The parable of the prodigal son is the most popular repentance narrative in early modern drama, yet the authenticity of these prodigals’ repentances is frequently disputed. The truly repentant prodigal and posturing sinner are functionally identical on the early modern stage, and the parable was so renowned that the prodigal’s repentance and forgiveness could not only be predicted, but expected and engineered. This essay compares prodigals’ repentances across Eastward Ho, The London Prodigal, 2 If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody, and the Henry IVs. It argues that these plays exhibit discomfort with the outward display of repentance, the irrelevance of sincerity, and the viability of the parable as a repentance narrative. While some of these repentances have been discussed in isolation, their comparison allows for the examination of ambiguous repentances not as isolated incidents but a discernible trend in early modern culture, born from anxieties regarding the indistinguishability of feigned and ‘true’ performances of inward spiritual change. The authenticity of repentance, it emerges, cannot be determined, but repentance also need not be sincere to be accepted by a plays’ community. The authenticity of repentance proves not only impossible to identify, but ultimately irrelevant to these plays’ social worlds.

中文翻译：

---

表现忏悔：浪子戏和亨利四世中的（in）真诚

浪子的寓言是近代早期戏剧中最流行的忏悔叙事，但这些浪子忏悔的真实性却经常引起争议。真正悔改的浪子和装腔作势的罪人在近代早期在功能上是相同的，这个比喻非常有名，浪子的悔改和宽恕不仅可以预测，而且可以预期和设计。这篇文章比较了 Eastward Ho、The London Prodigal、2 If You Know Not Me You Know No, 和 Henry IVs 中浪子的悔改。它认为，这些戏剧对悔改的外在表现、真诚的无关紧要以及比喻作为悔改叙事的可行性表现出不适。虽然其中一些悔改是孤立讨论的，他们的比较允许检查模棱两可的忏悔，而不是孤立的事件，而是早期现代文化中可辨别的趋势，源于对内在精神变化的假装和“真实”表现难以区分的焦虑。忏悔的真实性，它出现，无法确定，但忏悔也不需要真诚，才能被剧组接受。忏悔的真实性不仅无法确定，而且最终与这些戏剧的社会世界无关。但悔改也不需要真诚才能被戏剧社区接受。忏悔的真实性不仅无法确定，而且最终与这些戏剧的社会世界无关。但悔改也不需要真诚才能被戏剧社区接受。忏悔的真实性不仅无法确定，而且最终与这些戏剧的社会世界无关。