Notes and Queries, Number 18, March 2, 1850 | Page 7

in the Latin text, conclusive, as nothing of the kind occurs in the A.-S. version, where the reading is clearly, "_swa hwylce swa_, on watere swymmath sprote." I have seen the Cottonian MS., which, as Mr. Hampson observes, is very distinctly written, both in the Saxon and Latin portions; so much so in the latter, as to make it a matter of surprise that the doubtful word saliu should ever have been taken for _salu_, or casidilia for calidilia. The omission of the words sprote and _saliu_, in the St. John's MS., would only be evidence of a more cautious scribe, who would not copy what he did not understand.
Your correspondent's notion, "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 know its meaning," appears to me very improbable; and the very form of the words (_sprote_, _saliu_, supposing them substantives), which have not plural terminations, would, in my mind, render his supposition untenable. For, be it recollected, that throughout the answers of the Fiscere, the fish are always named in the _plural_; and it is not to be supposed that there would be an exception in favour of _sprote_, whether intended for sprat or salmon. Indeed, had the former been a river fish, Hulvet and Palsgrave would have countenanced the supposition; but then we must have had it in the plural form, sprottas. As for the suggestion of sprod and _salar_, I cannot think it a happy one; salmon (_leaxus_) had been already mentioned; and sprods will be found to be a very confined local name for what, in other places, are called scurfes or _scurves_, and which we, in our ignorance, designate as salmon trout. In the very scanty A.-S. ichthyologic nomenclature we possess, there is nothing to lead us to imagine that our Anglo-Saxon ancestors had any corresponding word for a salmon trout. I must be excused, therefore, for still clinging to my own explanation of _sprote_, until something more specious and ingenious shall be advanced, but in full confidence, at the same time, that some future discovery will elucidate its truth.
S.W. Singer.
Feb. 19. 1850.
* * * * *
REHETING AND REHETOURS.
As Dr. Todd's query (no. 10. p. 155.) respecting the meaning of the words "Reheting" and "Rehetour," used by our early English writers, has not hitherto been answered, I beg to send him a conjectural explanation, which, if not conclusive, is certainly probable.
In the royal household of France, there was formerly an officer whose duty it was to superintend the roasting of the King's meat; he was called the _Hateur_, apparently in the sense of his "hastening" or "expediting" that all-important operation. The Fr. _Hater_, "to hasten or urge forward," would produce the noun-substantive _Hateur_; and also the similar word _Hatier_, the French name for the roast-jack. If we consider _Rehateur_ to be the reduplicate of _Hateur_, we have only to make an allowable permutation of vowels, and the result will be the expressive old English word "Rehetour," an appropriate name for the royal turnspit. Wycliffe uses it, I think, in the sense of a superfluous servant, one whose duties, like the Hateur's, were very light indeed. He compares the founding of new Orders in an overburthened Church-establishment to the making of new offices in a household already crowded with useless (and consequently idle and vicious) servants. The multitude of fat friars and burly monks charged upon the community were "the newe rehetours that ete mennes mete," &c.
The term, thus implying an useless "do-nothing," would soon become one of the myriad of choice epithets in the vulgar vocabulary, as in the instances from Dunbar and Kennedy.
In a better sense, a verb would be derived, easily; "to rehate," or "rehete," i.e. "to provide, {279} entertain, or refresh with meat," and thence, "to feast with words," as used by Chaucer and the old Romancists.
Mr. Halliwell's authorities for rendering the participle "Rehating" by "Burning, or smarting," are not given; but if such a meaning existed, it may have a ready explanation by reference to the Hauteur's fireside labour, though suggestive of unskilfulness or carelessness on his part.
John Westby Gibson.
5. Queen Square, Aldersgate Street, Feb. 8. 1850.
In answer to Dr. Todd's inquiries, I would say, first of all, the "rehatours" of Douglas and the other Scots are beside his question, and a totally different word. Feelings cherished in the mind will recur from time to time; and those malevolent persons, who thus retain them, were said to _re-hate_, as they are now said to re-sent.
But the verb really in question is, _per se_, a perfectly plain one, to re-heat. The difficulty is as to its use. The primary use, of course, is to heat again. The nearest secondary use is "to cherish, cheer, or comfort,