Reflecting on a few chapters, and adding a great man to the list (who should have been picked #1)

"Mr. Jonathan Wild, or Wyld, then (for he himself did not always agree in one method of spelling his name), was descended from the great Wolfstan Wild, who came over with Hengist, and distinguished himself very eminently at that famous festival, where the Britons were so treacherously murdered by the Saxons; for when the word was given, i.e. Nemet eour Saxes, take out your swords, this gentleman, being a little hard of hearing, mistook the sound for Nemet her sacs, take out their purses; instead therefore of applying to the throat, he immediately applied to the pocket of his guest, and contented himself with taking all that he had, without attempting his life.

The next ancestor of our hero who was remarkably eminent was Wild, surnamed Langfanger, or Longfinger. He flourished in the reign of Henry 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 knowledge of the proprietor, with great ease and dexterity, draw forth a man's purse from any part of his garment where it was deposited, and hence he derived his surname. This gentleman was the first of his family who had the honour to suffer for the good of his country: on whom a wit of that time made the following epitaph"(Book 1 Chapter 2)

I may have read this wrong, but it seems to me that Jonathan Wild's ancestors in this book are tricky men who can "steal" money wisely. After I read this chapter, I paused for a little bit before moving to further chapters. The reason I paused is because I am wondering if Fielding is suggesting that Jonathan will carry the same characteristics as his forefathers. I read this before learning about Wild in yesterdays class, so now that I look back on this chapter in reflection, I feel like this chapter is very important. I consider this chapter to be the first look at what exactly makes Jonathan Wild "great".

"He was a passionate admirer of heroes, particularly of Alexander the Great, between whom and the late king of Sweden he would frequently draw parallels. He was much delighted with the accounts of the Czar's retreat from the latter, who carried off the inhabitants of great cities to people his own country. THIS, he said, WAS NOT ONCE THOUGHT OF BY Alexander; BUT added, PERHAPS HE DID NOT WANT THEM." (Book 1 Chapter 3)

This passage also seems important to me. The passage talks about how he admired heroes, but the hero's fielding states Wild admired aren't that admiral to me. We discussed in class how Alexander was a conquerer of other men, but does that really make him great? There seems to be somewhat of a parallel between Wild and Alexander (@ least there is in my opinion). Just like Alex conquered men, Wild conquered criminals, so if that is what Fielding is referring to as great (and not being sarcastic) then Wild must = Greatness.

*** Also we mentioned great men in class on Monday... I found it hard to believe that Mr.Bazinga himself did not make the cut. How does Dr. Sheldon Cooper (pictured below) not make that great list? Sheldon is a "hoot and a half" guys c'mon!