2»* a NO 70^ Mat 2. '67.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



353 



posed to have put forth his Canterbury Tdles^ 

 were priors bearing the name of Jolin. Each of 

 these, then, or at any rate one of them, mijjht be 

 known by the name of John Dover =^Jacke of 

 Dover. » 



I ana not sufficiently familiar with the archaeo- 

 logy of that famous town, to connect with it, by 

 direct evidence, the early importation of saltfish. 

 But we may reasonably conjecture that Dover 

 would at an early perio I become one considerable 

 port of entry for such ling, stockfish, and " Poor 

 John," as came from abroad, and would in that 

 character be well known. Dover, as it appears 

 from the " Charter of the Cinque-Ports," was un- 

 questionably a port of entry for foreign wines ; 

 and, however its traffic was occasionally suspended 

 by encroachments of the sea, is shown by Hasted 

 to have generally maintained, after the decline of 

 Rutupium, the character of a "noted haven." 

 "Poor John," then, would find a berth there 

 amongst other imports ; and, being there, might, 

 from the local coincidence already mentioned, 

 very naturally come to be called " Jacke ofDoverT 



And even if it cannot be proved by direct evi- 

 dence that Dover was a medlasval mart of saltfish, 

 at any rate we have it on record that hake (pro- 

 bably dried hake) was commonly sold in the 

 market of another of the Cinque-Ports not far off, 

 and was there the subject of a fiscal regulation. 



The old English term corresponding to hake or 

 merlucius was melvel, melwel, or mulvel. Now in 

 my grandfather's Collections for an History of 

 Sandwich, under the head of Maltota or cess, we 

 find the following (p. 556.) : 



"De mulvel de salmon et de makerel vendu ) .. ,„ 

 delalb. J 'J"* 



"The coke," then, is facetiously charged by 

 " Our Hoste " with selling " Poor John " that had 

 twice been dressed ; — i. e. so poor that no one 

 would eat it. 



The passage in Chaucer being so obscure that 

 commentaries and glossaries have been compelled 

 to leave it, I trust that the learned readers of 

 " N. & Q," will accept with indulgence the above 

 conjectural explanation. Thomas Boys. 



OLD PEAYER-BOOK. 



(2"'i S. iii. 187. 232.) 



I have been much interested by the Query of 

 "J. B." (p. 187.), and by the Reply of " W. T." 

 (p. 232.) ; would they kindly inform me whether 

 their copies have (after the Daily Psalms) a col- 

 lection of " Godly Prayers ? " I have two old 

 Prayer-Books, (1) with the Petition in the Litany 

 as quoted by "J. B.," and like his and "W. T.'s," 

 wanting the title-page; it is bound up with a Latin 

 Bible, O. T., wanting title-page, N. T., and Apo- 



crypha, 1543, Tiguri, Bought for 5s. 6d. I should 

 mention that this book has the "Psalmes" of 

 Sternhold and Hopkins, "with apt notes," &c., 

 1632. (2.) is a Prayer-Book (1660) with Latin 

 Bible (1656), and Sternhold and Hopkins's 

 " Psalms " (1660). I merely mention this as it 

 contains also the " Godly Prayers," before ad- 

 verted to. Hence two Queries : 



Who was the author of these Prayers ? 



By what authority are they appended to Books 

 of Common Prayer of about the date 1660? 



It is an odd coincidence that my Prayer-Book 

 (1) and those of " J. B." and " W. T." should 

 want the title-page. I am tempted to trespass on 

 your space, by asking why is it we so frequently 

 have to deplore a missing title-page ? I should be 

 sorry to make an unfounded charge, and may only 

 hint that the title-pages of old books frequently 

 have " pretty pictures ; " who shall then save them 

 from the hands of those, to whom the rest of the 

 book is as nothing ? J. B. Wilkinson. 



Weston Market Rectory. 



W. T.'s inference that "the date of J. B.'s old 

 Prayer-Book lies between 1631 and Oct. 15. 1633, 

 the date of the birth of James II.," because 

 the latter is not named in the Litany, is not con- 

 clusive. I also have a similar Prayer-Book, and, 

 like W. T.'s, prefixed to a Genevan or Breeches 

 Bible. My book has the title-page and date thus : 



"London: Printed by Robert Barker, Printer to the 

 King's most Excellent Majestie : and by the Assignes of 

 John Bill. 1636." 



The Petition in the Litany is in behalf of " Our 

 Gracious Queene Mary, Prince Charles, with the 

 rest of the Royall Progenie." So here is no men- 

 tion of James, though three years old, nor indeed 

 of the other members of the royal family, named 

 in the copies of J. B. and W. T. W. W. S. 



Your correspondent J. B. wishes to know the 

 value and date of an imperfect copy of a Prayer- 

 Book of the time of Charles I. in his possession, 

 containing in the Litany prayers for Queen Mary, 

 the Elector Palatine, &c. Of the value of this 

 book I know nothing, but I have a perfect copy 

 in folio, with the same prayers, " Imprinted in 

 London by Bonham Norton and John Bill, 

 Printers to the King's most excellent Majesty. 

 Anno Dom. 1625." 



It is bound in the most expensive manner, in 

 red Morocco, with two stamps of the royal arms, 

 four inches square, and initials " C. R.," rich 

 edgings and corners within them, so as to leave 

 little space of plain surface, but that which is left, 

 impressed with stars, gilt in the same way as 

 the rest of the ornamentation. The book has 

 been either private property of the king, or at 



