tise 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 is 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 syllable ought to be magh). This latter place is the well-known Durrow, in the county Westmeath; and its name, in Irish, is Duir-magh, which is really a compound from magh, a plain. Bede tells us, that the word signified, in the Scottish language, Campus roborum (see Bede, Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 4.); but Adam-son (Vit. Columbœ, c. 39.) more correctly translates it, "monasterium Roboreti Campi" It is not likely that such authorities could confound Durrow, in Westmeath, with the ecclesiastical metropolis of Ireland, and patriarchal see of St. Patrick.
Whoever the Mach or Macha was from whom Ardmacha has its name (whether the queen called Macha-mong-ruadh, whose reign is assigned by O'Flaherty to a.m. 3603, or the older Macha, who is said to be the wife of Nemedius), it should be borne in mind, that the word whose etymology is required is Ardmacha[1], and not Armagh. What would be thought of the critic who would now attempt to investigate the etymology of the English word bishop, by dividing it into two syllables, and seeking analogies in sound for each syllable.
I have ventured to go at greater length into this matter than its importance may seem to warrant, because it illustrates so clearly a very general error, from which Celtic literature has deeply suffered, of inventing fanciful etymologies adapted to the modern English spellings, instead of the original Celtic forms of names; and this error, as the question before us proves, is as old as Camden's time, and older.
Trin. Coll. Dublin, Feb. 2. 1850.
- ↑ Those who have access to Colgan's Acta Sanctorum Hiberniœ will see that he always spells Armagh, Ard- macha; and Durrow, Darmagia.
