The Theology of Jacob
and Esau
An
especially interesting mid-Tudor play is the Biblical
interlude, Jacob
and Esau. The
play was printed in
1558, right on the cusp between Mary and Elizabeth’s reigns and,
crucially, between the Catholic revival of Mary's reign and the full
fledged Protestantism of Elizabeth's.
In
light of the date of this play's publication, in this post I will
explore the arguments as to whether the play espouses a more Catholic
or Protestant theology.
The
play is based on the story of Isaac’s son Esau who is robbed of his
inheritance by his twin brother Jacob in Genesis 25 and 27. This
may seem like an unremarkable biblical plot but the fact that it was
printed in the year of Mary’s death and Elizabeth’s accession
gives it inescapable political resonances. This is, after all, a play
that is at its most basic level about succession. Jacob asks the
starving Esau, ‘can ye be content to sell your birth-right to me?’1
and their mother Rebecca conspires to ensure that ‘Jacob [may] have
the blessing’ (4.2.6) of Isaac and therefore become Lord after
Isaac’s death in place of his brother. Indeed, most of the last two
acts are taken up by Rebecca’s plan to trick the blind Isaac into
giving Jacob the blessing meant for Esau, thereby ensuring that Jacob
should succeed his father. The play, then, in much the same way as
the cycle plays of the previous century discusses issues of
significant and dangerous contemporary importance through the
smokescreen of biblical stories and imagery. Of course, Mary was not
tricked out of her throne in the way that Esau was but what is
important is not the detail of the story but the fact that it raises
questions as to the legitimacy of succession at a time when Elizabeth
had
either recently taken the throne or was about to.
However,
the
play is not just related to succession; it also advances an attitude
to the religious changes of the preceding period. The nature of the
attitude and whether it is primarily Catholic of Protestant is
debated by various critics. The argument, in
essence,
centres
around the prologue which states that ‘before Jacob and Esau yet
born were,/ Or had either done good, or ill perpetrate:/ As the
prophet Malachi and Paul witness bear,/ Jacob was born and Esau
reprobate:/ Jacob I love (saith God) and Esau I hate’ (Prologue,
ll. 8-12). Critics disagree as to whether this is, as Paul Whitfield
White states, ‘moderately Calvinist in its view of predestination’2
or in fact much earlier in its theology.
In
1969, Helen Thomas suggested that there was no need to look to Calvin
for the source of this predestination theology when ‘the Biblical
story on which the play is based forms part of the lively controversy
in the twenties between Erasmus […] and Luther on the question of
free will and eternal predestination with no regard to the merits of
man’.3
While more recent scholars such as White and Ephraim argue against
this view, opting
instead for the more conventional description of the play as
Protestant in its theology, Thomas
is convincing and it would be a mistake to dismiss her views
entirely.
Of
course, the description of Esau as 'reprobate' may seem to be rooted
in Calvinist theology but the OED cites reprobate being used to mean
'predestined by God to eternal damnation' as far back as c.1425 which
would support Thomas' theory that the play's theology is linked to
earlier Catholic theological debates. If Thomas is indeed correct and
the play espouses an Erasmian theology, it can be placed securely in
Mary’s reign and can therefore be seen not only as a comment on the
succession but as a deliberate return to the Biblical model of the
earlier cycle plays made possible by the presence of a Catholic
monarch on the throne.
I
would like to end on the caveat that, despite the fact that I find
Thomas' argument more convincing, the answer to the question of the
play's theology will always be up for debate until new evidence
should arise. Unfortunately, due to the lack of interest in Marian
drama, new evidence seems unlikely to appear any time soon.
NOTE:
All of the essays referenced in this piece come highly recommended
and were available on Jstor at the time of writing. Farmer's edition
of Jacob and Esau, however, leaves a lot to be desired. It lacks line
numbers and any substantial notes. A new edition is definitely
required if anyone wanted to take up the challenge!
1
Anonymous, Jacob and Esau, in Early English Dramatists: Six
Anonymous plays ed. by John S. Farmer (London: Early English Drama
Society, 1966), pp. 1-90, 2.2.105. Further references follow
quotations in the text.
2
Paul Whitfield White, ‘Predestination Theology in the Mid-Tudor
Play Jacob and Esau in Renaissance and Reformation,
Vol. 12 (1988), pp. 291-302, page 300. For a more recent proponent
of this view see Michelle Karen Ephraim, ‘Jewish Matriarchs and
the staging of Elizabeth I in The History of Jacob and Esau’
in Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 43, no. 2,
(2003), pp. 301-21.
3
Helen Thomas, ‘Jacob and Esau – “Rigidly Calvinistic”?’
in Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 9, No. 2
(1969), pp. 299-213, page 210.