(Vol. vii., p. 579.)
MR. RILEY mistakes my purpose if he thinks that my object was to make a
personal attack on him; and for anything in my last communication which may
have appeared to possess that tendency, I hereby freely express my regret.
Still I cannot allow that he has explained away the mistakes of which I
complained, and of which I still 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.