The Theater (1720) | Page 2

a
week until the fifteenth number appeared on Monday, April 4. And in
that paper there was no indication that the periodical was to end or was
to be changed in any way. But on the day after, April 5, Steele issued
The Theatre, No. 28, signed with his own name, which he announced

would be the last in the series. As no more _Anti-Theatres_ were
known to have appeared after the fifteenth, it has generally been
assumed (though as we now know, erroneously) that Falstaffe took his
cue from Edgar and abandoned his own series.
But there has long been some reason to believe that Falstaffe did not
cease writing completely after the fifteenth _Anti-Theatre_. Though
nothing was known of his later work, a newspaper advertisement of his
The Theatre was noted. But lacking any more definite information,
scholars have doubted the existence of the periodical. A volume in the
Folger Shakespeare Library, however, removes the doubt. There, bound
with a complete set of the original Theatre by Sir John Edgar, are the
ten numbers of the later Theatre which are reproduced here. These
papers include the entire run of Falstaffe's "continuation" with the
exception of one number, the nineteenth, which has apparently been
lost. So far as is known, the copies in the Folger are unique.
The continuation of The Theatre bears little trace of the controversial
bitterness present in Steele's paper of that name or in some of the early
numbers of _The Anti-Theatre_. Except in the mock will in No. 16,
there is no reference to Steele's dispute with Newcastle in the entire
series. Nor, in spite of the title, is there any discussion of theatrical
matters. As a source of information about the stage, it is virtually
without value. But if it be accepted as merely another of the gracefully
written series of literary essays which were so abundant in the early
eighteenth century, its value and charm are apparent. The unidentified
author was an accomplished scholar, and he wrote on a variety of
subjects which have not lost their appeal. The interest aroused by the
essays is perhaps inseparable from our historical interest in the life and
manners of the time, but it is none the less genuine. Perhaps nowhere
more than in the personal essays about subjects of contemporary
importance--of which these are examples--is there a more pleasing
record of the social and intellectual life of a period.
Of the ten essays reproduced here, probably the first (No. 16) is the
only one which contains allusions which will not be generally
understood by scholars. In this paper, in the account of the death of Sir

John Edgar and in the transcript of Edgar's will, there are references to
Steele's dispute with Newcastle over the control of Drury Lane Theatre.
Falstaffe facetiously recalls several points which were debated in the
journalistic war provoked by Steele's loss of his governorship, but in
themselves the points are of too little significance to merit explanation.
The several allusions to the South Sea Bubble in these essays will be
easily recognized. In Nos. 21, 22, and 26, Falstaffe considers the
absurdities engendered by the Bubble (as he had previously in _The
Anti-Theatre_, Nos. 10, 11, 12, and 14), exhibiting a healthy distrust of
the fever of stock-jobbing then at its height. Though less extreme than
Steele in his criticism of the South Sea Company, Falstaffe shows
himself to have understood several months in advance of the crash the
fundamental unsoundness of the wave of speculation produced by the
company's policies.
The essay on duelling (No. 17) was probably suggested to Falstaffe by
a bill then pending in Parliament to make the practice unlawful. No
other of his essays resembles more closely those of his predecessor,
Steele, who during a lifetime of writing carried on a personal campaign
to arouse opposition to duelling. In Steele's own Theatre, there are two
essays devoted to the subject (Nos. 19 and 26).
One of the most interesting of Falstaffe's papers is his twenty-fourth:
his discussion of the recently published memoirs of the deaf and dumb
fortuneteller, Duncan Campbell, memoirs which we know to have been
written by Daniel Defoe. And from Falstaffe's conspicuous reference to
Robinson Crusoe in the paper, it seems evident that he also knew the
identity of the author. What we have then is, in effect, a contemporary
review of Defoe's book. Maintaining an air of seriousness, Falstaffe
examines the extravagant assertions made so confidently by Defoe,
ironically suggesting the implausibility and absurdity of some of them.
Falstaffe's matter-of-fact comments are well adapted to exposing the
incredibility of the similarly matter-of-fact narrative of Defoe.
Who Sir John Falstaffe was we do not know. No clue to his identity has
been discovered. But from the essays themselves we learn something of
his