Notes and Queries, Number 186, May 21, 1853 | Page 4

with an ominously
Irish-sounding name, is ignorant that the city of Cork is somewhat
more distant than eight miles from the urbs intacta, as Waterford loves
to call herself? The fact is, however, that Hoveden and his former
editors were nearly correct: on {496} old maps of the harbour of
Waterford, Crook Castle is laid down inside Creden Head, on the
Waterford side of the harbour; and Crook is still the name of a place at
the point indicated, somewhat more however than eight miles from
Waterford.
Again, at p. 351. occurs Hoveden's well-known and valuable
enumeration of the Irish episcopal sees at the same period, of which Mr.
Riley observes: "Nearly all these are mis-spelt ... they are in a state of
almost hopeless confusion." And then, to make confusion worse
confounded, his note on the Bishop of Ossory (p. 352.) says "In the text,
'Erupolensis' is perhaps a mistake for 'Ossoriensis.'" Now, Erupolensis
happens to be a correct alias of Ossoriensis: the former characterising

the diocese from Kilkenny, the cathedral city, which being seated on
the Nore, or Neor--Hibernicè Eoir, Latinè Erus, was sometimes called
Erupolis--the latter from the territory with which the see was and is
co-extensive, the ancient kingdom of Ossory.
How many more errors there may be in the first volume of the work, I
cannot say: but, at all events, what the reader has to complain of is, not
that the translator was unable to tell all about "Croch" and "Erupolis,"
but that, not knowing, he has made matters worse by his hardy
elucidations. Truly, at this rate, it were better that no cheap edition of
Hoveden were vouchsafed to the public.
JAMES GRAVES.
Kilkenny.
[Footnote 1: This geographical morceau was nearly equalled by a
scribe in the Illustrated London News, who stated that her Gracious
Majesty's steam-yacht, with its royal freight and attendant squadron,
when coasting round from Cork to Dublin in the year 1849, had entered
Tramore Bay, and thence steamed up to Passage in the Waterford
Harbour! A truly royal road to safety; and one that, did it exist, would
have saved many a gallant crew and ship, which have met their fate
within the landlocked, but ironbound and shelterless, jaws of Tramore
Bay.]
* * * * *
FOLK LORE.
Raven Superstition.--On a recent occasion, at an ordinary meeting of
the guardians of the poor, an application was made by the relieving
officer on behalf of a single woman residing in the church village at
Altarnun. The cause of seeking relief was stated to be "grief," and on
asking for an explanation, the officer stated that the applicant's inability
to work was owing to depressed spirits, produced by the flight of a
croaking raven over her dwelling on the morning of his visit to the
village. The pauper was by this circumstance, in connexion with its

well-known ominous character, actually frightened into a state of
wretched nervous depression, which induced physical want.
S. R. P.
African Folk Lore.--The following curious piece of folk lore is quoted
from an extract in The Critic (of April 1, 1853, p. 172.), in the course of
a review of Richardson's Narrative of a Mission to Central Africa, &c.:
"To avert the evil eye from the gardens, the people (of Mourzak) put up
the head of an ass, or some portion of the bones of that animal. The
same superstition prevails in all the oases that stud the north of Africa,
from Egypt to the Atlantic, but the people are unwilling to explain what
especial virtue there exists in an ass's skull."
W. SPARROW SIMPSON, B.A.
Funeral Custom.--In some parts (I believe) of Yorkshire, and perhaps
elsewhere, it is customary to send, immediately after a death, a paper
bag of biscuits, and a card with the name, &c. of the deceased, to his
friends, be they many or few. Can any of your readers explain the
matter? I have more than once seen the card, but not the biscuits.
ABHBA.
* * * * *
SHAKSPEARE READINGS, NO. VII.
"What are 'Aristotle's checks?'"
This is the question that MR. COLLIER proposed in support of the
alteration of checks into ethics, at p. 144. of his Notes and Emendations.
He terms checks "an absurd blunder," and in the preface he again
introduces it, passing upon it the same unqualified sentence of
excommunication, as upon "bosom multiplied," viz. "it can never be
repeated." In this opinion he is backed by most of the public scribes of
the day, especially by the critic of the Gentleman's Magazine for April,

who declares "we should be very sorry to have to discover what the
editors have understood by the checks of Aristotle." Furthermore, this
critic thinks that "it is extremely singular that the mistake should have
remained so long uncorrected;" and he intimates