Having thus treated of the alterations the Irish have made in their surnames, or family names, for the purpose of making them appear English, I shall next proceed to point out the changes which they have likewise made in their Christian or baptism names, for the same purpose. Many of their original names they have altogether rejected, as not immediately reducible to any modern English forms; but others they have retained, though they have altered them in such a manner as to make them appear English. The writer could furnish from the authentic Irish annals and pedigrees a long list of proper names of men which were in use in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and which have been for a long time laid aside; but the limits of this Journal would not afford room for such a list: he must therefore content himself by pointing out the original forms of such names as have been retained in an anglicised shape. These changes in the Christian names have been made, not only by those families who have adopted English surnames, but also by those who have retained the Milesian O’s and Macs; but these families have assumed that the English forms which they have given this class of names are perfectly correct. This was assumed to be true so early as the year 1689, in which we find Sir Richard Cox writing on the subject as follows:-- “The Christian names of the Irish are as in England; Aodh _i. e._ Hugh, Mahoone _i. e._ Matthew, Teige _i. e._ Timothy, Dermond _i. e._ Jeremy, Cnogher _i. e._ Cornelius, Cormac _i. e._ Charles, Art _i. e._ Arthur, Donal _i. e._ Daniel, Goron _i. e._ Jeofry, Magheesh _i. e._ Moses.” Now, I absolutely deny that these names are identical, though I acknowledge that they are at present universally received and used as such. In the first place, the name _Aodh_, which has been metamorphosed to Hugh, is not synonymous with it, for the name Aodh signifies _fire_, but _Hugh_, which has been borrowed from the Saxon, signifies _high_ or _lofty_. Since, then, they bear not the same meaning, and are not made up of the same letters, in what, may it be asked, does their identity consist? It is quite obvious that they have nothing in common with each other. In the second place, Mahon, or, as Sir Richard Cox writes it, Mahoone, is not Matthew; for if we believe Spenser and some Irish glossographists, Mahon signifies a _bear_; and if they be correct, it cannot be identical, synonymous, or cognate with the Scriptural name Matthew, which does not signify a _bear_, but a _gift_, or a _present_. In the third instance, the Irish name Teige, which according to all the Irish glossaries signifies _a poet_, is not synonymous with Timothy, which means _the God-fearing_, and therefore is not identical or cognate with it; and I therefore doubt that the Irish people have any right to change Teige into Timothy. It was first anglicised Thady, and the writer is acquainted with individuals who have rendered it Thaddæus, Theophilus, and Theodosius.