264 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[No. 17. 
tise with the same familiarity (see p.51.), and 
elsewhere, if my memory does not igeee me. 
Dodd, in his Church History, —when will the 
new edition begin to move again? can Stony- 
hurst 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 
Parsons’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? 
extent? Has the Durham Cathedral Library, in 
particular, a copy? Mr. Botfield might have 
informed us. In facet, 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 
Arpmacua. 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 aneli- 
cised, moy, mot, mow, or mo, to represent ‘the 
pronunciation: as Fermoy, Athmoy, Knockmoy, 
Moira, Moyagher, Moyalitfe (or Me-aliffe, as it is 
now commonly spelt), Moville, Moyarta, and thou- 
sands of other cases. And those who are ac- 
quainted with the Irish language will at once tell, 
by the ear, that Armagh, as the word is pro- 
nounced 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 corre- 
spondent “ 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.’ he article, in Irish, is An, not ar; 
and mag does not signify a town. He adopts, 
your readers will perceive, the modern Enelish 
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 
What is its size, date, and | 
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 ety- 
nology of ARrpmacha. 
“ Hipernicus ” (No. 14. p. 217.) is partly right 
and partly wrong; he adopts the anglicised spel- 
ling 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 sig- 
nified, in the Scottish language, Campus roborum 
(see Bede, Hist. Hecl. lib. iii. c. 4.); but Adam- 
son (Vit. Columba, ec. 39.) more correctly trans- 
lates 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. Mm. 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 ArpMacHA™, and not Armagh. What 
would be thought of the critic who would now 
attempt to investigate the etymology of the Eng- 
lish 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. J. H. Topp. 
Trin. Coll. Dublin, Feb. 2. 1850. 
* Those who have access to Colgan’s Acta Sanctorum 
Hibernia will see that he always spells Armagh, Ard- | 
macha; and Durrow, Darmagia. j 
