The singular error which Messrs. Lye and Thorpe have fallen in the
passage pointed out by Mr. Hampson in Aelfric's very interesting
_Colloquy_, is the more remarkable as Aelfric himself afforded a
complete illustration of the passage, in his _Glossary_, where we have
"BULGA, _hýdig-faet_." It is possible, therefore, that _higdifatu_ is a
mere error of the scribe. Now Du Cange, v. _Bulga_, cites this very
passage from Aelfric's _Glossary_, and adds, "i.e. _vas ex corio
confectum_," but his whole article is worth consulting. That the Latin
word in the _Colloquy_ should be _Cassidilia_ is quite clear. Thus in an
old MS. English Gloss on the Bible (penes me), the passage in Tobit,
viii. 2., "Protulit de _Cassidili_ suo," is rendered, "brouzt forth of
his _Scrippe_." Coverdale has it, "take out of his _bagge_," and Luther,
"langte aus seinem _Sücklein_," which word is exchanged for _büdel_ in
the Saxon version. In two old Teutonic Glosses on the Bible published by
Graff (_Diutiska, ii. 178.), we have the following variations:--
_de cassidi_ burssa, _de sacello t. sacciperio_ kiula
_de cassili_ burissa, _de sacello t. sacciperio_ kiulla.
Another Gloss in Graff's 1st vol. p. 192., on the word _Cadus_, may
perhaps throw some light on the subject. The philological student need
not be reminded of the wide application of the word _vas_, Lat., _fazz_,
O.G., and _faet_. A.S.; but for my own part, I conclude that the
shoewright intended to designate by _higdifatu_ all sorts of _leathern
budgets_. Every Anglo-Saxon student must be so sensible of the great
obligation he is under to our distinguished scholar Mr. Thorpe, that I
trust it will not be deemed invidious or ungracious to point out another
passage in this _Colloquy_ which seems to have hitherto baffled him, but
which it appears to me may be elucidated.
To the question, "Hwilce fixas gefehst thu?" the fisherman answers,
"Aelas aud hacodas, mynas, aud aelputan, sceotan aud lampredan, aud swa
hwylce swa on waetere swymath, _sprote_."
Mr. Thorpe, in the 1st edition of his _Analecta_, says, "What is
intended to be meant by this word [_sprote_], as well as by _salu_ [the
correspondent word in the Latin], I am at a loss to conjecture." In his
second edition, Mr. Thorpe repeats, "I am unable to explain _salu_
otherwise than by supposing it may be an error for _salice_. In his
_Glossary_ he has "spro't, ii. 2.? sprout, rod?" with a reference to his
note. I must confess I cannot see how the substitution of _salice_ for
_salu_ would make the passage more intelligible, and the explanation of
_spro'te_ in the _Glossary_ does not help us. The sense required appears
to me to be, _quickly, swiftly,_ and this will, I think, be found to be
the meaning of _sprote_. In the Moeso-Gothic Gospels the word _sprauto_
occurs several times and always in the sense of _cito, subito_; and
though we have hitherto, I believe, no other example in Anglo-Saxon of
this adverbial use of the word, we are warranted, I think, in
concluding, from the analogy of a cognate language, that it did exist.
In regard to the evidently corrupt Latin word _salu_, I have
nothing better to offer than the forlorn conjecture that, in monkish
Latin, "_saltu't_" may have been contractedly written for _saltuatim_."
Dr. Leo, in his _Angelsâchsiche Sprachproben_, has reprinted the
_Colloquy_, but without the Latin, and, among many other capricious
deviations from Mr. Thorpe's text, in the answer of the shoewright has
printed _hygefata_! but does not notice the word in his _Glossary_. Herr
Leo has entirely omitted the word _sprote_.