Jonathan Wild

Jonathan Wild at Newgate Prison

Jonathan Wild (* 1683 in Wolverhampton ; † 24 May 1725 in London ) is one of the most notorious criminals in England . His deeds became known across Britain through novels , dramas and political satires . The character of Peachum in John Gay's The Beggar's Opera and later in Bertolt Brecht's Threepenny Opera is shaped after him. Both Daniel Defoe and Henry Fielding wrote biographies about his life.

Jonathan Wild managed to lead a double life for a long time that allowed him to lead a gang of thieves while appearing in public as someone who maintains public order. After being one of the most respected people in London in the 1720s, that appreciation turned to hatred and contempt when his double life became known. After his trial and his death on the gallows , he became a symbol of unrestrained corruption and self-importance.

Life

The early years

Wild was born in Wolverhampton in 1683 to a poor family. After an apprenticeship with a clasp maker , he worked as a servant and came to London in 1704. After he was fired by his employer, he returned to Wolverhampton, where he was thrown into debt prison for unpaid debts . During his time there, he received the " Liberty of the Gate " - a kind of exit permit, during which he assisted in the arrest of thieves at night. He got to know Mary Milliner, also called Mary Mollineaux. Mary Milliner was a prostitute from whom Wild learned various trick theft techniques. With these new skills to make money, Wild was able to repay his debts and get out of the debt prison.

After his release, Wild lived with Mary Milliner. Both were otherwise married at the time, and Wild, who was probably working as Milliner's pimp at the time , even had a child. Soon Wild was thoroughly familiar with the methods of the London underworld and its members. When he separated from Milliner, she was the "madame" ( brothel landlady ) for several other prostitutes, and Wild had started to act as a fence in stolen goods. However, he soon devised an apparently more promising method.

Crime in London

Here in London there is a bad robbery almost every night. Last week a gentleman and two women were robbed in Hyde Park Corner. They were coming from Chelsea and had just circled St. James Park when suddenly six swords were stuck in their carriage. (Correspondence from Sir John Verney, quoted from Waller, p. 442)

Between 1680 and 1720, the number of crimes in London had increased dramatically. This was due, among other things, to the economic problems resulting from the war with France and the increasing number of dismissed and impoverished soldiers and seafarers.

Daily newspapers , a relatively new phenomenon at the time, often reported on crimes and criminals. Reports in the newspapers also increased public concern about the rise in crime and began to take an increasing interest in ways of fighting crime . Against this background, anonymous writings such as " Hanging is not Punishment Enough for Murtherers, Highwaymen and House-Breakers " circulated , which demanded prior torture in addition to the death penalty in order to be an insufficient punishment for murderers, highwaymen and burglars finally creating sufficient deterrence.

A police force in today's sense did not yet exist. The historian Maureen Waller describes the situation in London at the turn of the 18th century as follows:

The law enforcement officers in London were weak as there was no central authority. There was no real police force. A police force was considered un-English, while in neighboring France it was an instrument of royal tyranny. Police work was sporadic in London. There were the Royal Messengers who were directly answerable to the Privy Council. You were responsible for treason and other political crimes. Since counterfeiting was also treason, they had a lot to do. The council employed the so-called city marshals who looked after the street dwellers. They had the authority to issue arrest warrants in the surrounding counties. To some extent, their work at the parish level was copied by the constables, church servants, and street guards, even if they had severe restrictions on the right to arrest anyone. Constables were not paid; ordinary citizens took turns in this post every year - in theory. In practice, the citizens paid deputies who did this work for them and they always did it. ... Most of the police work rested on the shoulders of the citizens who organized vigilante groups in their neighborhoods and did detective work themselves to bring down criminals. (Waller, p. 446f)

Such an environment created a sufficiently large field of activity for people like Wild that made them appear respectable to the outside world.

Wild's methods

Wild's method of getting rich and at the same time seeming to be on the right side of the law was ingenious. He led a gang of thieves, kept their stolen goods and waited for the theft to appear in the newspapers. Shortly thereafter, he claimed that his private police army, the " thief taking agents ", had found the stolen goods through careful detective work and returned them to their rightful owners. He paid him a fee for this find, which he allegedly used to reward his private police. In addition to “finding” stolen goods, he helped the police arrest thieves. The thieves Wild helped to arrest were either members of rival gangs or those who had refused to cooperate with him.

In order to limit the thefts, laws had been passed that severely punished stealing with stolen goods. Simple and inexperienced thieves in particular ran a considerable risk when they sold their stolen goods. Wild's position was greatly strengthened by this law. For a thief, the path via game was one of the few methods to turn stolen property into money in a relatively safe way. If a thief does not work with game, he runs the risk of being brought to justice by him.

Cleverly disguised blackmail was also part of Wild's repertoire. For example, in the 1724 Daily Post the following ad appeared:

Lost on October 1st; a notebook bound in black nubbed leather, edges with silver, with some "Notes of Hand" (bonds). The book in question was lost in the street "The Strand", near the "Fountain Tavern", around seven or eight in the evening. If anyone delivers this book to Mr. Jonathan Wild at the Old Bailey, they will receive a guinea as a reward. (Source: Howson)

The naming of the bonds was a subtle indication that Wild knew whose notebook was in his possession. And Wild also informed the owner via the ad that he knew why he was on this street - Fountain Tavern was a well-known brothel . The real purpose of the complaint was to threaten the notebook owner that his visit to the brothel would be made public. The ad also cited the price of secrecy (a guinea or a pound and a shilling).

His saying shows that Wild knew how to use disguise for his own purposes

The mask is the summum bonum of our age.

(The mask is the greatest good of our day.)

The supreme thief catcher

In public, Wild was considered a hero - he was one of those who made sure that criminals were arrested. In 1718 Wild referred to himself as the " Thief Taker General of Great Britain and Ireland " ( thief general of Great Britain and Ireland). He himself claimed that more than 60 thieves were put to death by his work on the gallows. His “finding” of stolen property, on the other hand, was more of a bilateral matter between him and the person being stolen. Wild had an office in the Old Bailey that was very busy. Victims of theft often came by and were relieved when Wild's agents had "found" the stolen goods. For an extra fee, Wild offered to help find the thief. Though later literary treatment often portrayed it differently, there is no evidence that Wild ever extradited any member of his gang for a fee.

In 1720, Wild's fame was so great that he advised the city council on the best ways to curb crime in London. Wild's recommendation was not surprising: the reward for clues leading to the capture of a thief should be increased significantly. Indeed, within a year this amount rose from forty to one hundred and forty pounds; for game this represented a considerable increase in income.

Wild handled the press masterfully, resembling the gang bosses of the US prohibition era like Al Capone . Wild's alleged fight against London thieves was a popular topic in the newspapers of the time. Wild provided them with targeted reports on his “heroic” deeds, and the newspapers were happy to print them. In July-August 1724, for example, the London newspapers reported Wild's efforts to arrest the twenty-one members of the Carrick Gang (the reward Wild received for this was eight hundred pounds - which in 2000 would have been about $ 40,000). When one of the gang members was released from prison, Wild pursued him and had him arrested for "further information" . To the London public this appeared to be a relentless effort to restore public order. In reality it was a gang war disguised as a public service.

The Jack Sheppard case

In 1724, public confidence in government authorities in London was severely shaken. Four years earlier, in 1720, the South Sea Bubble had burst, a speculation about the expansion of long-distance trade marked by much corruption and abuse . The process of coming to terms with this scandal continued four years later, with the result that the London public reacted increasingly indignantly to all signs of corruption: public figures were viewed with increasing skepticism.

In February 1724, Wild arrested one of the most famous burglars of his day, Jack Sheppard . Sheppard had worked with Wild in the past, but had repeatedly operated independently from him. As with so many other arrests Wild made, it was in Wild's personal best interest that Sheppard was finally arrested.

Sheppard was locked in the prison tower in the London borough of St. Giles , but escaped immediately. In May, Wild arrested Sheppard again. This time he was imprisoned in Clerkenwell's New Prison ; however, in less than a week he escaped from prison again. In July, Wild succeeded in fixing it a third time. Sheppard was tried, convicted, and incarcerated in the infamous Newgate Prison . On the night of August 30th - the date of his execution had just been set - Sheppard escaped from prison again. By now he was largely non-violent and handsome in his crimes, a hero of the London lower class. When Wild's people caught him a fourth time on September 11th, he was locked in the safest cell in Newgate and additionally chained to the floor. However, on September 16, Sheppard escaped again. Neither the chains nor the padlocks nor six iron-bound doors had prevented his escape. Daniel Defoe , who was working as a journalist at the time, dedicated an article to this incredible act. In late October, Wild caught Sheppard a fifth and final time. This time Sheppard was housed in such a way that he was under constant surveillance. He was also chained to 300 pound iron weights as a precaution. Sheppard was so famous at the time that the prison guards took the onlookers in and members of London's high society turned up to see Sheppard personally. Sheppard failed to escape prison a fifth time: on November 16, 1724, he was hanged .

Wild's downfall

Jonathan Wild execution ticket

As Sheppard gradually became a public hero, Wild received increasing negative press. When Wild organized a violent prison break for one of his gang members in February 1725 , he was finally arrested. Wild was also locked up in Newgate Prison. He was charged not only with the violent prison break, but also with the theft of jewels during the appointment of the Knights of the Garter in August 1724.

Wild's public image has now undergone a complete change. It was also becoming increasingly clear to his gang members that there was little chance that Wild would escape. They therefore began to testify against Wild until his double life was fully known. At the same time, evidence was found that Wild had regularly bribed members of the city government. The latter was received particularly negatively by the public.

On May 24, 1725, Wild was led to the Tyburn gallows near the northeast end of London's Hyde Park . His execution was a social event; Tickets for the best seats at the execution site were sold well in advance. Daniel Defoe reports that the crowd gathered for this execution was the largest ever in London. Unlike usual, this time the crowd had no sympathy for those who were led to the gallows.

After his death, his body was dissected by anatomists at the Royal College of Surgeons of England ; his skeleton is still on display in the museum of this institution.

Jonathan Wild in literature

The fact that the life of Jonathan Wild is still of interest today has less to do with the fact that he was one of the first to pursue organized crime on a large scale, but rather with the fact that his life was later processed several times in literature.

When Wild was hanged, the newspapers, as with most executions, were filled with reports from his life, quotes from him, farewell speeches and the like. Criminal biographies were very popular at the time; Sex , violence , remorse or a tearful end already fascinated the reading public back then. Daniel Defoe therefore wrote a report on Wild for the "Appelbees Journal" in May 1725 and published " The True and Genuine Account of the Life and Actions of the Late Jonathan Wild " in June 1725 . His report advertised readers with a print of extracts from Wild's diary.

Of greater literary importance is that Wild provided the model for the character of Mr. Peachum in John Gay's opera The Beggar's Opera and thus indirectly also for (here he is called Jonathan) Peachum in Bertolt Brecht's Threepenny Opera .

John Gay's opera was published in 1728. Its main plot depicts the rivalry between Wild and Sheppard. The figure of Peachum, however, is also influenced by the Whig politician and British Prime Minister Robert Walpole , whose public appearance and actual action in the eyes of his political opponents were similar to Jonathan Wild. Henry Fielding also used the character Jonathan Wild in " The History of the Life of the Late Mr. Jonathan Wild the Great " for a biting satire on this British politician. Robert Walpole was by his party colleagues as " one great " ( " great man ") refers to and so was Fielding and his Jonathan Wild constantly striving a " great man to be." “ Greatness ” (meaning) in Fielding's satire was only achieved by climbing the stairs - even if it was those of the gallows. Wild was a " Great Prig " just as Robert Walpole was a " Great Whig " - the consonance was by design. In light of the South Sea Bubble corruption scandal, Fielding felt it was appropriate to associate the Whig Party with theft.

literature

20th century literature

• Gerald Howson; Thief-Taker General: Jonathan Wild and the Emergence of Crime and Corruption as a Way of Life in Eighteenth-Century England. New Brunswick, NJ and Oxford, UK, 1970 ISBN 0-88738-032-8
• Frederick Lyons; Jonathan Wild, Prince of Robbers , 1936
• Edwin Woodhall; Jonathan Wild, Old Time Ace Receiver , 1937
• Maureen Waller; Whores, executioners, Huguenots - Life in London around 1700 Verlag Lübbe, Bergisch Gladbach 2002, ISBN 3-404-64186-8
• Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; "The Valley of Fear", 1915

18th century literature

• Daniel Defoe; A True & Genuine Account of the Life and Actions of the late Jonathan Wild, Not made up of Fictions and Fable, but taken from his Own Mouth and collected from papers of his Own Writing , June 1725
• Henry Fielding; Life of Jonathan Wild the Great
• Captain Alexander Smith; The Memoirs of the Life & Times of the famous Jonathan Wild, together with the History & Lives of Modern Rogues , 1726
• Matthias Bauer : The picaresque novel. Realien zur Literatur, SM 282. Metzler, Stuttgart 1994 ISBN 3-476-10282-3 ISSN  0558-3667 pp. 171-174 (Wild at Defoe and Fielding)

Web links

• Project Gutenberg edition from Fieldings Life of Jonathan Wild the Great
• Cambridge Literary History report on the character of Jonathan Wild at Fielding

This article was added to the list of excellent articles on January 26, 2005 in this version .