248 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[ No. 16. 
printed in the 12th volume of Dodsley’s Old Plays 
(edit. 1827), in the 5th act (p.113.), the lines run 
thus :— 
“ He is a fool, who thinks by force or skill 
To turn the current of a woman’s will.” 
I should be glad if any one could inform me by 
whom the latter lines were added, and where they 
may be found in print, COWEIG: 
Pity is akin to Love. — Where are the following 
words to be met with ? — 
“ For Pity is akin to Love.” 
J have found very similar expressions, but never 
the exaet words as above. H. 
REPLIES. 
AELFRIC'S COLLOQUY, AND THE A.-S. WORD ZGYPE 
IN THE A.-S. PSALTER, 
In reference to Mr. Tuorps’s note (No. 15. 
p- 232.), I beg leave, with all possible respect and 
deference, to suggest that his joke is not quite ad 
rem. — What would do for a beefsteak does not 
help his mistake ; for it is quite evident that sprote 
applies to fish-swimming and not to fish-catching ; 
and I presume that “useful and sagacious” aux- 
iliary, Dr. Kitchener himself, would hardly have 
ventured to deny that fish may swim quickly ? 
Now, let us try how Mr. Txorpe’s proposed 
salice= wicher, or sallow, with or without the 
basket, will suit the context. The fisherman is 
asked, “Quales pisces capias? = What fish do 
you take?” The answer is: Anguillos &c. &c. 
et qualescuncque in amne natant salu, = Eels 
&e. &e., and every sort whatever that in water 
swimmeth wiiew ¢ basket! Let it be remembered 
that the question here is not, “ How dost thou 
take fish?” which had been put and answered 
before, but “ What fish dost thou take?” and then 
let common sense decide; for the fisherman having 
already mentioned that he cast ne¢s and hooks, and 
sryrtan} i.e. baskets, now only replies as to the 
Jish he takes. 
Mr. Tuorre calls the A.-S. dialogue a Gloss ; 
is it not rather an interlineary version? like those 
in use, in later times, of Corderius, and used for 
the same purpose. 
I have no doubt that upon more mature con- 
sideration Mr. Torre will see that it could not 
be a substantive that was intended; and, as he 
admits my conjecture to be specious, that he will, 
in the course of his very useful labours, ultimately 
find it not only specious but correct. Meanwhile, 
I submit to his consideration, that beside the 
analogy of the Gothic sprauto, we have in Ice- 
landic spretta, imperf. spratt, “ subito movere, 
repente salire, emicare:” and spreitr, “ cursus 
citatus,” and I do think these analogies warrant 
my conclusion. 
Lembrace this opportunity of submitting another 
conjecture respecting a word in Mr. THorrn’s 
edition of the Anglo-Saxon Paraphrase of the 
Psalms. It oceurs in Ps. evi. ver. 10., ‘ Quid 
exacerbaverunt eloquium Domini,” &c., which is 
rendered: “ Forthon hidydan Drihtnes sprace 
eawaes egype.” In a note Mr. THorre says: 
“@eype, non intelligo,’ and gives a reason for 
deeming the passage corrupt. ‘To me it seems to 
express the generally accepted sense of exacer- 
baverunt : and here a cognate language will show 
us the way. Icelandic geip, futilis exaggeratio; 
atgeipa, exaggerare, effutire: @egype 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 spreece godes. In Not- 
ker it is widersprachen, and in the two old Teu- 
tonic interlinear versions 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. Sinecer. 
Feb, 11. 1850. 
AAlfric’s Colloquy.—I have my doubts whether 
Mr. Sineer’s ingenious suggestion 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. Tuorrs’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 ap- 
peared 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 mis- 
take 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 men- 
tioned by Ausonius in describing the river Mo- 
selle and its products, Zdyll. 10. 1. 128 : 
