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.