Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 6.djvu/325

 9* s. VL OCT. e, i9oo.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 267 flooded nowadays. They are both uncom- monly rare. But I think it should be noted that the editor of the Cavaliers' book goes a little too far in calling his literary find "unique" and unknown. The fact is, it is one of a series of special forms of prayers and thanksgivings issued from time to time during the Civil War by royal command. This series is well known to most liturgical students, and, in addition to the copies at the British Museum and the Bodleian, there are no doubt several others in public and private collections. The one just republished in facsimile is the last of the series ; there is a fine original copy in Thomason's collection at the British Museum. Some of the petitions and thanksgivings in this facsimile nad been printed and reprinted several times — at Oxford twice in 1643, and at Exeter again in 1645. But the main object of this note is to point out the author or composer of this military vade mecum. He seems to be quite unknown to the present editor of the reprint; nor does the'Diet. Nat. Biog.' refer to it under the author's life. The book was mainly, if not entirely, due to the pen of Bishop Duppa. who was at one time tutor to his Royal Highness young Prince Charles. The authority for this is a good one; it is Bishop Barlow's statement in the Bodleian copy of the "Two Prayers : one for the safety of his Majesty's person ; the other for the preserva- tion of the University of Oxford. Oxford, 1644" (one of the series of spe-:ial forms of prayer referred to above). Bishop Barlow's MS. note is to the effect that the two prayers " were penn'd by Bp. Duppa, as were all y° other Forms of Prayer since y' King came to Oxon." The reviewer compares these prayers to a " counterblast" to the little Puritan books of which 'The Souldiers Catechisme' is such a curious example. They are hardly in the same category, but both alike are appeals to the " God of Battles." Whether Cavalier or Puritan in tendency, they are of special interest just now. Their rarity_ is undoubted ; unless they were put both in facsimile few would ever see them. Only two copies of 'The Souldiers Cate- chisme' were known when it was reissued ; a third has been discovered lately. NE QUID NIMIS. ENGLISH ACCENT v. ETYMOLOGY. — It is always well to build upon correct prin- ciples, and for this reason I beg leave to draw attention to a statement in ' N. & Q.,' ante, p. 193, in which a correspondent "protests against dem'onstrate as hideous, cutting off as it does a letter from the root and adding it to the prefix." Whether dem'onstrate is pideous or not I do not pause to consider, being only concerned with the other part of the statement, which seems to imply that English words are divided into syllables in accordance with etymology. The contrary is notoriously the case. Words are divided into syllables for convenience of pronunciation, and the etymology has little to do with it. If we happen to know it (and very often we dp not) we may choose to pay some respect to it; but the true rule for all practical men is to pronounce the word in the most convenient manner. A large number of words are, from a merely etymological point of view, divided in a way that would be wholly indefensible. But phonology has no respect for etymology, and it would puzzle any one to divide the word custom so as to preserve the Latin con-, or the word spend so as to preserve the prefix dit-, or (if you prefer it) the prefix ex-. I give examples. The words ab-stain, ab-scond, ab-stemious, do not involve the prefix ab-, but the prefix abs-. Such words as a-buse, a-bundance,a-dapt, a-noint,a-nomaly, a-pocrypha, a-postasy, as-bestos, as-ymptote, av-enue, give no sort of clue to the forms of the prefixes, but rather wholly disguise them. In fact, accent not merely disregards prefixes, but actually cuts up the very roots of language, giving us such astound- ing forms as ca-pable from cap-ere, do-mestic from dom-us, and a large number of other words of a like character. Whatever theory be adopted, the fact remains that modern English syllabic division pays but small regard to etymology. WALTER W. SKEAT. WK must request correspondents desiring infor- mation on t.Linilv matters of only private interest to affix their names and addresses to their queries, in order that the answers maybe addressed to them direct. DAVENANT'S ESSAYS.—Can any reader in- form me whether a second part was ever published of Charles Davenant's 'Essays ipon Peace at Home and War Abroad,' 1704 ? The title-page says "in two parts," but in British Museum only part i. is present. Watt says two parts, 1701-4, but I have never come across a copy of the second part. £. S. BIRD. Manchester.
 * he copy before me and also in that in the