Abstract

This article reconsiders John Bender’s reading of Fielding’s fiction and proposals for judicial reform in Imagining the Penitentiary by replacing Fielding’s writings in their religious context. Bender links Fielding’s use of omniscient narrators to his insistence on penal procedure and to his organising information in narrative sequences. Even though Bender’s analyses prove fruitful to account for certain formal innovations brought forth by Fielding, they tend to overlook Fielding’s hatred for Methodism and its consequences on his novels, parodies and satires. Contrarily to Samuel Richardson, who relied on prefaces and authorial interventions to make sure that the moral meaning of his novels was unequivocal, Fielding used prefaces and intrusive narrators to highlight the fictionality of his works and to be both more transparent and more opaque about his own writing practices. Fielding’s avowals of fictionality are meant to destroy the illusion of narrative authenticity, which can easily turn into hypocrisy, which Fielding often links to Methodism and Pamela. However, they also contribute to giving a greater liberty and responsibility to the reader. If Fielding’s novels participate in the ‘rise of the penitentiary’, it is not because they institute the narrator as a judge, but rather because they organise the disappearance of the author through the perfection of the narrative architecture.