^{Page 159 note 1} My line numbers are those of Krapp's, G. P. text, The Junius Manuscript, The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records 1 (1931).Google Scholar

^{Page 159 note 2} Isidore, ‘Ecclesiam ex gentibus Christo conjunctam’, Allegoriæ Quædam Scripturæ Sacræ, Migne, Patrologia Latina 83, col. 109; see especially the references cited on pp. 375–6Google Scholar in Robinson, Fred C., ‘Notes on the Old English Exodus’, Anglia 80 (1962), 373–8Google Scholar. The present interpretation would question Robinson's view that ‘the poet leaned more toward the Josephan than toward the Christian-exegetical explanation of the uxor Aetbiopissa’ (p. 377).

^{Page 159 note 3} Huppé, Bernard F. (Doctrine and Poetry (New York, 1959), p. 223Google Scholar) takes afrisc meowle as an allusion to the Bride in the Song of Songs. He does not discuss lines 582–9a. Irving, Edward Burroughs Jr (The Old English Exodus, ed. Irving, E. B. (New Haven, 1953), p. 30Google Scholar) seems to take lines 580–9a literally, remarking that ‘the battle ends traditionally and satisfyingly with the looting of the fallen enemy’. Isaacs, Neil D. (‘Exodus and the Essential Digression’, Structural Principles in Old English Poetry (Knoxville, 1968), p. 156)Google Scholar concludes that they ‘deal more specifically with the literal exodus …’ Farrell, Robert T. (‘A Reading of Old English Exodus’, RES 20 (1969), 416Google Scholar) speaks only of ‘the despoiling of the Egyptian host’.

^{Page 160 note 1} ‘Exodus and the Essential Digression’, p. 156.Google Scholar

^{Page 160 note 2} In Marci Evangelium Expositio 1. iii (PL 92, col. 164). Cf. In Lucæ Evangelium Expositio iv. xi (on Luke xi. 22): ‘Spolia vero ejus, ipsi homines sunt ab eo decepti. Quæ victor Christus distribuit, quod est insigne triumphantis, quia captivam ducens captivitatem … [Ephesians iv. 8 and 11]’ (PL 92, cols. 477–8).

^{Page 160 note 3} Cf. Bede, In Marci Evangelium Expositio 1. iii: ‘parabolam … manifestissimam’ (PL 92, col. 164).

^{Page 160 note 4} Enarratio in Psalmum L.XVII. He continues ‘sicut speciosum est corpus distributione membrorum. Spolia porro dicuntur quæ victis hostibus detrahuntur. Hoc quid sit Evangelium nos admonet, ubi legimus: Nemo intrat in domum fortis, ut vasa ejus diripiat, nisi prius alligaverit fortem [cf. Matthew xii. 29 and Mark iii. 27]. Alligavit ergo diabolum Christus spiritualibus vinculis; superando mortem, et super cœlos ab inferis ascendendo: alligavit eum Sacramento incarnationis suæ, quod nihil in eo reperiens morte dignum, tamen est permissus occidere; ac sic alligato abstulit tanquam spolia vasa ejus. Operabatur quippe in filiis diffidentiæ [Ephesians ii. 2] quorum infidelitate utebatur ad voluntatem suam. Hæc vasa Dominus mundans remissione peccatorum, hæc spolia sanctificans hosti erepta prostrato atque alligato, divisit ea speciei domus suæ; alios constituens apostolos, alios prophetas, alios pastores et doctores in opus ministerii, in ædificationem corporis Christi [Ephesians iv. 11–12]’ (PL 36, cols. 821–2). See also these commentaries on ps. lxvii. 13 and 19: pseudo-Jerome, PL 26, cols. 1075–6; Cassiodorus, PL 70, cols. 466 and 469; and Glossa Ordinaria, PL 113, col. 942.

^{Page 161 note 1} Commentaria in Isaiam Propbetam xiii. xlix (PL 24, cols. 491–2; also cols. 531–2 on Isaiah liii. 12). Cf. Remigius of Auxerre, Commentaria in Isaiam 11, on Isaiah liii. 12 (PL 116, cols. 993–4; also col. 970 on Isaiah xlix. 24–5).

^{Page 161 note 2} PL 41, col. 672.

^{Page 161 note 3} The Gospel According to Saint Luke, ed. Skeat, Walter W. (Cambridge, 1874), p. 118Google Scholar; or The West-Saxon Gospels, ed. Grünberg, M. (Amsterdam, 1967), p. 185.Google Scholar

^{Page 161 note 4} Bibl. d. ags. Poesie, ed. Grein, C. W. M. 1 (Göttingen, 1857), 93Google Scholar; Cædmon's Exodus and Daniel, ed. Hunt, Theodore W., 4th ed. (Boston, 1889), p. 36Google Scholar; Grein's Bibl. d. ags. Poesie, rev. R. P. Wülcker 11 (Leipzig, 1894), 475Google Scholar; and Irving, Old English Exodus, p. 65. I think the best punctuation would be a colon after herereafes.

^{Page 161 note 5} Common variants on this interpretation were that the spolia were distributed as apostles and other ministers or that the apostles themselves divide the spoils; see the references to Augustine and pseudo-Jerome, above, p. 160, n. 4.

^{Page 161 note 6} See, e.g., pseudo-Bede, In Pentateucbum Commentarii – Genesis, on Genesis xlix. 27, Beniamin lupus rapax. …: ‘Quod de Paulo manifestissima sit prophetia, patet omnibus, quod in adolescentia persecutus Ecclesiam, in senectute prædicator Evangelii fuit’ (PL 91, col. 276). Commentaries on ps. lxvii. 28, Ibi Beniamin, make the same point.

^{Page 161 note 7} See, e.g., Augustine, Contra Faustum xii. xxviii: ‘Ipse [Christus] mihi in Ioseph innuitur, qui persequentibus et vendentibus fratribus, in Ægypto post labores honoratur [Genesis xxxvii–xlvii]. Didicimus enim labores Christi in orbe gentium, quem significabat Ægyptus, per varias passiones martyrum; et nunc videmus honorem Christi in eodem orbe terrarum, erogatione frumenti sui sibi omnia subjugantis’ (PL 42, col. 269).

^{Page 162 note 1} See the interpretations of ps. lxvii. 19, cepisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in bominibus, and Ephesians iv. 8, captivam duxit captivitatem: dedit dona bominibus. So, e.g., Manegold of Lautenbach alternatively explains ps. lxvii. 19: ‘cepisti captivitatem: id est. nos homines qui prius captivati … sub jugo peccati et mortis fuimus, et ita captivitas diaboli eramus: nos inquam cepisti hæreditatem tuam, quia principe illo devicto, felici et libera captivitate nos captivasti …’ (PL 93, col. 836).

^{Page 162 note 2} Bosworth, J. and Toller, T. N., An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Oxford, 1898), pp. 446–7 and 928Google Scholar, and Toller, T. N., Supplement (Oxford, 1921), p. 418Google Scholar. (Ge-)streonanl-strynan is also used elsewhere to describe the bringing of souls to Christ. See, e.g., Andreas 331 or The Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, Dorothy (Oxford, 1957), p. 182.Google Scholar

^{Page 162 note 3} So Jerome, Liber de Nominibus Hebraicis: ‘Joseph, augmentum’ (PL 23, col. 781); Isidore, Quæstiones in Vetus Testamentum – In Genesin xxx. 22: ‘Nisi enim Joseph fratres vendidissent, defecerat Ægyptus. Nisi Christum Judæi crucifixissent, perierat mundus. Joseph interpretatur augmentatio, sive ampliatio. Sed in illo Joseph ampliationem non habuit, nisi sola Ægyptus; in nostro vero Joseph augmentum habere meruit universus mundus. Ille erogavit triticum, noster erogavit Dei verbum’ (PL 83, col. 274). So too pseudo-Bede (PL 91, col. 269 and 93, col. 352) and Hrabanus (PL 107, col. 637; cf. PL iii, col. 47).

^{Page 162 note 4} E.g. pseudo-Bede: ‘Filius accrescens Joseph. Hæc prophetia post passionem Domini paternæ vocis imaginem tenuit, quo redeunti in cœlum post victoriam Pater alloquitur dicens: Filius accrescens Joseph; filius accrescens utique in gentibus, quia cum ob incredulitatem Synagoga populum reliquisset, innumeram sibi plebem Ecclesiæ ex omnibus gentibus ampliavit’ (PL 93, col. 362). See also pseudo-Bede (PL 91, col. 283) and Hrabanus (PL 107, col. 663 and iii, col. 47).

^{Page 162 note 5} Of the Egyptians, lines 149, 515 and 572; of the Israelites, lines 3, 236 and 577.

^{Page 163 note 1} Cross, J. E. and Tucker, S. I., ‘Allegorical Tradition and the Old English Exodus’, Neophilologus 44 (1960), 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{Page 163 note 2} Other interpretations might relate these figures a little more consistently. Perhaps the poet adapted a suggestion such as that of Augustine that the treasure taken from the Egyptians before departure (Exodus xi. 2 and xii. 35–6) meant those Gentiles who ‘adjungunt se populo Dei, ut simul de hoc sæculo tanquam de Ægypto liberentur’ (Contra Faustum xxii. xci (PL 42, cols. 461–2), where he also repeats the interpretation given in De Doctrina Christiana 11. xl (PL 34, col. 63). Isidore, PL 83, col. 295; Bede, PL 91, col. 308; pseudo-Bede, PL 93, col. 370; Hrabanus, PL 108, col. 56; and the Glossa Ordinaria, PL 113, cols. 220–1 also give both interpretations). Or perhaps the tribes crossing the Red Sea meant the twelve apostles(as well as the fideles more broadly), who now ‘divide the spoils’. Hereby the grammatical ambiguity of sælafe, line 585 (nom./acc. pl.), is curiously apposite. It seems fairly clear that the transitus as a type may have had more than one anti-type. Isaacs (‘Exodus and the Essential Digression’, p. 155) concludes that it is a type of Judgement. Traditionally it meant baptism, and Cross and Tucker (‘Allegorical Tradition’, pp. 125–6) explain some details of the narrative to support this interpretation. Probably geofon in ‘on geofones staðe golde geweortðod’ (581) alludes to the Red Sea as baptism, for it is through baptism that the church is adorned, i.e. acquires new members. Baptism in turn signifies the Redemption; Augustine's commentary on ps. lxvii. 13 (see above, p. 160, n. 4) only spells out the obvious when it interprets the vasa as taken from the devil remissione peccatorum.

^{Page 163 note 3} Irving, Old English Exodus, p. 68, n. to lines 33–53, comments that the passage ‘is in some ways a miracle of compression, but it raises great problems in interpretation’.

^{Page 163 note 4} E.g. Origen, In Exodum Homilia iv. 7: ‘Delentur interim primogenita Ægyptiorum, sive hos principatus et potestates, et mundi hujus rectores tenebrarum [cf. Ephesians vi. 12] dicamus, quos in adventu suo Christus dicitur traduxisse [cf. Colossians 11. 15] …’ (Migne, Patrologia Græca 12, col. 323). So too Isidore, PL 83, col. 294; Bede, PL 91, col. 303; and pseudo-Bede, PL 93, col. 369.

^{Page 164 note 1} Old English Exodus, p. 69, n. to line 36.

^{Page 164 note 2} ‘Hordwearda hryre’ (512) perhaps makes the same point. In baptism our previous sins, i.e. the Egyptians ‘a tergo insequentes’, are wiped out. The death of sin is ipso facto the loss of the devil's treasure.

^{Page 164 note 3} Beowulf 2393, Christ 912, The Dream of the Rood 144, Genesis 2315 (also 2820?), Psalms lxxvii. 34 and xc. 2 and perhaps The Panther 15; cf. The Wanderer, ‘oþþ mec freondleas[n]e frefran wolde’ (28).

^{Page 164 note 4} Holthausen, Ferdinand, ‘Zur Quellenkunde und Textkritik der altenglischen Exodus’, ASNSL 115 (1905), 162–3.Google Scholar

^{Page 164 note 5} Of the tenth plague: Origen, In Exodum Homilia iv. 9 (PG 12, col. 325); cf. Hrabanus, Commentaria in Exodum I. xxi(PL 108, col. 45). Of the canticle: Origen, In Exodum Homilia vi. 8 (PG 12, cols. 336–7); cf. Bede, In Pentateuchum Commentarii - Exodus xv (PL 91, col. 312) and Hrabanus, Commentaria in Exodum 11. iv (PL 108, col. 69).

^{Page 164 note 6} See above, p. 163, n. 2.

^{Page 165 note 1} Isaacs (‘Exodus and the Essential Digression’, p. 157) speaks of ‘the Hebrews’ covenant with God which is the explicit theme throughout this uniquely unified long Old English poem’. The ‘major’ theme would seem to be the figurative equivalent of the ‘explicit’ theme. See also Farrell, ‘A Reading’, p. 406.Google Scholar

^{Page 165 note 2} The problem of the ordering of lines 516–90 is discussed in Irving, Old English Exodus, pp. 11–12, Isaacs, ‘Exodus and the Essential Digression’, pp. 153–7, and Farrell, ‘A Reading’, pp. 413–17.

^{Page 165 note 3} Ephesians 1. 22–3: ‘… Ecclesiam, quae est corpus ipsius …’; cf. iv. 12 and v. 23 and 30, Romans xii. 5 and Colossians 1. 18.

It may be noted that the figure of mankind as the devil's treasure possibly occurs at one other place in the poem:

þa wearð yrfeweard ingefolca,

manna æfter maðmum, þæt he swa miceles geðah. (142–3)

I do not discuss this for two reasons: first because the manuscript here is damaged, two whole leaves having been lost between lines 141 and 142 (see discussion, Irving, Old English Exodus, pp. 6–7), and therefore any conclusions must be tentative; and second because, even apart from the condition of the manuscript, lines 135–53 present such numerous and complex problems that the whole passage is best considered in detail and by itself. (Irving (Old English Exodus, pp. 33–4) includes lines 141–53, ‘containing an allusive and complicated description of the origins of the Egyptians' hostility’, among those passages he considers ‘tortuous and ambiguous in construction, long-winded and involved’.) I am now engaged in a study of this passage.