is universally true are other questions that are worth considering, but the first task is to read the plays. He was a man of the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries whose writings reflect sixteenth- and seventeenth-century modes of thought and, like the works of all great writers, say something to us as well. For all his greatness, Shakespeare was as much a part of his time as any other great writer. Yes, Shakespeare was a great poet, but so, in his time, were Sidney and Spenser and so, in other times, were other writers. It also has a negative side, however, because in deifying Shakespeare, we distort literary history. This phenomenon has its positive side because Shakespeare was, after all, so great. At my own college, Shakespeare is the only author who has two separate courses all to himself, and to many people, the name Shakespeare is synonymous with literature. Another, more important reason for my trepidation is that Shakespeare has become such an icon, both in the academic and non-academic worlds. One reason is that Shakespeare is among the greatest poets in history and it is always daunting and humbling to approach the works of such a poet-but of course the other chapters in this book also deal with great writers. It is with real trepidation that I begin this chapter, for several reasons.