Feb. 11. 1850.
_Ælfric's Colloquy_.--I have my doubts whether MR. SINGER'S ingenious
suggestions for explaining the mysterious word _sprote_ can be
sustained. The Latin sentence appears clearly to end with the word
_natant_, as is not only the case in the St. John's MS., mentioned in
MR. THORPE'S note, but in fact, also in the Cottonian MS. There is a
point after _natant_, and then follows the word _Saliu_ (not _salu_)
with a capital _S_. Any person who examines the handwriting of this MS.
will see that the word, whatever the transcriber may have understood by
it, was intended by him to stand alone. He must, however, have written
it without knowing what it meant; and then comes the difficulty of
explaining how it got into the MS. from which he copied. It has always
appeared to me probable that the name of some fish, having been first
interlined, was afterwards inserted at random in the text, and mis-spelt
by a transcriber who did not know its meaning. A word of common
occurrence he would have been less likely to mistake. Can _saliu_ be a
mistake for _salar_, and _sprote_ the Anglo-Saxon form of the
corresponding modern word _sprod_, i.e. the salmon of the second year?
The _salar_ is mentioned by Ausonius in describing the river Moselle and
its products (_Idyll_. 10, l. 128.). {249}
"Teque inter species geminas neutrumque et utrumque,
Qui necdum salmo, nec jam salar, ambiguusque
Amborum medio fario intercepte sub ævo."
I throw out this conjecture to take its chance of refutation or
acceptance. Valeat quantum!