Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 5.djvu/278

 226

NOTES AND QUERIES, [io"> s. v. MARCH 21, im

and in old compounds, is therefore an archaic word not likely to occur in local names, except when they are compounded of personal names beginning with this word, such as Wil-friS, Wil-here, &c.

" The Wil of Wiltun is obviously some local name, as it occurs in Wil-ssete, Wil-ssetan, 'the people of Wiltshire. 3 It is most natural to identify Wil with the River Wiley, upon which Wilton stands, more especially as Asser states that Wilts derives its name from this river, which he gives in the Welsh form Guilou. This, as I have shown in my edition of this writer, descends from -an earlier Wilavia, from which, by O.E. develop- ments, Wil-ig arose.

"These pre-English river-names are usually un- inflected in O.E. Hence a compound of tun with this river-name should appear as Wilig-tun, just as the Tavy gives rise to Tsefig-stoc/now Tavistock. There is no reason in O.E. for the syncope of Wilig-tun to Wil-tun by the ninth century.

"It is noticeable that the suffix -ig was identical in form with the word for 'island,' 'watery ground,] i.e., Early West-Saxon leg, later fa, from an original aujo, Latinized as avia in Batavia, Sca(n)dinavia, O.E. Scet>enig. It almost looks as if, in the case of Wil-tun, Wil-ssete, the ig had been regarded as the O.E. word, and in consequence had been detached from the river-name.

"But if we embrace this explanation, we are met with the difficulty that the river is still known as the Wiley, not the Wil. Confusion with ' well ' is out of the question, for the ninth-century form of this word was wlclle, and its compositional form wldlan. Is Wilavia the lost name of the Avon, or is that recorded in the Sorbio of Sorbiodunum, as suggested by Bradley in your ' Furnivall Birthday Miscellany,' p. 15 ? "

J. K.

"BEWRAY." This word is used four times in the A.V. : three times in the Old Testa- ment, and once in the New. In the E.V. another expression is adopted in two of the former (both of which are in Proverbs) ; but " bewray " is retained in Isaiah xvi. 3 and in Matt. xxvi. 73.

I will consider the last case first. The Greek is 8yj\6v (re Trotet, and we cannot help thinking that the earliest English rendering is the best. Wycliffe has " makith thee knowen." Tyndale was the first to use " bewrayeth," which is practically followed in all subsequent versions, the Rheims having " doth bewray." The subject of the verb is, of course, " thy speech/' i.e., " pronunciation " or "accent."

Dr. Murray remarks that, when the word is used after the seventeenth century this is probably more or less consciously as an archaism, and that the modern equivalent is "expose." No doubt most people who read the above passage in St. Matthew think that the word is the same as "betray"; and indeed the sense is nearly the same there, though the words are different and of very different origin. The first syllable " be " is a mere prefix in both cases. The second in

" betray " is from the Latin tradere, to give or deliver up (the dere being, in fact, equiva- lent to dare, i.e., give), but in " bewray" (of which there is a Middle English form wreien) the second part is from the A.-S. wr^f/an, to accuse. Any doubt on this point is removed by PROF. SKEAT'S letter in 6 th S. vi. 110). It seems almost a pity that the Revisers did not substitute " maketh thee known " Wycliffe's form.

With regard to the Old Testament uses of the word, two places, as I have remarked, are in Proverbs, xxvii. 16 and xxix. 24. In the former a similitude is given to the practical impossibility of restraining either water- drops on a very rainy day or a contentious woman; and it is said (A.V.), "Whosoever hideth her hideth the wind, and the ointment of his right hand, which bewrayeth itself." Benisch has for the last clause, "and he calleth for the oil of his right hand." The simile is rather difficult to understand, and the Septuagint gives the expression another turn, meaning that the north wind, though rough, is called 7riSetos, i.e., propitious (suggesting the metaphorical sense of right hand). The Vulgate takes the literal form "et oleum dex terse suse vocabit." Our Revisers render this clause "his right hand encountereth oil," but with a marginal alternative (almost the same as the A.V.) " the ointment of his right hand bewrayeth itself," so that here we have "bewray" in the margin, though not in the text, the idea being supposed j to be the impossibility of concealing itself. But in Prov. xxix. 24 it is quite omitted. An associate of a thief is in the first clause said to hear " cursing " (A.V.),or rather "adjuration" (R.V.). The second clause in the A.V. is "and bewrayeth it not," but in the RV. "and uttereth nothing." Similarly, Benisch, I may remark, has " and telleth it not," and the verb " utter " or " tell " expresses the meaning better than " bewray " or its equivalent " expose."

The other place where " bewray " is used both in the Authorized and Revised Versions of the Old Testament is Is. xvi. 3. The former has "bewray not him that wandereth"; the latter, "bewray not the wanderer." Now here the original really signifies " betray " ; that word is used by Benisch and in the Douay version ; the Vulgate reads " et vagos ne prodas." It seems to me that it would have been better to omit the archaic " bewray " from the R.V. altogether.

W. T. LYNN.

Blackheath.

PERILS OF LITERATURE. The Spectator, noticing a contribution by Dr. Fitchett to