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.