Notes and Queries, Number 39, July 27, 1850 | Page 9

"Et in festivitate Sancti Martini primitæ seminum ad ecclesiam, sub
cujus parochia quisque degit, quæ Anglice Cure scet nominatur."
J.B.
[If our correspondent refers to the glossary in the second vol. of Mr.
Thorpe's admirable edition of the _Anglo-Saxon Laws_, which he
edited for the Record Commission under the title of _Ancient Laws and
Institutes of England_, he will find s.v. "_Ciric-Sceat--Primitiæ
Seminum_ church-scot or shot, an ecclesiastical due payable on the day
of St. Martin, consisting chiefly of corn;" a satisfactory answer to his
Query, and a reference to this very passage from Canute.]
_Welsh Language._--Perhaps some of your correspondents would
favour me with a list of the best books treating on the Welsh literature
and language; specifying the best grammar and dictionary.

JARLTZBERG.
_Armenian Language._--This copious and widely-circulated language
is known to but few in this country. If this meets the eye of one who is
acquainted with it, will he kindly direct me whither I may find notices
of it and its literature? Father Aucher's _Grammar, Armenian and
English_ (Venice, 1819), is rather meagre in its details. I have heard it
stated, I know not on what authority, that Lord Byron composed the
English part of this grammar. This grammar contains the two
Apocryphal Epistles found in the Armenian Bible, of the Corinthians to
St. Paul, and St. Paul to the Corinthians. Like the Greek and German,
"the different modes of producing compound epithets and words are the
treasure and ornament of the Armenian language; a thousand varieties
of compounded words may be made in this tongue," p. 10. I believe we
have no other grammar of this language in English.
JARLTZBERG
* * * * *
REPLIES
A TREATISE ON EQUIVOCATION.
My attention has recently been drawn to the inquiry of J.M. (Vol. i., p.
260.) respecting the work bearing this name. He inquires, "Was the
book ever extant in MS. or print? What is its size, date, and extent?"
These questions may in part be answered by the following extracts
from Parsons's _Treatise tending to Mitigation_, 1607, to {137} which
J.M. refers as containing, "perhaps, all the substance of the Roman
equivocation," &c. It appears from these extracts that the treatise was
circulated in MS.; that it consisted of ten chapters, and was on eight or
nine sheets of paper. If Parsons' statements are true, he, who was then
at Douay, or elsewhere out of England, had not seen it till three years
after it was referred to publicly by Sir E. Coke, in 1604. Should the
description aid in discovering the tract in any library, it may in
answering J.M.'s second Query, "Is it now extant, and where?"

(Cap. i. § iii. p. 440.):--
"To hasten then to the matter, I am first to admonish the reader, that
whereas this minister doth take upon him to confute a certain
Catholicke manuscript Treatise, made in defence of Equivocation, and
intercepted (as it seemeth) by them, I could never yet come to the sight
therof, and therfore must admit," &c.
And (p 44):--
"This Catholicke Treatise, which I have hope to see ere it be long, and
if it come in time, I may chance by some appendix, to give you more
notice of the particulars."
In the conclusion (cap. xiii. §ix. p. 553.):--
"And now at this very instant having written hitherto, cometh to my
handes the Catholicke Treatise itselfe of Equivocation before
meneyoned," &c.... "Albeit the whole Treatise itselfe be not large, nor
conteyneth above 8 or 9 sheetes of written paper."
And (§ xi. p. 554.):--
"Of ten chapters he omitteth three without mention."
I.B.
* * * * *
FURTHER NOTES ON THE DERIVATION OF THE WORD
"NEWS."
I have too much respect for the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES"
to consider it necessary to point out seriatim the false conclusions
arrived at by MR. HICKSON, at page 81.
The origin of "news" may now be safely left to itself, one thing at least
being certain--that the original purpose of introducing the subject, that
of disproving its alleged derivation from the points of the compass, is

fully attained. No person has come forward to defend that derivation,
and therefore I hope that the credit of expunging such a fallacy from
books of reference will hereafter be due to "NOTES AND QUERIES".
I cannot avoid, however, calling Mr. Hickson's attention to one or two
of the most glaring of his _non-sequiturs_.
I quoted the Cardinal of York to show that in his day the word "newes"
was considered plural. MR. HICKSON quotes me to show that in the
present day it is used in the singular; therefore, he thinks that the
Cardinal of York was wrong: but he must pardon me if I still consider
the Cardinal an unexceptional authority as to the usage of his