gnd S, No 18., May 3. °56.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
357 
Paulus Manutius, and the translation of Figliueci, the 
words of St. Ambrose (Com. in Luc., c. 9.), which should 
immediately precede the above passage, are omitted, “ an 
error in its origin purely typographical,” says Dr, Dono- 
van. | 
Early Edition of Chaucer's Works. — A few 
days ago I met with an old black-letter edition of 
Chaucer’s Works, published, I think, during the 
latter part of the sixteenth century. The title- 
page is lost, but otherwise it is in good preserva- 
tion. In the Life of Chaucer the writer states: 
“M. William Thynn, that learned Gentelman and 
painfull Collector of Chaucers workes in his Epistle dedi- 
catorie to the Kings Majestie hath duly set forth the 
commendable qualities of this Poet; whose iudgement we 
are the rather to approue, for that he had further insight 
into him than many others. Of whom John Bale in his 
booke De seriptoribus Britan. Centur. 12. hath some Ix. 
yeeres past, deliuered thus: Guilhelmus Thynne, preclari 
generis homo, et ab ineunte etate in literis educatus, multo 
labore, sedulitate et cura vsus, in perquirendis vetustis exem- 
plaribus, Chauceri opera restituit, atque in vnum collegit 
volumen: quod Henrico octauo Anglorum regi dedicautt. 
Since whose time, two of the purest and best writers of 
our daies, the one for Prose, the other for Verse, M. 
Ascham and M. Spenser, haue delinered most worthy tes- 
timonies of their approuing of Chaucer.” 
John Bale above quoted was Bishop of Ossory 
in the middle of the sixteenth century, and is 
celebrated as a controversial and dramatic writer 
of that time. 
In the first part is the dedication of, I suppose, 
“™M. William Thynn, the painfull Collector,” pre- 
faced by the following words : 
“To the Kings Highnesse, my most gracious soueraigne 
_ Lord, Henry the eight, by the grace of God, King of Eng- 
land and of France, defensor of the faith, and Lord of 
Ireland, &c.” 
The above extracts may, perhaps, assist in my 
obtaining information as to the editor, and date of 
the book. Tuomas Hopeins. 
Toronto, Canada. 
[Our correspondent’s copy is a reprint of Speght’s 
edition of 1589, with additional matter. It is entitled 
The Workes of ovr Ancient and learned English poet, 
Geffrey Chaveer, newly printed. London: Printed by 
m Islip, An. Dom. 1602, fol. See a notice of it in 
Lowndes’s Bib, Manual, vol. i, p. 395. ] 
Replies. 
ETYMOLOGY OF CATERPILLAR AND EARWIG. 
(2"4 §. i. 303.) 
I cannot help thinking that chattepeleuse is not 
only “a likely source of our English word” cater- 
on ar, but that it is the certain source. In the 
rst place chattepeleuse is a real word in use, 
whereas cates piller are two words, from which no 
single French word has ever been compounded. 
_ But there is a better reason. We shall in vain 
seek for chattepeleuse in any modern French dic- 
tionary ; nor is it correct to say that “ the French- 
men call caterpillars chattepeleuse.” It was never 
a general French name for that insect ; nor, as far 
as I can discover, was it ever a name (as is stated in 
Todd's Johnson) for a weasel. Had it been so, it 
would scarcely have been also used for caterpillar. 
The word is provincial, and it belongs just to that 
province from which a French word would soonest 
have been naturalised among us. In the excel- 
lent Etymological Dictionary of Ménage we read: 
“ Chattepeleuse. Les Normands appellent ainsi 
une chenille. Les Anglais disent caterpillar.” 
There is, besides, something in the adjunct 
-peleuse which is peculiarly applicable to the soft 
hairy exterior of most caterpillars ; nor need the 
word chatte disturb us, for it is not unusual with 
the French to give in their familiar names of in- 
sects the appellations of beasts: for example, the 
lady-bird is called La Vache de Notre Dame. 
Both were words introduced by the monks in 
order to secure for that insect a superstitious pro- 
tection in the hop districts. 
There is something very plausible in the de- 
rivation of earwig from eruca; it is analogous to 
that of periwig from peruque. But then it must 
be recollected that eruca is a generic name for all 
worms which feed on the leaves of trees and 
flowers, and has no particular connection with the 
earwig, which I believe is rare in the dry southern 
resions of Europe. 
Now the notion of this insect infesting the ear 
is almost universal in the languages of northern 
and central Europe, e. g.: 
Anglo-Saxon - - earwigga 
High German - - ohrwurm 
Low German - - oorworm ear-worm, 
Swedish - - - Grmask 
Danish = - - urhwigg 
French, oreillére, perce-oreille. Of these six names 
the Anglo-Saxon and Danish only can be com- 
pared with eruca. 
In Italian I find for earwig, formicala prinza- 
juola: the etymology I know not. The Linnzan 
name is Forcicula auricularia, which is explained 
in Spanish and Portuguese thus; “ Sabandija que 
entra en las orejas,” and ‘ Casta de insecto, que 
dizem que entra nos ouvidos.” I take it for 
granted that there is no specific name for this 
insect in the southern*tongues, because it be- 
longs to colder regions. Possibly, however, the 
vulgar names are not, as both Mr. KercuTiey 
and Mr. Warwick seem to think, founded merely 
on popular prejudice. In Rees's Cyclopedia I 
find that this insect habitually creeps into the ears 
of those who sleep in the open air during the sea- 
sons in which they are numerous. And in the 
Universal Lexicon of Zedler (an invaluable re- 
pertory of information on almost every subject) 
I find these words: 
“Der Ohrwurm gehet nach den Ohren, wischt in sel- 
