information:—

"Having doubts both as to the precise meaning and lingual purity of the compound epithet Bis Italicus, here applied to Napoleon, I subjoin the passage in which it occurs, for the judgement of the learned:—

'NAPOLEONI ... ÆGYPTIACO BIS ITALICO SEMPER INVICTO ... GRATA RESPUBLICA.'"—A Physician's Holiday, p. 468.

EMDEE.

Athenæum, January 26. 1850.

MINOR QUERIES.

Howkey or Horkey.— Can anybody explain the etymology of the word Howkey or Horkey, generally used to denote a harvest-home merriment in our eastern counties? Forbes speaks of it as an intractable word, and neither he nor Sir J. Cullum have succeeded in explaining it satisfactorily.

BRAYBROOKE.

Audley End, Feb. 16.

Lord Bacon's Metrical Version of the Psalms.—The answer in No. 15. p. 235. to A CORNISHMAN'S Query (No. 13. p. 202) respecting "Bacon's Metrical Version of the Psalms," suggests another query. The work in question was a mere "exercise of sickness;" it contains only seven psalms (the 1st, 12th, 90th, 104th, 126th, 137th, and 149th), and is, without pretension of any kind, a very proper diversion for a mind that could not be inactive and yet required rest; and very good verses for a man unpractised in metrical composition. The Collection of Apophthegms (also a recreation in sickness), though considerably larger and altogether weightier, was considered so trifling a work that Dr. Rawley, in his "perfect list of his Lordship's true works, &c.," appended to the first edition of the Resuscitatio (1657), either forgot or did not think fit to mention it. Yet both these trifles were not only written but published, by Bacon himself the year before his death—a thing quite contrary to his practice; for though he had written and carefully preserved and circulated in manuscript so much, he had till then published nothing that was not of the weightiest and most solid kind. Can any of your correspondents inform me how much two such books may possibly have been worth to a publisher in the year 1625; being works of low price and popular character, proceeding from an author of great name? How much is it reasonable to suppose that a publisher may have given for the copyright? or how far may it have gone towards the payment of a bookseller's bill?

J.S.

Feb. 7. 1850.

Treatise of Equivocation.—I shall feel happy if, through your very opportune medium, I can obtain some information respecting a very extraordinary and mysterious book, as to its existence, local habitation, and any other material circumstance, which has the title of A Treatise of Equivocation. The first recognition of the work is in the Relation of the Proceedings in the Trial for the Powder Plot, 1604. At signat. I. the Attourney-General, Sir E. Coke, appeals to it, and affirms that it was allowed by the Archpriest Blackwel, and that the title was altered to A Treatise against Lying and Fraudulent Dissimulation. He proceeds to describe some of its contents, as if he were himself acquainted with the book. Thomas Morton, Bishop of Lichfield, and Coventry, afterwards of Durham, in his Full Satisfaction concerning a double Romish Iniquitie; Rebellion and Equivocation, 1606, refers to the work as familiarly acquainted with it. (See Ep. Dedic. A. 3.; likewise pages 88 & 94.) He gives the authorship to Creswell or Tresham. He refers likewise to a Latin work entitled Resolutio Casuum, to the same effect, possibly a translation, to which he subjoins the names of Parsons and Allen. Robert Abbot, in his Antilogia, 1613, pp. 13, 14. emphatically and at length produces the same book and facts; but they are merely copied from the Relation of the Powder-treason Trial. Henry Mason, in his most satisfactory work, The New Art of Lying, &c., 1624, has spoken of the Treatise with the same familiarity (see p. 51.), and elsewhere, if my memory does not deceive me. Dodd, in his Church history,—when will the new edition begin to move again? Can Stonyhurst tell?—ascribes the work to Tresham. Hardly any of the similar works in these times belong to one author. It may just be added, that Parson's Mitigation contains, perhaps, all the substance of the Roman equivocation, with not much reserve or disguise. It was published in answer to Bishop Morton's work in 1607. Foulis has, of course, substantially all the above, but nothing more.

Now, the questions which I want to have solved are these:—Was the book ever extant in MS. Or print? Is it now extant, and where? Who has seen a copy? What is its size, date, and extent? Has the Durham Cathedral Library, in particular, a copy? Mr. Botfield might have informed us. In fact, where is any effectual intelligence of the fugitive to be found?

J.M.

Feb. 8. 1850.

REPLIES.

ETYMOLOGY OF "ARMAGH."

Some of your correspondents have taken up the not unnatural idea, that the last syllable of the word "Armagh" is identical with the Celtic word magh, a plain. But there are two objections to this. In the first place, the name is never spelt in Irish Armagh, nor even Ardmagh, but always ARDMACHA. Ardmagh or Armagh is only the anglicised spelling, adapted to English tongues and ears. It is therefore clearly absurd to take this corrupt form of the word as our datum, in the attempt to search for its etymology. Secondly, the Irish names of places which are derived from, or compounded of, magh, a plain, are always anglicised, moy, moi, mow, or mo, to represent the pronunciation: as Fermoy, Athmoy, Knockmoy, Moira, Moyagher, Moyaliffe (or Me-aliffe, as it is now commonly spelt), Moville, Moyarta, and thousands of other cases. And those who are acquainted with the Irish language will at once tell, by the ear, that Armagh, as the word is pronounced by the native peasantry, even by those who have lost that language (as most of them in that district now have), could not be a compound of magh, a plain.

The work of M. Bullet, quoted by your correspondent "HERMES," is full of ignorant blunders similar to that which he commits, when he tells us that Armagh in compounded of "Ar, article, and mag, ville." The article, in Irish, is An, not ar; and mag does not signify a town. He adopts, your readers will perceive, the modern English spelling, which could not lead to a correct result, even if M. Bullet had been acquainted with the Celtic languages. The same remark applies to the explanation given by the author of Circles of Gomer. Ard, not Ar, is the word to be explained; and therefore, even though Ar and Ararat meant, as he tells us, "earth, country, or upon and on the earth," this would throw no light on the etymology of ARDmacha.

"HIBERNICUS" (No. 14. p. 217.) is partly right and partly wrong; he adopts the anglicised spelling of the second syllable, although he seems aware that the first syllable ought to be Ard; and he admits also that this word is a substantive, signifying a height, not the adjective high. "A high plain," in Irish, would be, not Ardmagh, or Ardmoy (as it would have been anglicised), but Magh-ard (Anglice Moyard). Great light will be thrown on the whole subject of the etymology of Irish typographical names, when the Index to my friend Mr. O'Donovan's edition of the Annals of the Four Masters makes its appearance.

I may add too, in conclusion, that Camden is wrong in suggesting that Armach (as he spells it, retaining, curiously enough, the correct etymology of the last syllable) is identical with Dearmach (where the last