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_.

S.W. SINGER.

Jan. 14. 1850.