2nd 3. NO 4., JAN. 26. '56.]
NOTES AND QUEEIES.
65
LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 1856.
ETYMOLOGIES.
Caterpillar. Of this word the derivation has
most certainly not been given as yet ; for the at-
tempts are simply ridiculous. For many years I
had occasionally turned it over in my mind, and
had nearly given it up in despair, when the idea
struck me that, after all, it might be Greek !
'Epir^Arj, epiriAAa, fp-rrv\\rj, is a creeping thing, and
KadfpTrta to creep ; Ka6tpiri\\a. then would be the
very word. This agrees so accurately with all
the principles of etymology, that I am almost con-
vinced of its correctness. It may, however, be
objected that there is no such compound in the
extant Greek and Latin literature ; and that it is
not likely that a word of such learned origin
would be in common use among the people. As
to the first objection, I see no great force in it.
We have not every word of this language in the
extant literature ; and, besides, words might have
been made just as we have made barometer, chro-
nometer, microscope, &c., and, like these, have
gradually become common. We further do not
know when caterpillar came into use. Richardson
gives no instance of it earlier than the sixteenth
century ; and I am informed that, in some of the
Midland Counties, it is but little known, the term
in ordinary use being canker : so that perhaps
there may not be much force in the second objec-
tion either. I fancy we are indebted for this
term, and for some others of classic origin, as I
will endeavour to show, to the clergy. Cater-
pillar is peculiar to the English language : the
corresponding term, in Anglo-Saxon is grime or
grimena, which may be connected with grub ; as
this last certainly is with raupe German, rups
Dutch. I know not what may be the Icelandic
word, but the Swedish is very remarkable : it is
mask, and, as there is no derivation given of the
masque mascara of the southern languages, it is
not impossible that the Swedish name of the
caterpillar grub larva may have given origin to
them ; but I apprehend, that the true derivation
may be from the Arabic, as in Hebrew, masak is
a veil. I will here, en passant, observe, that the
Latin persona, appears to me to be, instead of an
original Latin compound, a mere corruption of
irpfoonrov ; the change in the first syllable resem-
bling that of nep<Tf<p6vr] to Proserpina, and the it
becoming n, just as K does in the change of Nu-
ira/cTos to Lepanto : and thus a word was formed
which seemed to have some meaning in Latin,
just as we ourselves have made from Livorno,
Leghorn ; from ecrcvisse, crawfish, &c.
The two following words may also have been introduced by the clergy :
Earwig. This seems to be the Latin eruca,
changed in the manner just shown by our Anglo-
Saxon forefathers into edr-imcka, " ear-beetle."
I say this because, when significant names have
been originally given to animals, &c., they have
always been taken from some actual act or quality,
which is not the case here : the poor little insect
being really maligned by his name. As to cater-
pillar, or grub, being the true meaning of eruca,
that need give us no concern, such transferences
being of common occurrence.
Orchard, also, I believe, spelt orchat. This is commonly supposed to be a mere corruption of wyrt-geard ; but of this I am dubious, for the wyrt-geard seems to have assumed exactly to our "kitchen-garden;" while the orchard was at all times appropriated to fruit-trees, and appears to have been to our ancestors what the flower-garden or the pleasure-garden is nowadays. Here they hnd their arbours and so forth, and there they took their walks and recreation. We may observe how often in Shakspeare, the scene is laid in the orchard. My own suspicion, for it is no more, is, that the monks, who perhaps first formed the orchard, gave it its name from the Greek, in which opxToy has this very sense ; and that on the principle above stated, it was made orchard, to correspond with wyrt-geard, &c.
THOS. KEIGHTLEY.
THE TEMPLES.
In the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Inns of Court and Chancery, I was in hopes of finding some satisfactory account of the original division of the two Temples ; but I have been disappointed in my expectations. JSTeither the Report itself, nor the evidence that is printed with it, throws any new light on the subject, but rather involves it in greater obscurity.
The witness who enters most into the history, quoting from what he calls " an old manuscript," says :
" The professors and students of the law resided in the Temple, who in tract of time converted and regulated the same; first into one Inn of Court, and, afterwards, in the reign of Henry the Sixth, divided themselves into the two Societies, or Inns of Court." P. 56.
No intimation is given of the date, nor any guess at the writer of this manuscript; nor any reason why the slightest reliance should be placed on its assertions. The writer has evidently formed a fanciful hypothesis of his own, and would have been puzzled to bring forward his proof that the Temple was ever converted into " one Inn of Court," or to produce the rules that " regulated the same;" or even, though that might be less difficult, that it was first divided " in the reign of Henry VI." into two Inns of Court.
The loss of the early " muniments, documents,
