Henry Fielding “Jonathan Wild”– Intro to / fragment from 1

Jonathan Wild

Adrian Otoiu’s take on “Jonathan Wild”

Written in 1743, three years after his succesful “Tom Jones”

is a satiric novel and at the same time it uses elements made
popular by the mock heroic genre.
It is, as you would say today, a narrative “inspired from a
real story.” Jonathan Wild was indeed a historical figure: born in
1682, a lord of crime, a former highwayman (=„hoț la drumul
mare”) turned concealer of stolen good (=tăinuitor de bunuri
furate). He was also a sort of double agent. He worked with the
police as a “thief-taker”, turning in burglars and criminals to the
constables (policemen) and earning rewards from this (thus he
was a “bounty hunter” un vânător de recompense). But at the
same time he was a head of a gand of thieves. His double game
ended badly in 1725, when he was sentenced and executed.
This picturesque figure attracted the interest of sensationalist
writers. In 1718, Hitchen attempted to expose Wild. Another
“True and Genuine account of the life and actions of the late
Jonathan Wild” was published anonymously (printed by John
Applebee) shortly after Wld’s death.
Fielding took the story up and amplified many of the details
already found in the popular Newgate calendars of the time.
These were sensationalist publications produced by hack writers
that exploited the public’s thirs for bloody details of notorious
criminals. He wrote the story in the manner of the birographies
of famous people, already popular at that time. He acted as if he
was impressed by the “greatness” of this criminal, pretending
that he wrote in admiration, glorifyingg his very exploits. Of
course, his admiration is all faked, and only makes the reader
wonder about the reasons why the public makes certain people
notorious. Are we the public right to glorify anyone? Is any form
of celebrity good?
But the true aim of his book was finally satirical. Fielding was
 Henry Fielding “Jonathan Wild”– Intro to / fragment from 2

disgusted by the current government led by Horace Walpole,

that he considered to be corrupted and no better than a criminal.
Some of the fiercest satire is deployed to unmask this reality:
politicians and thieves are not that different. The difference is
just a matter of means and amplitude. Read on to see for
yourselves how Fielding led this parallel.
And consider this: never in the over 200 pages of the novel
does Fielding blink to betray his real mind. He looks at us in the
eye and he tells us in all earnestness, poker face and all: “This
guy is awesome!” To write about such an abhorrent character by
claiming that you admire him – this is already an incredible act.

Book 1: Chapter 1 An introduction to the notion of

Greatness as totally different from
Goodness.

But before we enter on this great work we

endeavour – să ne străduim
must endeavour to remove some errors of opinion
(…) sages or philosophers, have endeavoured, as
much as possible, to confound the ideas of great-
ness and goodness; whereas no two things can
possibly be more distinct from each other, for
all manner – tot soiul de
greatness consists in bringing all manner of mischief – disaster, suffering; nenorocire

mischief on mankind, and goodness in removing

it from them. It seems therefore very unlikely that unlikely – puțin probabil

the same person should possess them both; and

yet nothing is more usual with writers, who find
many instances of greatness in their favourite
to make him a compliment of greatness into the bargain
hero, than to make him a compliment of goodness – să adaugela grămadă calitatea bunătății

into the bargain; and this, without considering

that by such means they destroy the great
perfection called uniformity of character. In the
histories of Alexander and Caesar we are Alexander – Alexandru cel mare sau Alecandru Macedon

frequently, and indeed impertinently, reminded

of their benevolence and generosity, of their
clemency – milostivenie, capacitatea de a ierta
clemency and kindness. When the former had the former… the latter… - primul… al doilea
overrun – a cotropit
with fire and sword overrun a vast empire, had
destroyed the lives of an immense number of
 Henry Fielding “Jonathan Wild”– Intro to / fragment from 3

wretches – nefericiți
innocent wretches, had scattered ruin and desola-
scattered ruin – a provocat dezastru

tion like a whirlwind, we are told, as an example

of his clemency, that he did not cut the throat of
throat – gâtul, beregata

an old woman, and ravish her daughters, but was (did not) ravish – nu i-a violat

content with only undoing them. (…) undoing them – să le omoare

to acquit us of such confounding ideas –să nu ne

We hope our reader will have reason justly to bănuiasă de asemenea idei greșite

acquit us of any such confounding ideas in the

following pages; in which, as we are to record the
actions of a great man, so we have nowhere men-
tioned any spark of goodness which had dis- any spark of – nicio fărâmă de

covered itself either faintly in him (…) either faintly – câtuși de puțin

As our hero had (…) the perfection of diabol-

ism, we have ventured to call him THE GREAT;
nor do we doubt but our reader, when he hath
perused his story, will concur with us in allowing
perused his story – va fi răsfoit povestea

him that title. concur with us – va fi de acord cu noi

Book 1, Chapter 2 in the typical manner of the biographer

of a celebrity, Fielding introduces Wild’s
ancestors back to Norman times.

The next ancestor of our hero who was remar-

surnamed – poreclit
kably eminent was Wild, surnamed Langfanger,
or Longfinger. He flourished in the reign of Henry in the reign – în timpul domniei lui

III., and was strictly attached to Hubert de Burgh,

whose friendship he was recommended to by his
great excellence in an art of which Hubert was
himself the inventor; he could, without the know-
ledge of the proprietor, with great ease and ease – ușurință
draw forth – să extragă
dexterity, draw forth a man’s purse from any part purse – punga (cu bani)

of his garment where it was deposited, and hence garment – veșmânt, haină

he derived his surname. This gentleman was the

first of his family who had the honour to suffer for to suffer for the good of his country - *this is obviously
ironic
the good of his country: on whom a wit of that
 Henry Fielding “Jonathan Wild”– Intro to / fragment from 4

wit – cărturar
time made the following epitaph:—

O shame o’ justice!
Wild is hang’d,
For thatten he a pocket fang’d,
While safe old Hubert, and his gang, Fand’t – a înșfăcat

Doth pocket o’ the nation fang.

Book 1, Chapter 3 A presentation of Jonathan’s mother.

During her whole pregnancy she constantly

longed for – a tânjit după; i*-a fost poftă de

longed for everything she saw; nor could be satis-

fied with her wish unless she enjoyed it clandes-
tinely; and as nature, by true and accurate obser- As nature... is remarked – Întrucât natura se remarcă
prin faptul că

vers, is remarked to give us no appetites without

furnishing us with the means of gratifying them;
so had she at this time a most marvellous gluti-
nous quality attending her fingers, to which, as to
A most marvelous glutinous quality attending her fingers
– degetele ei manifestau o minunată calitate de a fi
lipicioase
birdlime – excrement de pasăre (care e lipicios)

birdlime, everything closely adhered that she everything adhered that she ahndled – tot ce atingea se
lipea

handled.
[As a child Jonathan] was regarded by all his
schoolfellows with that deference which men deference… pay… – respect… pe care îl acordă

generally pay to those superior geniuses (…). If an

orchard was to be robbed Wild was consulted, orchard - livadă

and, though he was himself seldom concerned in

the execution of the design, yet was he always though – deși
design – plan
concerter of it, and treasurer of the booty, some concerter – dirijor, organizator
treasurer of the booty – tăinuitorul prăzii
little part of which he would now and then, with
wonderful generosity, bestow on those who took it. bestow – a face cadou, a dărui

Book 1, Chapter 5 Wilde explains his beliefs to Count

Snap, his accomplice
I had rather stand on the summit of a
dunghill – grămadă de bălegar

dunghill than at the bottom of a hill in Paradise. I

have always thought it signifies little into what
 Henry Fielding “Jonathan Wild”– Intro to / fragment from 5

I am thrown – nimeresc (prin născare)

rank of life I am thrown, provided I make a great
Provided – cu condiția să
therein – in there
figure therein, and should be as well satisfied
with exerting my talents well at the head of a well… as… - atât în… cât și în…
party – clică, grup
small party or gang, as in the command of a
mighty army; for I am far from agreeing with you,
great parts – marile talente
that great parts are often lost in a low situation; on
the contrary, I am convinced it is impossible they
should be lost. I have often persuaded myself that
there were not fewer than a thousand in Alexan-
der’s troops capable of performing what Alexan-
der himself did.
In civil life, doubtless, the same genius, the
endowments – înzestrări naturale, talente
same endowments, have often composed the
prig – (slang) hoț, tâlhar
statesman and the prig, for so we call what the
parts – calități, îănsușiri
vulgar name a thief. The same parts, the same
actions, often promote men to the head of
superior societies, which raise them to the head of
lower; and where is the essential difference if the
Tower-hill – the hill where the Parliament building stands
one ends on Tower-hill and the other at Tyburn? Tyburn – prison for the inmates awaiting execution

millken – dated slang) housebreaker; spărgător

“That the same capacity which qualifies a
bridle-cull – tîlhar de drumul mare
buttock-and-file – a shoplifter; hoț din magazine
mill-ken, a bridle-cull, or a buttock-and-file, to
arrive at any degree of eminence in his profession,
would likewise raise a man in what the world likewise – la fel, în mod similar

esteem a more honourable calling, I do not deny; esteem – stimă

calling – chemare, vocație
nay, in many of your instances it is evident that nay – ba chiar, mai mult

more ingenuity, more art, are necessary to the ingenuity – ingeniozitate

lower than the higher proficients. If, therefore, proficients – campioni

you had only contended that every prig might be

had contended – ai afirma
a statesman if he pleased, I had readily agreed to statesman – politician, om de stat
 Henry Fielding “Jonathan Wild”– Intro to / fragment from 6

it; but when you conclude that it is his interest to

be so, (…), in a word, that a statesman is greater
or happier than a prig, I must deny my assent. deny my assent – să nu fiu de acord

Book 1, Chapter 17 Here Jonathan formulates his own

Mankind are first properly to be considered
under two grand divisions, those that use their
own hands, and those who employ the hands of
theory of the organization of society.
divisions – sectoare, categorii
employ – folosesc

others. The former are the base and rabble; the The former... the latter... – (într-o enumerare) primii...
și cei de-ai doilea / iar ceilalți
rabble – pleava societății,sărăcimea
latter, the genteel part of the creation. The genteel part – partea nobilă

mercantile part of the world, therefore, wisely use

of the term EMPLOYING HANDS, and justly
prefer each other as they employ more or fewer;
for thus one merchant says he is greater than
another because he employs more hands.
A second division, [is that] of those who
employ hands for the use of the community in
which they live, and of those who employ hands
merely for their own use, without any regard to
without any regard – fără să le pese de
the benefit of society. Of the former sort are the
yeoman, the manufacturer, the merchant, and the foprmer sort – din prima categorie

perhaps the gentleman. The first of these being to yeoman – țăranul liber (răzeș)

manure and cultivate his native soil, and to The first – aici se referă la țărani

employ hands to produce the fruits of the earth.

to manure - să îngrașe (solul)
The second being (…) to produce from them those
useful commodities which serve as well for the
The second – the manufacturer
conveniences as necessaries of life. The third is to
commodities – mărfuri
employ hands for the exportation of (…) our own
The third – the merchant, negustorul
commodities, and to exchange them with the
redundances of foreign nations, that thus every
soil and every climate may enjoy the fruits of the
whole earth. The gentleman is, by employing
 Henry Fielding “Jonathan Wild”– Intro to / fragment from 7

hands, likewise to embellish his country with the

improvement of art and sciences, with the making
and executing good and wholesome laws for the
preservation of property and the distribution of embellish – să înfrumusețeze, să îmbogățească

justice, and in several other manners to be useful

to society.
Viz. – namely; adică, și anume
Now we come to the second part of this
division, viz., of those who employ hands for their
own use only; and this is that noble and great part
who are generally distinguished into conquerors,
absolute princes, statesmen, and prigs. Now all
these differ from each other in greatness only —
they employ MORE or FEWER hands. And
Alexander the Great was only GREATER than a
captain of one of the Tartarian or Arabian hordes,
as he was at the head of a larger number. In what
In what... is...- Prin ce anume este...?
then is a single prig inferior to any other great
man, but because he employs his own hands only;
for he is not on that account to be levelled with
the base and vulgar, because he employs his
on that account – din cauza aceea
hands for his own use only. Now, suppose a prig be levelled – să fie socotit ca fiind la același nivel

had as many tools as any prime minister ever had,

would he not be as great as any prime minister
whatsoever? Undoubtedly he would.

Ouestions:
1. How does this text imitate the genuine autobiography of famous people?
2. Is there any truth in the idea that greatness never coincides with goodness?
3. Do you think Jonathan’s theories are exposed logically and coherently? If so,
describe the steps? Does logic make them more credible?
4. Jonathan’s theory on prions /politicians are obviously elevating the prig? Do
they also lower the politician? Do you agree to his ideas?

Text prepared with lexical explanations by Dr Adrian Otoiu