FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42  
43   44   45   >>  
the passage corrupt. To me it seems to express the generally accepted sense of _exacerbaverunt_: and here a cognate language will show us the way. Icelandic _geip_, futilis exaggeratio; _atgeipa_, exaggerare, effutire: _aegype_, then, means to _mock_, to _deride_, and is allied to _gabban_, to gibe, to jape. In the Psalter published by Spelman it is rendered: hi _gremedon_ spraece godes. In Notker it is _widersprachen_, and in the two old Teutonic interlinear version of the Psalms, published by Graff, _verbitterten_ and _gebittert_. Let us hear our own interesting old satirist, Piers Plouhman [Whitaker's ed. p. 365.]: And God wol nat be gyled, quoth Gobelyn, ne be _japed_. But I cease, lest your readers should exclaim, Res non verba. When I have more leisure for _word-catching_, should you have space, I may furnish a few more. S.W. SINGER. Feb. 11. 1850. _AElfric'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 aevo." I throw out this conjecture to take its chance of refutation or acceptance. Valeat quantum! C.W.G. * * *
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42  
43   44   45   >>  



Top keywords:
explaining
 
sprote
 
mistake
 

SINGER

 

published

 
transcriber
 
natant
 

mentioned

 

handwriting

 

understood


examines

 
person
 

inserted

 

interlined

 
knowing
 

probable

 

difficulty

 

intended

 

appeared

 

random


written

 

copied

 

occurrence

 

necdum

 

Amborum

 
ambiguusque
 
utrumque
 

species

 
neutrumque
 

geminas


acceptance

 

refutation

 

Valeat

 

quantum

 

chance

 
intercepte
 

conjecture

 

capital

 

common

 

meaning


describing

 

Moselle

 
products
 

Ausonius

 

modern

 
salmon
 
widersprachen
 

Teutonic

 

interlinear

 
Psalms