GENERAL EDITORS

RICHARD C. BOYS, University of Michigan EDWARD NILES HOOKER, University of California, Los Angeles H.T. SWEDENBERG, JR., University of California, Los Angeles

ASSISTANT EDITOR

W. EARL BRITTON, University of Michigan

ADVISORY EDITORS

EMMETT L. AVERY, State College of Washington BENJAMIN BOYCE, University of Nebraska LOUIS I. BREDVOLD, University of Michigan CLEANTH BROOKS, Yale University JAMES L. CLIFFORD, Columbia University ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, University of Chicago SAMUEL H. MONK, University of Minnesota ERNEST MOSSNER, University of Texas JAMES SUTHERLAND, Queen Mary College, London

Lithoprinted from copy supplied by author

by

Edwards Brothers, Inc.

Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.

1948

INTRODUCTION

The Theatre, by "Sir John Falstaffe", is according to its author a continuation of Richard Steele's periodical of the same name. Shortly after Steele brought his paper to a close on April 5, 1720, the anonymous author who called himself "Falstaffe" appropriated his title; or if we prefer Falstaffe's own account of the matter, he was bequeathed the title upon the decease of Steele's "Sir John Edgar". At any rate, the new series of Theatres was begun on April 9, 1720, and continued to appear twice a week for eleven numbers until May 14. On Tuesdays and Saturdays Falstaffe entertained the town with a pleasant essay in the tradition established by The Tatler.

But the paper of April 9, the first of the new Theatres, was only nominally the first of a series; Falstaffe, who numbered the paper "sixteen", had already written fifteen papers called The Anti-Theatre in answer to Steele's Theatre. The demise of Steele's periodical merely afforded him an opportunity of changing his title; his naturally became inappropriate when Steele's paper was discontinued and the shorter title was probably thought to be more attractive to readers. Falstaffe made no attempt to pass his papers off as the work of his famous rival, to gain popularity for them through the reputation of Steele. Indeed, the antagonism which existed between the two men would have made such an act of deception an unlikely one.

Steele's The Theatre, his last periodical, had been written for a controversial purpose; by his own admission he wrote it to arouse support for himself in a dispute in which he was engaged with the Lord Chamberlain, the Duke of Newcastle. Steele, who by the authority of a Royal Patent was governor of the Company of Comedians acting in Drury Lane, insisted that his authority in the theatre was not respected by the Lord Chamberlain, the officer of the Royal Household traditionally charged with supervision of theatrical matters. Newcastle intervened in the internal affairs of Drury Lane and, when Steele protested, expelled him from the theatre. Steele could do nothing but submit, though he retaliated with a series of bitter attacks on the Duke in The Theatre.

Newcastle found defenders, of whom one of the strongest was Falstaffe, who wrote in direct opposition to Steele's "Sir John Edgar", openly attempting to provoke that knight to a journalistic contest. But Edgar gave scant attention to his essays, though they were vigorously written and presented strong arguments in defense of the Lord Chamberlain's intervention in Drury Lane affairs. Steele acknowledged the first number of The Anti-Theatre (it appeared on February 15, 1720) in the fourteenth number of his own paper, praising Falstaffe for his promise not to "intrude upon the private concerns of life" in the debate which was to follow, but thereafter he all but ignored his new rival. With the exception of a brief allusion in The Theatre, No. 17 (an allusion which Falstaffe was quick to take up), Steele made no more references to the other periodical. For a time Falstaffe continued to answer the arguments Steele advanced in protest against the Lord Chamberlain's action, but finding that he was unable to provoke a

response, he gave up the debate. After his ninth number of March 14, he had little more to say about Steele or Drury Lane.

Falstaffe, however, did not stop writing when he ceased defending Newcastle's action. The Anti-Theatre continued to come out twice 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 tastes and predilections. A strong interest in classical antiquity is apparent in numerous allusions to ancient history and mythology, allusions particularly plentiful in The Anti-Theatre; an intelligent reverence for the writings of Shakespeare may be observed in a series of admiring references; and from his repeated remarks about Spain and Spanish literature, both in The Anti-Theatre and in The Theatre, we may probably conclude that he had some special knowledge of that country and its literature. But all of this can be but speculation. We know nothing positively about Falstaffe except that he wrote a series of engaging essays.

Falstaffe's Theatre is reproduced, with permission, from the papers in the Folger Shakespeare Library.

John Loftis Princeton University

Numb. XVI

THE

THEATRE.

By Sir JOHN FALSTAFFE.

To be Continued every Tuesday and Saturday.

Price Two-pence.

I am Myself, but call me What you please.

South. in Oroon.

Saturday, April 9. 1720.

Men, that like myself, set up for being Wits, and dictating to the World in a censorial Way, should like Oracles endeavour to be barely heard, but never have it distinguish'd from whence the Voice comes. Faith and Reputation have ever been built on Doubt and Mystery, and sometimes the Art of being unintelligible does not a little advance the Credit of a Writer. There are many Reasons why we, who take upon Us the Task of Diurnal or Weekly Lucubrations, should be like the River Nilus, sending abroad fertile Streams to every Quarter, and still keeping our Heads undiscover'd. But why should I be compell'd to give Reasons for every thing? Were Reasons as plenty as Blackberries, as my worthy Ancestor was wont to say, I would not give a Reason upon Compulsion.

I have confess'd to the World I am a Knight (nor am I asham'd to own it, tho' 'tis a Condescension as Knighthood goes;) and my Name is John Falstaffe; must they have too a Tree of my Pedigree, and a Direction to my Lodgings? 'Tis ill-Manners to pluck the Masque off, when we would not be known: besides that, Curiosity has lost Men many a Blessing, and plung'd the Discoverers into signal Calamities; as witness Oedipus, and the Oracle, Lot's Wife, Orpheus and Eurydice, and several other true and ancient Histories, which I have something else to do than think of at present.

It was an Opinion growing apace in the Town, that Sir John Edgar and I were one and the same Man: but from what Tract or Circumstance this Notion sprung, I can neither learn nor guess. I mounted the Stage as the Adversary, and he accepted my Challenge: upon which I attack'd him with such Weapons as Men of Learning commonly use against one another, yet he declin'd the Combat. I was by This in Generosity compell'd to desist from pursuing him, yet every now and then I took upon me to reprimand him, when I observ'd him too free in the Use of certain Figures in Rhetorick, which are the common Dialect of a Part of the Town famous for good Fish and Female Orators. Thus he continued his Course of Writing, sometimes very obscure, sometimes too plain: according as either Vapours, or Spleen, or Love, or Resentment, or French Wine predominated; which I, by my Skill in Natural Philosophy observing, thought it advisable to leave him to himself, till the Court of Chancery should appoint him a proper Guardian. I cannot deny, but that we shook Hands behind the Curtain, and have been very good

Friends for these eight Papers last, have been merry without any Gall, he regarding me as a Gentleman Philosopher, and I looking upon him as an inoffensive Humorist.

I confess that it contributes much to my Peace of Soul, that we were reconcil'd before his Departure from this Stage of Business and of Life. The Reader will hereby understand that Sir John is dead: It is for this Reason that I appear in his Dress, that I assume his Habit de Guerre, for Sir John chose me, from among all Men living, to be his sole Executor. The Printer had no black Letter by him, otherwise this Paper (as in Decency it ought) should have appear'd in Mourning: however I shall use as much Ceremony as the Time will allow; and, as Hob did in the Farce by the Man that hang'd himself, I take up his Cloak, and am chief Mourner.

We never can do the Memory of a Great Man more Justice, than by being particular in his Conduct and Behaviour at the Point of Death. Sir John, tho' a Wit, took no Pains to shew it at his latest Hour, that is, he did not dye like one of those prophane Wits, who bid the Curtains be drawn, and said the Farce of Life was ended. This is making our Warfare too slight and ludicrous: He departed with more Grace, and, like the memorable Type of his Prudence, Don Quixote de la Mancha, where he perceiv'd his Sand was running out, he repented the Extravagance of his Knight-Errantry, and ingenuously confess'd his Family Name. He seem'd entirely dispos'd to dye in his Wits, and no doubt, did so: tho' by Intervals, 'tis thought he was a little delirious, talk'd of taking Coach to Fishmongers Hall, broke into imperfect Sentences about Annuities and South-Sea, and mutter'd something to himself of making Dividends of Ten per Cent at least six times a Year.

If Sir John appear'd by all the Actions of his Life a Friend to Mankind, he certainly did so in a great Measure at his Death, by the charitable Disposition of what he died possess'd. I have given an Abridgment of his Will, that the World may see he left his Legacies only where they were truly wanted: Neither Favour nor Prejudice had any Influence over him in his last Minutes, but he had nothing more at Heart than the Necessities of his Legatees.

'In Nomini Domini, Amen. I John Edgar, &c. Knight, being sound in Body, but imperfect of Mind and Memory, do make this my last Will, &c.

'Item, As to such personal Estate which I have the good Fortune to leave behind me, I give and dispose thereof, as follows: And, best, I give and bequeath all and singular my Projects to the Society of Stockjobbers, Share and Share alike, because I am sure they will be never the better for them.

'Item, I give and bequeath all my Right, Property and Share in the transparent Bee-hive to my indulgent Friend and Patron, his Grace the Duke of ——, because he has taken such a particular Fancy to it.

'Item, I give and bequeath the full Profit of all those Plays which I have Intentions of writing, if it shall happen that I live to the Poor of the Parish in which I shall dye: desiring it may be distributed by my Executor, and not come into the Hands of the Church-wardens.

'Item, I give and bequeath my Goosequilt, with which I demolish'd Dunkirk, to such Person as shall appear most strenuous for the Delivery of Port Mahon and Gibraltar to the Spaniards.

'And as to such Qualifications wherewith I am endow'd, which have always serv'd me in the Nature of personal Estate, I dispose thereof as follows; First, I give and bequeath my Politicks to the Directors of the Academy of Musick, my Religion to the Bishop of B——, my Eloquence to the most distrest Author in Grubstreet, who writes the full Accounts of Murthers & Rapes, and Fires, and my Obscurity to somebody that is inclin'd to turn Casuist in Divinity.

'Item, I give my Beauty to Mr. Dennis, because he had a Mind to steal it from me while I was alive.

'Item, I give my Wits to my Friends at Button's, my Good Manners to the Deputy Governors of Drury Lane Theatre; and my Charity to the married and unmarried Ladies of the said Theatre; and lest Disputes should arise about the Distribution thereof, it being too little for them All, my Desire is, that they be determin'd in their Shares by Lot.

'And I make and appoint Sir John Falstaffe, Knight, my full and whole Executor, and residuary Legatee, desiring him to continue my Paper of the Theatre, but after his own Stile and Method; and desiring likewise that the Sum of Forty Shillings may be given to the Boys of the Charity School of St. Martin in the Fields, to write me an Elegy any Time within Eighteen Years after my Decease.'

He left several other Legacies to the Theatrical Viceroys, whose Interest he had always so much at Heart, such as, his Humility, his Learning and Judgment in Dramatick Poetry; but these being Things which they always lived without, and which we are assur'd, they will never claim, we thought it needless to insert them.

* * * * *

Printed for W. BOREHAM, at the Angel in Pater-Noster-Row, where Advertisements and Letters from Correspondents are taken in.

Numb. XVII.

THE

THEATRE.

By Sir JOHN FALSTAFFE.

To be Continued every Tuesday and Saturday.

—Animasque in vulnere ponunt.

Virg.

Tuesday, April 12. 1720.

The Incident of a late Prize fought at one of our Theatres, has given me some Occasion to amuse myself with the Rise, and Antiquity of Duelling; and to enquire what Considerations have given it such Credit, as to make it practicable as well in all Countries, as in all Times. Religion and Civil Policy have ever declar'd against the Custom of receiving Challenges, and deny that any Man has a Right, by a Tryal at Sharps, to destroy his Fellow-Creature. History, 'tis true; both sacred and prophane, is full of Instances of these sort of Combats: but very few are recorded to have happen'd between Friends, none on the light and idle Misconstruction of Words, which has set most of our modern Tilters at Work. The Athenians made it penal by a Law so much as to call a Man a Murtherer: and the Detestation of Antiquity is so plain to this inhuman Kind of Proceeding, that when Eteocles and Polynices had kill'd each other upon the important Quarrel of disputed Empire, the Government order'd the Challenger's Body to be thrown out as a Prey to the Dogs and Birds, and

made it Death for any one to sprinkle Dust over it, or give it the least honorary Marks of Interment.

The Duelling so much in Fashion for a few late Centuries is so scandalous to Christianity and common Understanding, and grounded upon none of those specious Occasions which at first made it warrantable, that it is high Time the Wisdom of Commonwealths should interpose to discountenance and abrogate a pernicious Liberty, whose Source springs alone from Folly and Intemperance. Sir Walter Raleigh has very wisely observ'd in his History of the World, that the acting of a private Combat, for a private Respect, and most commonly a frivolous One, is not an Action of Virtue, because it is contrary to the Law of God, and of all Christian Kings: neither is it difficult, because even and equal in Persons and Arms: neither for a publick Good, but tending to the contrary, because the Loss or Mutilation of an able Man, is also a Loss to the Commonweal.