The Missing Phoenix

As soon as I finished my last post I hauled down my copy of V. S. Pritchett's massive Collected Essays to see what if anything Pritchett had to say about Jonathan Wild. I soon discovered that not only had he anticipated (and amplified) much of my argument but that he had even used essentially the same title: "An Anatomy of Greatness." Since his piece was included in a collection published in 1942, the parallels he found between Fielding's criminal "Great Man" and modern political sociopaths focused on a different generation, but the underlying idea was the same.

There's no shame in ceding priority to Sir Victor, but the end of his essay held a surprise.

Mrs Heartfree's sea adventures, in which there is hardly a moment between Holland and Africa in which she is not on the point of losing her honour, are not so much padding but give a touch of spirit to her shopkeeping virtues and also serve the purpose of satirizing the literature of travel. It is hard on Mrs Heartfree; perhaps Fielding was insensitive.

All well and good, until Pritchett goes on:

Without that insensitivity we should have missed the adventure with the monster who was 'as large as Windsor Castle'; an episode which reminds us that the spirit of the nine o'clock news was already born in the 1700s:

I take it to be the strangest Instance of that Intrepidity, so justly remarked in our Seamen, which can be found on Record. In a Wood then, one of our Mucketeers [sic] coming up to the Beast, as he lay on the Ground and with his Mouth wide open, marched directly down his Throat.

He had gone down to shoot the Monster in the heart. And we should have missed another entrancing sight. Mrs Heartfree perceived a fire in the desert and thought at first she was approaching human habitation.

... but on nearer Approach, we perceived a very Beautiful Bird just expiring in the flames. This was none other than the celebrated Phoenix.

The sailors threw it back into the Fire so that it 'might follow its own Method of propagating its Species'.

My reaction to this was bafflement. Had I read Jonathan Wild so carelessly that I had breezed past a Monster and a Phoenix? Was V. S. Pritchett even reading the same book? As it turns out, he wasn't, exactly. The earliest version of Jonathan Wild was in a 1743 collection entitled Miscellanies. According to Fielding scholar Peter Jan de Voogd, the colorful chapter that described the Monster and the Phoenix was included in that edition, but Fielding apparently later decided it was too farfetched and left it out of a 1754 reprint. My Hamish Hamilton edition from 1947 followed the later version; Pritchett read the original text.