University of Virginia Library

IV. On Hunters and Politicians (October 1730)

On 10 October, just three weeks after The Craftsman had handsomely "puffed" Fielding's Modern Husband, there appeared in the same paper an "Essay upon Hunting" contributed, it would seem, by a Norfolk neighbor of Sir Robert Walpole who signed himself "Harry Hunter." This witty author, well skilled himself in the whole art of "Venation" and well read in the ancient and modern authors who have written of it, is chiefly concerned to explore the relationship he has discerned between hunters and politicians, and to share with us in particular "the Analogy between Politicks and Foxhunting." Internal evidence once again strongly suggests that the real author of this clever satire is not "Harry Hunter" of Norfolk, but "Harry" Fielding, who did his hunting in Dorset and Hampshire.

That Fielding was himself a sportsman is entirely likely, if we may judge not only from the space he gives in his comedies and novels to hunters and hunting, but also from his expert understanding of the sport and his knowledge of huntsmen's argot. In his plays—besides a number of characters whose conversation reveals that they are well acquainted with hunting, such as Malvil in Love in Several Masques (VIII. 18), Sir Harry Wilding in The Temple Beau (VIII. 154), Parson Puzzletext in The Grub-Street Opera (IX. 219), Lovemore in The Lottery (VIII. 274-275), and Mr. Woodall, the foxhunting M.P. in The Modern Husband—Fielding introduces several others who could be said to exist solely for the purpose of coursing through the countryside in avid pursuit of hares and foxes: there is Squire Foxchase in An Old Man Taught Wisdom, his near relation (no doubt) Sir Harry Fox-Chase in Pasquin, Sir Gregory Kennel in The Fathers, and most particularly Squire Badger and his huntsman Scut in Don Quixote in England. Such figures also inhabit the novels, of course: in Joseph Andrews, the hero himself serves a turn as "whipper-in" to Sir Thomas Booby's huntsman (I. 28-29), two young country gentlemen dispute the merits of their pointers (87-89), and an entire chapter relates "the hunting adventure" (Bk. III, ch. vi); in Tom Jones, as no one needs reminding, Western remains unmatched as a comic celebration of the English hunting squire.

As with the two earlier essays on the therapeutic effects of laughter and the virtues of physiognomy, it might be said, then, that among popular authors of the period Fielding made this subject distinctively his own. The case for his authorship of the present essay is greatly strengthened, furthermore, when we consider the number of particular correspondences relating ideas and phrases, images and patterns of thought, in the present essay to passages in Fielding's acknowledged works. To be sure, there is nothing especially

remarkable in the fact that both "Harry Hunter" and Fielding have read the same standard authors: Ovid in the Metamorphoses and Dryden's translation of him; Pope in Windsor Forest and Addison in The Freeholder. Others besides Fielding might also have noticed the same ludicrous or reprehensible practices of English hunters—their stocking the country with foxes, their pursuing the game over cornfields to the ruin of farmers, their beating down gates and recklessly leaping over hedges and ditches, their inhumane way of ignoring their unhorsed comrades. Others, no doubt (though surely not many!), enjoyed the "noble" sound of a pack of hounds in full cry, and admired the skill of the huntsman who commanded his dogs by mere modulations of his voice. The jargon of hunting would also be known to any keen sportsman. These things are commonplace and unremarkable, and taken individually would signify little. That "Harry Hunter" and Fielding should have them all in common, however—that they should so closely resemble each other in what they read and know and think about hunting—is impressive.

Several other, more distinctive parallels strengthen that resemblance into almost certain identity. To begin with, it is hard to imagine any other author of the time who both loved hunting as Fielding loved it, and was also capable of elaborating at such length and so wittily a satiric comparison between hunters and politicians. Once in The Champion (29 July 1740) he in fact repeats the joke in the present essay comparing Walpole's creatures to hounds that are "perfectly stanch, and intirely at his Command"; and in a leader in that periodical (15 December 1739) he varies the general scheme of the essay only slightly, this time finding an analogy with politics in "the art of fishing." Throughout these early years, moreover, one of Fielding's favorite themes—heard most notably in "Of True Greatness" and Jonathan Wild—is the cruelty and inhumanity of those "great men" who, as "Harry Hunter" expresses it, "support their Grandeur by the Misery and Destruction of their Fellow-Creatures." In the present passage this theme is illustrated particularly by Nimrod, hunter of men, to whom Fielding later alludes in characterizing the malevolent squire of "the hunting adventure" in Joseph Andrews (I. 269). Indeed, that chapter from his first novel connects with the present essay in other ways as well. "Harry Hunter," for example, greatly admires the passage in the story of Actæon in which Ovid gives us "the Names of the whole Pack, which was very large, and make almost as noble a Sound in Verse as They once did in the Woods"; in Joseph Andrews (I. 271-272) Fielding actually parodies this very passage from the Metamorphoses. In the same chapter, again like "Harry Hunter," he enlarges the species "Dogs" to include "both human and canine": the followers of the hunting squire in Joseph Andrews are said to be "dogs of his own species . . . . two or three couple of human or rather two-legged curs on horseback . . ." (I. 269-270).

Finally, the essay bears certain marks of Fielding's style. Here, for example, as in the earlier essay on laughing, we find his favorite expression for villainy, "doing Mischief"; and as in the essay on physiognomy we find

variations on his favorite compound denoting the community or brotherhood of men, "Fellow-Creatures" and "Fellow-Subjects." The word "Catastrophe" in its technical sense is also here, which surely cannot have been used as often as Fielding uses it by any other author of the period. Several of Fielding's favorite phrases are evident: the notion that reckless people risk "breaking their necks," that extraordinary qualities "shine forth," that the writer has so many examples to adduce "it would be endless to enumerate all" of them, that the victims of violence are "knocked on the head"—in the present context, indeed, the phrase "to knock an Hare on the Head in her Form" recurs almost verbatim in Tom Jones.

In short, the number and distinctiveness of these correspondences, both in content and verbal texture, make it highly probable that Fielding was the author of this witty satire.

To CALEB D'ANVERS, Esq;

SIR,

You have already publish'd two or three Letters in Favour of Dogs, both human and canine;[1] from whence some witty Gentlemen have taken Occasion to call you the Political Cynick.[2] I flatter myself therefore that an Essay upon Hunting will find a Place in your Paper.

This Sport, which is of various Kinds, hath been in high Vogue amongst Princes and great Men from the earliest Accounts of Time. We read in Scripture of two great Hunters, Nimrod and Esau; the former of whom is said to have been a mighty Hunter before the Lord, and the Commentators inform us that Mankind was his Prey;[3] which is the most glorious Species of this Diversion, and hath therefore found a Multitude of Followers. All Tyrannical Princes, Invaders and Conquerors, who support their Grandeur by the Misery and Destruction of their Fellow-Creatures,[4] fall under this Denomination of Man-Hunters; and the voracious Ministers of their Ambition may be properly call'd Blood-hounds. Several of our English Kings have been Huntsmen of this Kind; particularly William the Conqueror, whom Mr. Pope compares with Nimrod, in the following Verses of Windsor Forest.[5]

Esau is said to be a cunning Hunter; and yet He was not able to support Himself by what He caught; for coming Home, one Day, weary and hungry from his Sport, He was oblig'd to sell his Birthright to his younger Brother for a Mess of Porridge.

The antient Histories of Greece and Rome furnish us with several Instances of illustrious Huntsmen; especially Meleager and Actœon; whose Atchievements and unhappy Fate are beautifully described by Ovid in his Metamorphoses.[6]

Meleager seems to have been a Sportsman of the Patriot-Kind, by delivering his Country from a monstrous, wild Boar, who committed terrible Ravages upon the People. Mr. Dryden calls this Beast, in his Translation,[7] a Minister of Vengeance, sent by Diana, to punish the Sins of the Nation.

Actœon [8] was likewise a very celebrated Huntsman; but We don't find that He ever consulted the Good of the Publick in his Diversions. He seems to be one, who hunted purely for the Sake of the Sport, and took Delight in the Company of his Dogs.[9] Ovid hath given us the Names of the whole Pack,[10] which was very large, and make almost as noble a Sound in Verse [11] as They once did in the Woods.[12] But what deserves our particular Notice is the Catastrophe[13] of this unfortunate Sportsman; who being at length turn'd into a Stag, the Creature which he us'd to hunt, was pursued, run down and devoured by his own Hounds.

The Moral of this Fable, according to some Commentators, is to expose Those, who spend their Estates or squander away great Sums of Money upon Dogs and Horses; but I think it may be more properly apply'd to a wicked and cruel Statesman, who having pack'd together a Number of Men, in order to oppress and ruin his Fellow-Subjects, is often destroy'd by Them Himself, when They grow hungry for Want of other Prey. It is in vain for Him, at such a Time, to cry out, like Actœon, I am your Master. The Dogs, inur'd to Blood and Destruction, will pretend not to know Him from their usual Game,[14] and devour Him with as much Fury and as little Remorse, as He had taught them to devour others.

It would be endless to enumerate[15] all the great Huntsmen of Antiquity. Nay, it would be useless to our present Purpose; since the Royal Diversion, of which I am speaking, continues in as high a Degree of Esteem with our modern Princes and great Men, as it did with Those of former Times. Most of the Courts of Europe have been engaged in it, during the whole Summer; and We have met with little else, in our Newspapers, but Hunting Matches [16] and Preparations for War; as if the contending Parties were resolv'd to begin Hostilities, on both Sides, by the Destruction of wild Beasts,[17] in order to prepare their Hands for more glorious Slaughter.

It is remarkable that Kings and other Hunters of Royal Dignity generally chuse Bulls, Bears, Boars or Stags for the Objects of their Sport; and I could almost undertake to distinguish the Characters of the most considerable Princes of Europe by the Quarry They pursue; but This would be too invidious a Task for a private Man; and might, perhaps, induce some of the foreign Ministers to make a Complaint against me, as an allegorical Defamer of the Kings, their Masters.

The Subject of Bull-and-Bear-hunting [18] is, particularly, of too tender a Nature to admit of any Examination.

The crafty, designing Politician seems to take most Delight in the Chace of a Fox;[19] not with an Intent to kill the Creature, (for He is good for nothing when He is dead; and, besides, it would be unnatural for one, mischievous Animal to destroy another) but only because a Fox-chace bears the nearest Resemblance to a Wild-Goose-Chace,[20] (of which some Statesmen are extremely fond) and gives Him the best Opportunity of displaying his Courage and Conduct; for We shall find, upon Examination, that there is often a very great Analogy between Politicks and Foxhunting, as will appear by a short View of the Qualifications, requisite to the latter—A Foxhunter ought always to be well mounted, and to have, what the Sportsmen call, a good Seat in his Saddle. His Dogs must be perfectly stanch,[21] and intirely at his Command, so as to know every Sound of his Voice,[22] and obey the least Crack of his Whip. A true-bred-Foxhunter will not scruple to ride over Corn

Fields,[23] beat down Gates,[24] or commit any other Spoil, in the Pursuit of his Sport; and if the wily Vermin [25] gives him good Diversion, He scorns to make the poor Farmer any Amends for all the Mischief He hath done Him, by inflicting Justice upon Reynard;[26] if He cannot save Him from the Rage of the Dogs, He will be sure to stock the Country with two or three in his Stead.[27] Lastly, a keen Sportsman, of this Kind, is often oblig'd to gallop blindfold over Hedges and Ditches,[28] without any Regard to his Neck,[29] and is seldom pitied,[30] if He happens to break it—I hope there is no Need of any Application.

I wonder that so cautious a Writer as Mr. Addison should venture to treat this illustrious Order of Men with so much Contempt as He hath done in his Freeholders;[31] or that a Gentleman of his Candour would suffer the Violence of Party Prejudices to carry Him away so far as to represent the Character of a Fox-hunter incompatible with That of a Politician; and yet this seems to be his favourite Topick of Ridicule through the whole Course of those Papers; in one of which He tells us, "that for the Honour of his Majesty, and the Safety of his Government, we cannot but observe, that those who have appeared the greatest Enemies to both, are of that Rank of Men, who are commonly distinguish'd by the Title of Foxhunters. As several of these, says he, have had no Part of their Education in Cities, Camps, or Courts, it is doubtful whether they are of greater Ornament or Use to the Nation in which they live. It would be an ever-lasting Reproach to Politicks, should such Men be able to overturn an Establishment, which has been form'd by the wisest Laws, and is supported by the ablest Heads. The wrong Notions and Prejudices, which cleave to many of these Country Gentlemen, who have always lived out of the Way of being better inform'd, are not easy to be conceived by a Person, who has never conversed with them."

I am always concerned, when I find my self obliged to differ in Opinion from so great a Writer;[32] but Truth ought to prevail over all other Considerations; and I thought it incumbent upon me,[33] when I was upon this Subject, to take some Notice of a Proposition, which Experience hath prov'd to be very ill-grounded. I am sensible that Mr. Addison was drawn into this Error by the Circumstances of the Times, in which he wrote, and which might partly justify his Assertion; but you know, Mr. D'Anvers, that We should never draw general Conclusions from particular Cases; and I am very confident that if He were now alive, He would make no Scruple to retract so injurious a Reflection on the whole Body of British Sportsmen,[34] whom He hath stigmatiz'd with the Character of being Enemies to the present Government, and freely acknowledge that a Foxhunting-Politician is not so ridiculous a Composition as He formerly represented it.

I need not produce any particular Instances of This. The Reader will immediately fix his Eye upon one Man [35] in whom these Qualities are happily united and shine forth[36] together with distinguished Lustre.[37]

You cannot forget, Sir, that a little Piece was publish'd, about two Years ago, intitled the Norfolk Congress; in which the Doctrine of Political Cynegeticks was fully discuss'd, and their Advantages to the Nation demonstrated to the meanest Capacity.

It is remarkable that the two great Points, which came under the Deliberation of that august Assembly, were the Suppression of a Dramatical Libel upon Corruption,[38] and the Destruction of an old vixon [sic] Fox, who had

done the Country a great deal of Mischief; the first of which they dispatch'd without the least Difficulty or Opposition; but it must be confess'd that they were not altogether so successful in their Negociations upon the latter. The Fox, it seems, had more Cunning or better Luck than the Poet, and defeated all their Attempts against Her. She play'd a thousand Tricks to do this; but her last Stratagem was the subtlest of all. Having led them many a weary Chace,[39] and fearing nothing but being betray'd (of which she thought herself in some Danger) she resolv'd to betray first; and immediately joining the Pack, which pursued her, diverted their Scent to another Fox, who happen'd to cross them at that Time and will probably give them more Trouble than Herself.

I could give several other Instances of the Analogy between Politicks and Foxhunting. I could even prove, to Demonstration, that it is absolutely impossible for any Person to make an able Statesman, who is not a good Sportsman; and that the Life of a Minister is, properly speaking, a Scene of Venation; fill'd up with Toils, Dangers, Violence and Fraud; but That would carry me too far beyond the Bounds, which I prescrib'd myself in this Essay upon Hunting.

You have already prov'd that a Messenger of State is only another Word for a Political Courser, who is kept on Purpose to catch Game for his Master; and I cannot help looking upon the present Race of Pensionary Writers, who plead for Violence and arbitrary Power, as a sort of scandalous Poachers, who hunt for the Spit, and never scruple to knock an Hare on the Head in her Form,[40] or shoot her upon the File; a Practice, which hath always been detested by fair and generous Sportsmen.

I am, SIR,
Your constant Reader,
Norfolk, Oct. 1. and humble Servant,
1730. Harry Hunter.