The Theater (1720)

In Short

This collection of eleven satirical essays serves as a sharp-witted chronicle of London life in the spring of 1720. Written under the pseudonym "Sir John Falstaffe," the work functions as both a continuation of and a challenge to the theatrical commentary of Richard Steele. Through a mix of moral instruction, literary criticism, and biting political observation, the author critiques the South Sea Bubble, the vanity of the social elite, and the empty rituals of the day. It remains a fascinating relic of an era when the periodical essay shaped public opinion.

The Story

The narrative arc of these papers begins with a calculated act of succession. Upon the death of the fictional "Sir John Edgar"—a character representing the writer Richard Steele—the narrator adopts the mantle of "Sir John Falstaffe." He frames this transition as an inheritance, declaring himself the executor of Edgar’s legacy, though he makes it clear that their past rivalry was a heated affair. Having engaged in a journalistic war, Falstaffe now assumes the role of a "gentleman philosopher," offering his readers a series of observations that range from the trivial to the profound.

As the weeks progress, the focus shifts from the internal squabbles of the theater to the broader follies of the English public. Falstaffe turns his gaze toward the South Sea Bubble, the speculative financial mania that threatened to consume the nation’s common sense. He paints a portrait of a society distracted by dreams of unearned wealth, illustrating his warnings with tales of displaced tradesmen and ruinous policies. He is not merely a critic of finance, however; he is a social observer who finds the same "wrong-headed" tendencies in the fops of the drawing-room and the pretenses of the aristocracy.

The middle section of the collection sees the narrator grappling with the moral and social dilemmas of his age. He weighs in on the practice of dueling, treating it not as a noble pursuit of honor, but as a dangerous and archaic habit that defies both reason and law. He incorporates the voices of those who stand to lose from such reforms, such as the worried fencing-master who fears for his livelihood. Throughout these entries, Falstaffe maintains a tone of detached amusement, blending classical references with contemporary gossip.

The later essays broaden the critique to include literary figures and the superstitious nature of the town. He offers a review of Daniel Defoe’s Duncan Campbell, using the opportunity to mock the credulity of readers who flock to charlatans and fortunetellers. As the series draws to a close, the narrator prepares to retire from his "campaign" in the city. He reflects on the vanity of political discourse and the unreliability of the newspapers he reads each morning. In the final essay, Falstaffe announces his withdrawal to his country estate, framing his departure as the homecoming of a triumphant general. He leaves behind his collected writings as a monument to his own wit, satisfied that he has fulfilled his duty to the town, while keeping a watchful, weary eye on the "wrong-headed" world he leaves behind.

How It Unfolds

The transition of power The narrator announces the death of his rival, Sir John Edgar, and claims his title as executor. He sets the stage for a new series of essays, promising a blend of intellectual rigor and urban charm.

The critique of violence Falstaffe tackles the fashion of dueling, arguing that it is a senseless practice grounded in folly rather than honor. He highlights the absurdity of the "noble science of defense" through the complaints of a fencing-master who fears the law will ruin his business.

The financial fever The focus turns to the South Sea Bubble, where the narrator laments the loss of trade and industry to the fever of speculation. He uses allegorical tales of travelers and bankrupt policies to warn against the pursuit of easy money.

The literary and social dissection The narrator reviews contemporary works like Defoe’s memoirs, blending sharp criticism with ironic praise. He explores the vanity of those who mistake fashion for merit and highlights the ridiculous nature of superstitions and astrology.

The final retirement The series concludes with a reflection on the state of the public press and the vanity of political discourse. Falstaffe announces his return to the countryside, ensuring his essays are preserved as a legacy for future generations.

The People

Sir John Falstaffe serves as the narrator and moral compass of the collection. He presents himself as a man of learning and leisure, distanced from the frantic, profit-seeking "wrong-headed" mobs of London. His goal is to provide a voice of reason, though he is clearly driven by a desire for intellectual dominance and the preservation of his reputation.

Sir John Edgar, the deceased rival, haunts the early pages. While he is described as having been prone to "vapours" and "French wine," he acts as the foil against which Falstaffe defines his own superior composure. He stands for the chaotic, inconsistent style of journalism that Falstaffe seeks to replace.

The Fencing-Master appears as a comic antagonist to the cause of reform. Driven by the fear of poverty and the loss of his "noble science," he represents the defensive, self-interested reaction of those who profit from the status quo.

Finally, the unnamed "wrong-headed" multitude—the speculators, the beau garçons, and the fortunetellers—form the collective antagonist. They are the target of Falstaffe’s wit, acting as a mirror for the reader to see the absurdities of their own ambitions. Through his interactions with these archetypes, Falstaffe maintains his position as an observer, ending the series having successfully critiqued the society he chose to inhabit.

In Its Own Voice

Regarding the absurdity of his former rival:

"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."

Reflecting on the vanity of modern gentlemen who prioritize appearance over substance:

"Among these pretty Triflers, a good Embroidery on their Clothes, or a Sword Knot of a new Invention, raises more Emulation than a Piece of new Wit does among the bad Poets."

Addressing the danger of the financial mania sweeping the nation:

"The Body Politick became Bankrupt, and paid neither Principal nor Interest."

What It's Really About

The central theme is the tension between reason and the irrational "passions" that drive public behavior. Whether discussing the reckless gambling of the South Sea Bubble or the violent posturing of duelists, the author questions the capacity of human beings to govern themselves. The work explores the question of whether a society can truly value merit and intellect when it is so easily distracted by the "fashionable" or the "new." There is a strong undercurrent of skepticism regarding the permanence of truth in a world where newspapers can kill and marry whom they please. Ultimately, it asks the reader to consider the cost of living in a world where the pursuit of vanity and wealth has replaced the pursuit of virtue.

Why Read It Today

Readers who enjoy the sharp, ironic voices of the eighteenth-century essayists will find this collection particularly rewarding. It reads like a snapshot of a city caught in a moment of frantic transition, offering a blend of genuine insight into the psychological pressures of a speculative economy and the lighthearted, often catty, social commentary of the era. It is not always an easy read; the prose is dense with classical allusions and period-specific political references that demand a degree of patience. Modern readers might find the author’s disdain for "female orators" and his elitist views on social standing to be dated, if not jarring. However, the author’s voice remains remarkably vital when he describes the "fever" of speculation or the hollow nature of social climbing. It serves as a reminder that human absurdity is rarely a new invention. Those who appreciate a well-turned phrase and a biting wit will find that these essays, written over three hundred years ago, still possess a lingering, sharp sting that resonates in our own age of volatile markets and public posturing. It leaves the reader with a clearer understanding of how the "theatre" of public life was constructed and performed long before the age of digital media.