1. Woolf repeats basically the same argument in her 1972 study, pp. 146 and following.
Other typological interpretations of the plays are frequently based on Woolf's. For instance,
Longsworth defines typology as Woolf does, citing many of the same patristic references (pp.
118-121). See also: Kolve, pp. 70-75, Meyers, pp. 145-146, Elliot, pp. 38 fl, and Edwards, p.
167.
2. The dramatists do not necessarily refrain from showing Abraham contemplating
disobedience just because they wish to preserve the typological connection between Abraham and
God the Father. More likely, the dramatists show Abraham as generally obedient because he is to
serve for the audience as a model of human not divine goodness.
3. By "lines," I do not mean speeches, but individual lines of poetry. As printed in the
standard editions of the cycle plays, I count the lines as follows: in the N-Town play, Abraham
speaks 158 lines to Isaac's 60; in the York play, Abraham speaks 226 lines to Isaac's 92; in the
Northampton, Abraham speaks 297 to Isaac's 58; and in the Towneley, Abraham speaks 199 to
Isaac's 37. In the Chester play, Abraham speaks 108 lines to Isaac's 102 not counting, however,
the first two-thirds of the play, in which Isaac does not even appear. So, really, only in the Brome
play does the number of lines spoken by Isaac approach the number spoken by Abraham (Isaac,
153; Abraham 212). While this is not by any means conclusive, it does suggest that Abraham, and
not Isaac, is the central character of the plays. See also Vintner, pp. 124-125.
page 147
4. For some interpretations of the plays that might be called non-typological or even
anti-typological see the studies by Vintner, Williams, MacCaffrey, and Reed. These studies
generally treat typology as presented by Woolf that is, they assume that any typological
interpretation would require an equation between Abraham and God (See, e.g., p. 681).
5. Collier, pp. 209-210, and Kolve, p. 72, note this key difference between Christ and
Isaac.
6. On this same passage from Mirk's Festial, Woolf comments, "The two stories
[the Sacrifice of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Christ] are so fused together that the "tie" of the
second sentence could equally well refer to God or Abraham" (1957, p. 819). One might compare
Mirk's passage with Augustine's remark in De Civitate Dei XV explaining why Abraham is
called a "type" in Hebrews 11:19. Abraham is, Augustine asks, "Cuius similitudinem? nisi illius
unde dicit apostolus, Qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum
[(537); a type of whom? unless o{ him about whom the apostle says, "He who did not spare his
own son, but delivered him over for us all"]. While this certainly compares Abraham and God the
Father, it by no means equates them; like other patristic writers, Augustine here applies
Romans 8:32 only to praise the charity of God.
7. Schell applies this notion to the Towneley play with the versions of the other cycles;
however, he basically accepts Woolf's application of a "typological" equation to the other plays
(pp. 315-317).
page 148
8. See Kolve's generally insightful chapter, "Goodness and Natural Man," pp. 237-264.
9. Woolf, 1957, p. 806, n. 4, holds that Abraham's silence on this matter weakens the
typological connection between Isaac and Christ because Isaac, ignorant that God has ordained
his death, is not in the Towneley play a willing victim for the sacrifice. In contrast, Schell states,
"Whether he appears harsh only to be kind or for some other reason, the reticence of Towneley's
Abraham makes his role more dense and more complex than that of any other" (324). Might not
Abraham's silence about the nature of his sacrifice stem from an inability to communicate
effectively with his son? John Gardner finds Abraham's sternness in this play a parallel to the
loving and stern God the Father (238-240); however, Abraham's joy when Isaac is spared his
eagerness to share his love with his son seems to imply that his severity with Isaac before and
during the test is at least questionable morally.
10. The last few lines of the Towneley play have been lost, owing to some pages missing
in the manuscript.
11. Collier, p. 209, and Roston, pp. 37-38, note this possibility; Williams (1961)
comments that "Towneley and York lose force because they apparently do not conceive of Isaac
as a child" (68). Reed argues that, on the contrary, York's portrayal of an older Isaac allows Isaac
"active co-operation in the sacrifice."
page 149
12. Reed does note the York dramatist's emphasis on Abraham's concern for Isaac as his
"beelde"; chiefly, he finds that this points ironically to the psychological support that Isaac
provides for his father during the sacrifice.
13. See Kolve, pp. 258-259: "The testing ... has no motivation whatever. The action is
imitated from within the human condition. The dramatist no more understands the necessity of the
action than do its human participants; like them, he only knows that man must obey." In fact,
for the Northampton dramatist, it would seem that demonstrating this that is, helping Abraham,
and, indeed, the audience, to appreciate the complexity of God is the reason for the action.
Wintner, pp. 133-134, notes this same passage from Augustine to explain the meaning of the
sacrifice for Abraham; but she finds that it helps characterize a "static" Abraham.
