Qnd §, No 4., Jan. 26. °56,] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
65 
LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 2, 1856, 
Pates, 
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 oceasionally 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! 
‘Epwhdn, épwidAda, éprvAdAn, is a creeping thing, and 
kadeprw to creep; kalepriAda 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, &e., 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 
aveil. Iwill here, en passant, observe, that the 
Latin persona, appears to me to be, instead of an 
original Latin compound, a mere corruption of 
mpdcwrov ; the change in the first syllable resem- 
bling that of Mepoepdvn to Proserpina, and the 
becoming n, just as « does in the change of Nav- 
maxros to Lepanto: and thus a word was formed 
which seemed to have some meaning in Latin, 
oe as we ourselves have made from Livorno, 
eghorn; from écrevisse, 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-wicka, “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 
had 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 &pxaros has this very sense; and that on the 
principle above stated, it was made orchard, to 
correspond with wyrt-geard, &c. 
Tuos, KrercHtiey. 
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. Neither 
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, 
