tance--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