have to complain. The kingdom of Cork
_never_ "extended to within a short distance of Waterford;" and the
territory of Desmond was _never_ co-extensive with Cork, having been always
confined to the county of Kerry. MR. RILEY, therefore, is in error when he
uses "Cork" and "Desmond" as synonymous. Again, he falls into the same
mistake by assuming "Crook, Hook Point, or The Crook," to be synonyms. I
never heard that Henry II. landed at Hook Point, which is in the county of
Wexford, and from which a land journey to Waterford would be very
circuitous. At Crook, however, on the opposite side of Waterford Harbour,
and within the shelter of Creden Head, he is said to have done so; and as
that point answers pretty exactly to the _Crock_ of Hoveden, why assume
some indefinite point of the "Kingdom of Cork" as the locality, even
supposing that its boundary _did_ approach Waterford city? Really MR.
RILEY's explanations but make matters worse.

With regard to "Erupolensis" being an _alias_ of Ossoriensis, I may quote
the authority of the learned De Burgo, who, speaking of the diocese of
Ossory, observes:

"Quandoque tamen nuncupata erat _Eyrupolensis_ ab _Eyro_ Flumine, vulgo
_Neoro_, quod _Kilkenniam_ alluit."--_Hibernia Dominicana_, p. 205.
note _i_.

I maintain that the reading public has just cause to complain, not (as I
said on a former occasion) because the editor of such a book as Hoveden's
_Annals_ does not know everything necessary to elucidate his author, but
because baseless conjectures are put forward as elucidations of the text.

JAMES GRAVES.

Kilkenny.

* * * * *

COLERIDGE'S CHRISTABEL.

(Vol. vii., pp. 206. 292.)

It is difficult to believe that the third part of _Christabel_, published
in Blackwood for June, 1819, vol. v. p. 286., could have either "perplexed
the public," or "pleased Coleridge." In the first place, it was avowedly
written by "Morgan Odoherty;" and in the next, it is too palpable a parody
to have pleased the original author, who could hardly have been satisfied
with the raving rhapsodies put into his mouth, or with the treatment of his
innocent and virtuous heroine. This will readily be supposed when it is
known that the Lady Geraldine is made out to have been a man in woman's
attire, and that "the mark of Christabel's shame, the seal of her sorrow,"
is neither more nor less than the natural consequence of her having shared
her chamber with such