The critics who discuss the typological signification in the Middle English mystery plays of Abraham and Isaac most often consider Isaac the central character. They note that, according to patristic exegesis, Isaac's willingness to die at his father's command prefigures Christ's acceptance of death on the cross. Abraham thus prefigures God the Father, who sacrifices his only son. In a widely accepted argument, Rosemary Woolf has maintained that this figural connection between Abraham and God compelled the medieval dramatists to present Abraham as a static character. Typological interpretation of the story, she writes, had ...

A straitening effect on the character of Abraham, for to the question of how Abraham would feel in this situation there was no answer which would not have been typologically inappropriate. Since Abraham prefigured the 'Father, he could not even momentarily show himself irresolute (1957, 819).1

Granted, none of the six surviving Middle English dramatizations of the story show Abraham seriously contemplating disobedience to God's command.2 Nevertheless, in certain ways, the plays do concentrate more on the feelings and actions of Abraham than on those of Isaac. In each play, Abraham speaks many more lines than Isaac; in fact, in all but the

    This portrayal of Abraham, however, does not really conflict with the typological relationship between Abraham and God. For patristic typology invites at once a comparison and a contrast between the Old and New Testament events it links. As V. A. Kolve suggests, for the writers of medieval dramas, "the differences between figure and fulfillment are as important as the similarities" (67). Of course, one key difference between the story of Abraham and Isaac and the story of the redemption is that while Isaac is spared, Christ is not.5 But perhaps equally significant for the typology of the mystery plays is the difference in terms of charity between Abraham and God. Two passages, Woolf notes, appear frequently in medieval discussions of the generosity God displays by surrendering his son for mankind's sake: these are John 3:15--"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" and Romans 8:32 "He that hath not spared his own son, but hath delivered him up for us all" (817-818). For example, in Mirk's

    In fact, for this very reason, patristic discussions of the sacrifice of Isaac emphasize some contrasting elements in the typological relationship between Abraham and God the Father. For instance, in a list of similarities and differences between Abraham and God in his homily XLVII, In Genesam, John of Chrysostom cites the same passage from Romans, 8 on the charity of God the Father:

Omnia per umbram prefigurata sunt.... A patre ille in holocaustum offerebatur, et hunc Pater tradidit. Et hoc clamat Paulus,dicens, Qui proprio suo non pepercit sed pro nobil omnibus tradidit eum.... Hucusque umbra: postea

In other words, Abraham's generous action is really only a shadow that suggests God's; his offering of Isaac is a human and so partial version of God's more spectacular offer of Christ. In his Homily VIII, On Genesis, Origen also cites Romans 8:32 again, to demonstrate the charity of God the Father:

Nos vero haec conferamus cum Apostoli dictis, ubi dicit de deo: Qui proprio filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum. Vide Deum magifica cum hominibus liberalitate certanten. Abraham mortalem filium non moriturum obtulit Deo, Deus immortalem Filium pro omnibus tradidit morti (203). [Truly let us discuss these things with the words of the Apostle, where he says of God, "He who did not spare his own son, but for us all delivered him." Behold God com-

In his Sermon LXXIV, Cesarius sets forth his typology of the Abraham and Isaac story with almost the same words, insisting on the same difference between the generosity of Abraham and the generosity of God:

Isaac figura et non veritas erat; in ipso designatum est, quod postea in Christo completum est. Videte Deum rnagna cum homnibus pietate certantem: Abraham mortalem filium non moriturum obtulit Deo, et Deus immortalem Filium pro hominibus tradidit morti (347). [Isaac was a figure and not the truth; for in him was designated what was afterwards completed in Christ. Behold God competing with men in generosity: Abraham offered to God a mortal son, but not to death; and God handed over to death his immortal son for men.]

    This contrast helps explain what it meant to the Fathers of the Church and the medieval mystery dramatists and their audiences to consider Abraham a "type" of God the Father. Of the mystery plays of the Sacrifice of Isaac, only the Chester cycle explicitly treats of the typological link between

By Abraham I may understand

the Father of Heuen that cann fonde

with his sonnes bloode to break that bonde

that the dyvell had brought us to (11. 469-472).

Here, as in the passages from the Church Fathers, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac does not by any means elevate him to the perfection of God the Father. Rather, as a fully human action, it points typologically to the Father's still greater sacrifice. God's generosity perhaps takes the same form as Abraham's, as each offers his own son; but as all these passages suggest, surely God's gift exceeds Abraham's enormously in its significance and in the depth of love it reveals.

    Thus, precisely for rendering the plays theologically even typologically valid, the dramatists of the Middle English mystery plays needed to portray Abraham as a fully human character. By showing Abraham's tremendous virtue, the plays offer to the audience a model of human charity. But at the same time, by showing Abraham's weaknesses and doubts, the plays remind the audience that God's is an infinitely superior charity. Seeing Abraham as dynamic as moving from partial to fuller love and understanding helps the audience to consider simultaneously Abraham's goodness and his human frailty. The plays present

    According to Robert Edwards, the Abraham and Isaac plays contain a "sublimated violence" which "subverts the structure of human kinship"(167). However, in the Middle English mystery plays, at least, God's test actually strengthens the human relationships involved; through his experience Abraham's love for his son grows and deepens. Edgar Schell has suggested how this happens in the Towneley play. At first, he finds, Abraham takes a "philosophical" stance towards God's command; he makes no mention of his love for Isaac in the beginning of the play and, Schell notes, he even remarks that he would sacrifice his wife, too, if that were necessary (325-326). As he begins to prepare the sacrifice, the Towneley Abraham seems cold and stern; he doesn't even deem it necessary to explain his motives to Isaac.9 Despite the

Bot myght I yet of wepying sese

til I had done this sacrifise;

It must nedes be, withoutten lese,

thof I carpe on in this kyn wise,

The more my sorwe it will incres. (11. 249-254)

The emphasis here on Abraham's growing emotional consternation is in fact typologically appropriate; it may recall the Father's even deeper love of his son and thus suggest, like John 3:15, how much he must have loved the world to have delivered his son over to sacrifice for it. Abraham's grief thus perhaps helps the audience understand the charity of God the Father. After the angel intervenes to save Isaac, Abraham thanks God sincerely but, significantly, only briefly. His immediate concern lies in showing Isaac that he still loves him: "To speke with thee I haue no

    Likewise, the N-Town, Brome, and York plays show Abraham's love for Isaac growing through God's test. At the beginning of the N-Town play, Abraham thanks God for giving him a son who, he says, "xal do me grett solace" (1. 20). At the end of the play, however, when Isaac has been spared, Abraham joyfully exclaims, "My childys lyffe is my solace!" (1. 198). This suggests a slight but potentially significant change in Abraham's attitude; he expresses here a love for Isaac himself and not just for the care Isaac will provide for him in his old age. In much the same way, the Brome Abraham seems to evaluate Isaac somewhat selfishly at first; only as he prepares to sacrifice his son does he begin to appreciate him more fully. In the beginning of the play, Abraham thanks God for allowing him a young child in his old age: "He scherys me soo," he says, "in euery place wer that I goo,/ That no dessece her may I fei" (11. 18-20). Though sincere, this expresses a less than perfect love; for Abraham, Isaac seems to serve chiefly as an emotional tonic. During the testing, however, Abraham recognizes Isaac's innocence and not only his own paternal sorrow as a motive for sparing him. "Thys 3owng innosent lygth so still," he comments, "I may not fyndygth it in my hart hym to kill" (11. 303-304). Then he offers himself in Isaac's stead: "Iwysse I had

Loo, Ysaac, my son, how thynke 3e

Be this warke? ...

Why, derewordy son. wer thou adred?

Hardely, child, tell me thy lore. (11. 403-404, 411-412).

    This interest in Isaac's point of view is not found in Abraham's earlier speeches. Thus, overjoyed at having Isaac still alive, Abraham responds to him with fuller and deeper love than before. By comparison, the play implies, the love of God for his son must be much greater, and his willingness to offer that son in sacrifice for mankind's sake must be even more spectacular.

    The York dramatist presents Isaac as a young man in his thirties perhaps to emphasize his typological similarity to Christ.11 But it also serves to render more immediate Abraham's interest in the care that Isaac will provide for him and so it sets off more clearly the change that Abraham undergoes as he is tested by God. When the play opens, Abraham explains that since Isaac is now a grown man, "He is wighte hym-selfe to welde, / And fra me is all wightnes wente, / Therefor sal he by my beelde" (11. 56-59). He continues to describe Isaac this way even as

Nowe son, sen we þus wele hase spede,

That god has graunted me thy liffe,

It is my wille that þou be wedde,

And welde a woman to thy wiffe. (ll. 357-360).

Appropriately, Abraham uses the same word "welde" to describe both Isaac's ability to handle himself at 1. 56 and his need to take a wife at 1. 360 suggesting that these roles, as Abraham sees them, are somehow connected. In part, as Richard Collier observes, this passage reminds the audience that through Isaac, the line of Abraham will give the world its Savior. Thus the passage helps locate the play in the cycle's larger narrative of the story of redemption. But Abraham's motivation for planning Isaac's marriage does arise from the human interaction in the play. In a sense, having nearly lost his son in one way in a ritual of sacrifice Abraham can better confront really giving him up in another into adult life and marriage. Of course, for Isaac, marrying and caring for an aging father need not be mutually exclusive prospects. Nevertheless, by emphasizing Isaac's need to have his own family, Abraham shows that he no longer defines Isaac in terms of the filial care that he will provide.

    Hence, the closer typological between Christ and a grown Isaac has not prohibited the York dramatist from portraying a human or dynamic Abraham; indeed, to a certain extent Isaac's age intensifies Abraham's self-interest and so renders more significant the change that develops in his attitude through God's test.

    Consequently, in these plays, the growth in Abraham's love for Isaac helps describe the perfect, more constant love and generosity of his typological counterpart, God the Father. In some of the plays, the testing also helps Abraham to a more mature perception of his relationship with God. Discussing the Towneley play, Schell has pointed out that through the test, Abraham learns "how obedience seems easier in prospect than it proves in practice" (325-326). According to the Fathers of the Church, in fact, this was part of the reason for the test. For instance, in De Trinitate, III, Augustine argues that "Per Deum ipse Abraham cognosceret quantas haberet vires cordis ad obendium deo" (884) [Through God Abraham himself came to know how much he possessed of strength of heart for the obeying of God]. For the Northampton dramatist as well, God's test seems designed to educate Abraham in the meaning of his commitment to faith and obedience.13 In a long prayer at the beginning of that play, Abraham thanks God sincerely but perhaps naively for making the world such a pleasant place:

O gret God on hye þat al þe worlde madest,

And lendist vs oure living here to

To þe hououre, to þe be joie and all dewe obesisance ...

To reioyse þat þou gaue me in erþe to my dalliaunce

And to plese þe, souereign Lord, I shall charge [Isaac]. (11, 35-42)

    In this speech, words like "joie," "pleasaunce," "reioyse," and "dalliaunce" imbue this prayer of gratitude with a carefree, pleasant tone. As the play progresses, Abraham moves from this loving but simplistic prayer to more mature talk with God that reveals, along with love, an awareness of God's complexity. When the angel announces God's command for the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham prays for the strength to obey, and then lapses at once into very human perplexity: "Now, goode Lorde, graunt me hert þertylle / þat I may do þat is þY wille.... / A, good Lord, what is now best to do?" (ll. 68-69, 72). This speech shows Abraham acknowledging before the omniscient God his own self-doubts. As he prepares for the sacrifice, Abraham continues to grapple with his reservations: "þe hye Lord bad me to do þis dede, / But my heft grucheþ" (ll. 240-241). Significantly, even after Isaac has been spared, Abraham admits that he finds the divine will incomprehensible: "þou knowest myn hert now, and so þou didst afore; / Haddest not sent þyn aungel, Isaac had died þys day./ But goode Lord, saue þi pleasaunce, þis pref was ri3t sore" (11. 278-280). Kolve finds in this prayer an "element of rebuke" (258). Surely the words do express Abraham' s amazement that a loving God could ordain so

    In conclusion, the contrast in the figural relationship between Abraham and God demonstrates that even an awareness of patristic typology would not prevent the medieval dramatists from making Abraham a human, dynamic character. The Abraham of the mystery plays is a good man, a role model for the audience; in nearly all of the plays he grows even more virtuous through the testing. But sometimes he is also a little selfish, or perplexed, or upset by God's command. Thus he is, for the audience, an approachable character. Furthermore, by representing Abraham's love for Isaac as dynamic, the

Augustine. De Civitate Dei. In Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 48. Turnhout, Belgium: Editores Pontifici, 1955.

---. De Trinitate. In Patrologia Latina, vol. 43. Ed. J. P. Migne. Paris: Petit-Mountrouge, 1846.

Brock, K. S., editor. Ludus Coventriae, Or the Plaie Called Corpus Christi. London: Oxford University Press, EETS, e.s., 120, 1922.

Ceasarius of Arles. Sermo LXXXIV: De Abraham et Isaac Filio Eius. In Corpus Christianorum, Series Latinae, vol 103. Ed. D. Germani Morris. Turnhout, Belguim: Editores Pontifici, 1953.

Collier, Richard. Poetry and Drama in the York Corpus Christi Play. Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books, 1978.

Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechesis VI: On the Unity of God. In The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, vol. 1. Trans. Leo P. MaCauley and Anthony A. Stephenson. In The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1969.

Davis, Norman, editor. Non-Cycle Plays and Fragments. London: Oxford University Press, EETS, s. s., 1970.

Edwards, Robert. "Techniques of Transcendence in Medieval Drama." Comparative Drama 8 (1974), 157-171.

Elliot, John R., Jr. "The Sacrifice of Isaac as Comedy and Tragedy." Studies in Philology 66 (1969), 36-59.

England, George, editor. The Towneley Plays. London: Oxford University Press, EETS, e. s. 71, 1897.

Gardner, John. "Idea and Emotion in the Towneley Abraham." Papers on Language and Literature 7 (1971), 227-241.

John of Chrysostom. Homily XLVII: In Genesam. In Patrologia Graeca, vol. 44. Paris: Petit-Montrouge, 1850.

Kolve, V. A. The Play Called Corpus Christi. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1966.

Longsworth, Robert M. "Art and Exegesis in Medieval English Dramatizations of the Sacrifice of Isaac." Educational Theater Journal 24 (1972), 118-124.

Lumiansky, R. M., and David Mills, editors. The Chester Myster Cycle. London: Oxford University Press, EETS, s. s. 3, 1974.

MacCaffrey, Philip. "The Didactic Structure of the Chester 'Sacrifice of Isaac.'" Comitatus 2 (1971), 16-27.

Meyers, Walter E. "Typology and the Audience of the English Cycle Plays." Studies in the Literary Imagination 8 (1975), 145-158.

Mirk, John. Festial: A Collection of Homilies. Ed. Theodore Erbe. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd., EETS, e. s. 96, 1905.

Munson, William F. "Typology and the Towneley Isaac." Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 11 (1968), 129-139.

Origen. Sermo VIII: In Genesam. In Patrologia Graeca, vol. 122 Ed. J. P. Migne. Paris: Petit-Montrouge, 1848.

Reed, A. K. "'A Thing Like A Love Affair': A Study of the Passion of Obedience in the York Play of Abraham and Isaac." Christianity and Literature 29 (1980), 35-45.

Roston, Murray. Biblical Drama in England. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1968.

Schell, Edgar. "The Distinctions of the Towneley Abraham." Modern Language Quarterly 41 (1980), 315-327.

Smith, Lucy Toumlin, editor. The York Mystery Plays. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885.

Vintner, Donna Smith. "Didactic Characterizations: The Towneley Abraham." Comparative Drama 14 (1980), 117-136.

Williams, Arnold. The Drama of Medieval England. Michigan State University Press, 1961.

Woolf, Rosemary. "The Effect of Typology on the English Medieval Plays of Abraham and Isaac." Speculum 32 (1957), 805-825.

Purdue University