a compound of the O.E. negative prefix wan (as in wan-hope. 'despair') and togen, the past part. of teon (G. ziehen), 'to draw.' Its meaning would therefore be 'untrained,' and hence 'irregular in conduct.' This theory is made very probable by the existence of an intermediate form wantowen, of which Wedgwood quotes an instance from a Sermon on Miracle Plays—'We waxen wantowen or idil.' He also notes the expressions 'untowen,' 'wel itowen,' 'ful itowen,' in the Ancren Riwle, a treatise of the 13th century on the Rules of Monastic Life. But the meaning of the last word is not, as he gives it, 'fully educated,' but 'undisciplined' or 'illeducated,' from the O.E. ful = 'foul.' (See the Ancren Riwle, edited by the Rev. J. Morton for the Camden Society, pp. 108, 140, 244, 368.) An alternative derivation is that given by Webster and others, from a Welsh adjective gwantan, 'roving,' 'fickle,' which is referred to the verb gwanta, 'to separate' (probably cognate with chwant, lust,' Greek xai, Lat. hi-o, hisco, &c.). The precise similarity both in form and meaning between gwantan and wanton would no doubt go very far towards establishing a common origin; we cannot, however, certainly say which is the older of the two, and there is a bare possibility that the Welsh may have borrowed the word from our language. But supposing that gwantan was the earlier form, and that from it wanton was derived, its resemblance to the real English word wantowen might very well give rise to the theory which Wedgwood adopts, especially if at any time after its introduction wanton got to be spelt wantoun or wantown. All this, however, is purely hypothetical; the exist ence of a form wan-togen would, if proved, be almost conclusive in favour of the first-named derivation. We may observe that Edward Müller in his Etymologisches Wörterbuch der englischen Sprache (1867), accepts the theory propounded by Webster.

Herse (1. 151). This word was employed in three distinct senses, of which the last now alone remains in use. These are (1) the funeral monument (Spenser, F. Q. II. viii. 16); (2) the coffin, as in Shaksp. 1 K. Henry VI. i. 1, where a wooden coffin' is presently spoken of as King Henry's hearse; (3) the funeral carriage. Richardson, wrongly supposing this last to be the primary meaning, derives the word from the O.E. hyrstan, 'to decorate' (see also Horne Tooke's Diversions of Purley). It really comes from the French herce, Low Latin hercia (herpex), ‘a harrow' (Ducange, Glossary, s. v.), and originally meant a triangular frame for candles, placed at the head of the corpse. Thus

in the account of the battle of Crecy in Froissart's Chronicles, c. 130 (Lord Berners' translation), we are told that 'the archers stode in maner of a herse,' i.e. in triangular form. And since this burning of candles was the distinctive feature in the obsequies, the term 'hearse' came to be used either of the whole ceremony or of its various appurtenances (Wedgwood, Dict. of Etymol. s. v.). In the Faery Queen, 111. ii. 48, Spenser has wrongly applied the phrase 'holy herse' to the church service, as if the word were connected with 'rehearse;' and perhaps the same mistake is made in the Shepheard's Calendar, xi. 60, where 'herse' is explained in the glossary to mean 'the solemn obsequie in funeralles.'

Trick (l. 170). The main senses of this word (as noun and verb) are—(1) Artifice, (2) Peculiar habit or manner (King Lear, iv. 6, 'The trick of that voice I do well remember'), (3) Ornament (// Penseroso, 123; Shakspere, King Henry V. iii. 6, 'trick up with newtuned oaths;' Merry W. of Windsor, 'trickings for our fairies'), (4) Heraldic devices (Jonson, Poetaster, 'they are blazoned, they are tricked'), (5) Collection of cards taken up by the winner. All these find a common origin in the Dutch trek, a 'draught,' 'pull,' or 'stroke,' which answers to our word 'draw' in all its senses, and has also the secondary meanings of 'deceit,' and of a 'feature' of the face or character. (Cf. trait from tractus, which means in French both 'feature' and 'trick.' Faire des traits = faire des tours.) To the same root trek Diez refers tricher (It. treccare), 'to cheat,' though he derives in-triguer, trigaud, &c., from the Latin verb tricari. This is unquestionably right, although at first sight tricher, with its cognate triquer, might seem a natural formation from tricari, like miche from mica, indiquer from indicare, &c. But, as Diez observes, the radical e in the older form trecher is fatal to such a derivation, and the Teutonic origin of tricher may therefore be considered as established. There cannot be any connexion (however remote) between the Latin tricari and the root we have been considering; since we know that the former is derived from trica, originally Tricæ, a small town in Apulia, whose name with that of the neighbouring Apinæ came to be used of anything trifling or insignificant. (Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. iii. 16; Martial, Epigr. XIV. i. 7, 'Sunt apinæ tricæque et si quid vilius istis;' Erasmus, Chiliad. Cent. 2, Adag. 43, 'Tricas et Apinas vulgo res futiles et nugatorias dicebant.") Thus Cicero (ad Atticum, X. viii. 9) contrasts 'domesticas tricas' with 'publicam cladem.' Hence tricari was applied to shuffling and petty meanness of con

duct (Cic. ad Att. XIV. xix. 4; XV. iii. 5), a sense which is accidentally almost the same with that of tricher and treccare. This may be noted as one of those curious coincidences, by which words without any etymological connexion obtain in different languages a similar form and meaning. A further illustration of this is seen in the German trügen (tricgen), 'to deceive,' regarded as a collateral form of tragen, and thus connected with traho, draw, drag, &c. Another meaning of trica (that of 'perplexity' or 'entanglement') seems to have produced the later Latin tricare, 'to loiter;' and this was absurdly derived from trica (Opič), 'a knot of hair,' for a full account of which see Ducange, Glossarium, s. v. trica. This verb also meant 'to deceive,' whence came tricatores='deceptores, qui res impediunt vel implicant.'

We may therefore assume trek to be the original of trick in all its senses, as well as of tricher and treccare; it only remains to reject the derivation given by Dr. Johnson and Richardson of trick, in the sense of ornament, from the trica above referred to, since the idea of ornament springs most naturally from that of delineation, especially when used of heraldic devices (see No. 4 supra). The only instance given of the word as actually meaning ‘a knot of hair' is from Jonson's Poetaster, 'your court curls or your tricks ;' but this need not be anything more than a general term for 'ornament.' (See the quotation from Sandys' Travels, given in the note upon 1. 170.)

APPENDIX II.

On the Allusions in l. 128, 129.

THOSE who have read Professor Masson's examination of this passage in his Life of Milton (vol. i. p. 641 foll.) will hardly fail to agree with him in interpreting the 'grim wolf' to mean that system of perversion to Romanism, which seems to have reached its height in or about the year 1637. The view partially adopted by Newton, that the Primate is the person here intended, might seem at first sight to be supported by an entry in Laud's diary, to the effect that in July 1637 a libel was pasted on the Cross at Cheapside, designating him 'the arch-wolf of Canterbury.' But so common an expression as this is barely sufficient of itself to enable us to draw a positive conclusion, while the language which Milton here employs respecting the 'wolf' presents at least a twofold objection to such an interpretation. First, the evil is clearly an external one, being distinguished from the abuses previously mentioned as existing within the fold-the word 'besides' indicates this-and secondly, the expression 'privy paw,' denoting secresy, would be a most unfit one, if it were intended to describe the doings of Laud and the High Commission Court, whose attacks on Nonconformity were open and undisguised; nor was there perhaps any character more prominent at this time than that of the Archbishop. Both the required conditions are satisfied, if we adopt Newton's alternative explanation, 'besides what the Popish priests privately pervert to their religion,' in support of which view Masson in his Life of Milton brings forward the instances of Sir Toby Matthews, Sir Kenelm Digby and others, who had been most active in this matter for some years before the publication of Lycidas. He goes on to show that Laud himself strongly disapproved of these perversions, as appears from his letter of remonstrance to Sir K. Digby (March 27, 1636) upon his change of religion, and from his

H

strict injunctions to Dr. Bayly, Vice-chancellor of Oxford (Aug. 29, 1637), to take strong measures against the Jesuits, who were seducing the students in that University. It may have been the case that ‘as he valued his theory of a possible union of the churches, the floating off of atoms vexed and annoyed him' (Masson 1. c.) ; but even the fact that he did desire such a union is mainly supported by the assertion of Montague, Bp. of Chichester, to Panzani, a Papal agent sent to decide certain disputes among the English Catholics, but with special instructions not to have any dealings whatever with Laud (Lingard, Hist. of England, vol. vii. c. 5). Taken in connexion with this injunction, the circumstances attending the offer of a cardinal's hat made to Laud a short time before, and rejected by him on the ground of dissatisfaction with Rome 'as it then was' (Diary, Aug. 4, 1633), serve to show that the distrust between the two parties was at least mutual; for it is certain that this offer was made without cognisance of the Pope, who even refused to ratify it when the request to do so was laid before him. We know also that the news of Laud's death in 1646 was hailed at Rome with great rejoicing, on the ground that 'the greatest enemy of the Church of Rome in England was cut off, and the greatest champion of the Church of England silenced.' (Testimony of Sir Lionel Tolmache, as reported by the Rev. J. Whiston, his chaplain about 1666). All this agrees very well with Laud's own assertions in answer to the charges brought against him by the Puritans in 1640, 'that he hath traytorously endeavoured to reconcile the Church of England with the Church of Rome, and permitted a Popish hierarchy in this kingdom, &c.' To this he replies, 'I did never desire that England and Rome should meet, but with the forsaking of error and superstition, if some tenets of Rome on one side and some deep disaffections on the other have not made this impossible, as I much doubt they have. But that I should practise with Rome as it now stands is utterly untrue. Secondly, I have hindered as many from going to the Roman party, as any divine in England hath done. (Twenty-two names are here quoted, many of whom are of high rank and quality.) Thirdly, many Recusants think that I have done them and their cause more harm than they which have seemed more fierce against them? The obvious fact is that the vital differences between the religious theory of Laud and that of the Roman Church, patent to either party and too great to allow the possibility of a union, were ignored by the Puritans in their zeal against the Laudian movement, which they either did not care to