_Queen Elizabeth's Translation of Boethius_ (Vol. ii., p. 56.).--One of JARLTZBERG'S inquiries is, "Has Queen Elizabeth's work (which she executed during her captivity before she ascended the throne) been printed?" Certainly not: if it had been, it would have been well known. May we venture to anticipate an affirmative reply to another parallel question--Does Queen Elizabeth's translation of _Boethius_ exist in manuscript? But where did JARLTZBERG learn that it was "executed during her captivity before she ascended the throne?" We know that she made such a translation when she was sixty years of age, that is, in October and November, 1593, (see Nichols's _Progresses, &c., of Queen Elizabeth_, vol. iii. p. 564., and the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for February last, p. 143.), and it is a very interesting proof of the continuance of her learned studies at that advanced period of her life; and, as the curious document which records this fact is unnoticed in the last edition of _Royal and Noble Authors_ by Mr. Park, it is probably a misapprehension that the same task had engaged some of the hours of her captivity; or rather is it not one of those dove-tailing conjectures in which some of our most popular lady-biographers have recently exhibited such extravagant and misplaced ingenuity? JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS. _Boethius' Consolations of Philosophy_ (Vol. ii., p. 56.).--JARLTZBERG is wrong in supposing that Richard Viscount Preston's translation appeared _first_ in 1712. I have now before me an edition in 8vo. "London: printed by J.D. for Awnsham and John Churchill, at the Black Swan, in Paternoster row; and Francis Hildyard, bookseller in York, MDCXCV." Horace Walpole, in his _Royal and Noble Authors_, states that the publication in 1712 was the "_second_ edition corrected;" and Mr. Park says in a note, that the first edition was in 1695, 8vo. C.H. COOPER Cambridge, June 24. 1850. * * * * * ETYMOLOGICAL QUERIES ANSWERED. J. MN. (Vol. ii., p. 153.) has propounded a dozen of most recondite and puzzling archaisms, upon which I have to offer a few notes. "_Rykelot_, a magpie?"--The popular and provincial names of animals deserve more careful notice than they have received from glossarists. I need scarcely observe how frequently personal names were derived from those of birds. In the {170} Hundred Rolls we find a "Richard Rikelot" in Huntingdonshire (vol. ii. p. 626.). I know not what has led to the supposition that this name denotes the magpie. It may possibly be traced to the same root as that of a cognate species, the _cornix frugivora; Roeck_, Germ., according to Gesner; Friesic, _roek_; Ang.-S. _hroc_, the rook: but I am at a loss to discover anything similar in old French to explain the occurrence of the termination, which seems to be a popular or familiar diminutive, a Gallicism, analogous to _partlot_.