subversion of prodigal son comedy in The Merchant of Venice, The

IT is my purpose in this essay to explore Shakespeare's use of the parable of the prodigal son in The Merchant of Venice and to analyze it in relation to what Alan R. Young refers to as "the fashion of prodigal son drama" in early modern drama.1 I will argue that sixteenth-century prodigal son drama operates on an assumption about the parable, and literature in general, that has its basis in tropological exegesis. The assumption is that literature's primary function is to teach virtue by example, the same assumptions expressed by the period's foremost literary critic, Philip Sidney, in his An Apology for Poetry. Shakespeare's use of the parable suggests different assumptions about the function not only of the parable but also of his own work, assumptions that, subverting Sidney's and the sixteenth century's view, bear a kinship to those of Augustine and other allegorical exegetes.

I begin by examining thoroughly the similarities in plot and structure between the parable of the prodigal son and The Merchant of Venice in order to establish the parable as an important component in Shakespeare's conception of the play and to provide sufficient background for the analysis that follows. I will then review the medieval allegorical interpretations of the parable and demonstrate how The Merchant echoes them. ' will also consider the tropological approaches to the play, the problems that the play suggests are inherent in them, and the failure of the Christian characters in light of those approaches.2 For it is that failure-caused by the human inability to learn virtue by imitation-which most effectively subverts the critical assumptions of Sidney and the prodigal son dramatists. Finally, I will argue that Shakespeare combines the allegorical and tropological approaches in a way that points to the other characters' ethical responsibility towards Shylock, a combination echoing Bonaventure's reading of the parable. It is a responsibility the characters fail to meet because of their limited conception of the parable's ethical implications.

A number of critics-most recently Judith Rosenheim and Susan McLean-have noted the parallels between the parable and the play, and the way that the parable undergirds the play's plot and principal themes. While these critics and others3 have examined the importance of allegorical interpretation of the parable as it relates to the play, they have not considered Shakespeare's use of the parable in relation to both the tropological and the allegorical traditions of reading the parable-the two traditions which dominated sixteenth-century exegesis. Furthermore, they have not considered how Shakespeare's use of the parable undermines pervasively held sixteenth-century assumptions about the function of poetry.

The opening scene of The Merchant of Venice, in which Bassanio requests Antonio's help, echoes the reconciliation of prodigal and father. Prior to the beginning of the play's action, Bassanio has received a large sum of money from Antonio4 Bassanio has "disabled" his "estate," much as has the prodigal son, by living outside his means. Moreover, Bassanio, like the prodigal son, experiences regret for having squandered his fortune. The prodigal asks to be re-established in his father's house as a servant; likewise, Bassanio seeks to make some restitution to Antonio. While Bassanio's circumstances mirror those of the prodigal, Shakespeare tightens the association between them in act one, scene one. "But my chief care," Bassanio tells Antonio,

Is to come fairly off from the great debts

Wherein my time, something too prodigal,

hath left me gaged. To you, Antonio

I owe the most in money and in love ...

(1.1.127-31, italics mine)

The use of the term "prodigal" clinches the association with Luke 15. Although sixteenth-century uses of the term are not always explicit references to the parable, the term and parable do bear close association through the tradition of referring to the parable in Luke 15 as "The Parable of the Prodigal Son."5

While Bassanio's self-identification with the prodigal son in act one, scene one connects him with that character, it also serves as a cue to Antonio, and the viewer, that Antonio should adopt a pattern from the parable as well. The pattern for Antonio is that of the father of the prodigal, who instantly and without qualification forgives his wayward son and restores him to his former position in the household. And Antonio, it appears, is more tian willing to comply. When the prodigal's father sees his son coming in 1 distance, he runs out to greet him with an embrace and a kiss, before the son can even make his repentance speech. Similarly, when Bassanio first mentions his "plots and purposes" (1.1132), Antonio assures him that he still stands "within the eye of honor" (1.1.137), echoing the father's kiss and embrace, which indicate to the prodigal that he, too, stands "within the eye of honor." And like Antonio, the father gives this assurance, prior to even hearing his son's repentance.