storal novel with the addition of
scenes that recall Robin Hood's forest life, and may owe something to
the suggestion of two Robin Hood plays by Chettle and Munday, _The
Downfall and Death of Robert Earl of Huntingdon_ (1598). But, on the
whole, the indebtedness was on the other side, and imitations indicate
that men of Shakespeare's day realized that romantic comedy and history
could not be carried farther.

In fact, a certain reaction set in against these forms of drama. Near
the close of the century new tendencies became manifest. Comedy tended
to become more realistic and satiric. Chapman, Marston, Middleton, and
Jonson, all began writing romantic comedy, but changed shortly to
realistic. Jonson, in his _Every Man in His Humour_ (1598), announced
his opposition to the lawless drama which had preceded--whether
romantic comedy or chronicle history--and proposed the creation of a new
satirical comedy of manners. He was moved partly by a desire to break
from past methods in order to bring comedy closer to classical example,
and partly by a desire for realism, a faithful presentation, analysis,
and criticism of current manners. The growth of London and the increase
in luxury and immorality seem to have encouraged such a movement, and
for the decade after 1598 there were many comedies of London life,
mostly satiric, and nearly all realistic. Many varieties are to be
found, from gross representation of the seamy side of city life to
serious discussion of social questions, and from sympathetic picturing
of certain trades to satiric exposure of the evils of society.

Jonson's emulation of Aristophanes led him into arrogant personal satire
in the _Poetaster_ (1601), and there ensued the so-called war of the
theaters, in which Marston, Dekker, and, according to report,
Shakespeare were Jonson's opponents. If Shakespeare, indeed, had a share
in this war, he showed only slight interest in the prevailing comedy.
_Measure for Measure_ uses the device of a spying duke employed in
Marston's _Malcontent_, and discusses sexual relationships somewhat in
the tone of the time, while the scenes dealing with houses of ill fame
are not unlike similar scenes in the contemporary plays of Middleton,
Webster, and others. _Troilus and Cressida_, also, show more of a
satiric temper than is usual in Shakespeare. But neither of these plays
partakes to any extent of the prevailing satire on contemporary London.
Wide as was the range of Shakespeare