In the translation of this Volume, a few errors have come under my observation, to which I beg to call Mr. R.'s attention: 1. In his note on Corumphira's prophecy, at p. 36., he seems to forget that the Mahometan year differs from the Julian by eleven or twelve days, and that in consequence A. D. 1186 does not correspond to A. H. 564; in fact, the old astrologer is perfectly correct in his chronology, more so than in his predictions, many of which were signally falsified in the course of the next few years. 2. A mountain frequently mentioned by his author as projecting into the sea at the boundary of Catalonia and Valencia, and called "Muncian," he says in a note at p. 151. is "probably Montserrat," which is far from either the sea or the frontier; the maps of Spain all show, near the town of Vinaros on the east coast, a hill on the sea-shore called "Monte Sia," which still, as then, forms the boundary in that direction between the two provinces. 3. In his note at p. 156. on "Mount Gebel," the translator says, "he (the author) probably means Stromboli;" surely the name of Mongibello, and the mention of Catania a few lines farther down should have shown him that Etna only could be meant, although part of the mistake is due to Hoveden himself, who talks of it as a separate island from Sicily. Mr. Riley's other geographical notes are generally { 638} correct, though a little more pains might have greatly increased their number, to the elucidation of his author's account of the Crusaders' proceedings in the East. 4. At p. 249. a well-known passage from Horace is ascribed to Juvenal.
[Footnote 1: The text in the _Scriptores post Bedam_ reads:--"Eodam anno die S. Stephani protomartyris _infra_ natale Domini."]
There is an error in the heading of one of the architectural notes appended to the _Proceedings of the Arch. Inst._ held at York in 1846. From the description which is given (p. 38.), it is plain that the above church is the one to which the note refers; not that of St. Mary's, which is the title of the article.
The material of the whole church is not, also, "brick with stone dressings," as the note informs us, only the chancel, south porch, and south transept; all the rest is of stone, and in a very sad state of repair. A few years ago, the south transept was restored; but the ornamental part was worked in such bad stone, that the crockets of the pinnacles have already begun to moulder away. It is a curious fact, that Bishop Lyttleton, who visited Hull in 1756 for the express purpose of "examining the walls of the town, and the materials of which the Holy Trinity Church is constructed," should have stated in the _Archæologia_ (vol. i. p. 146.) that there did not appear to be "_a single brick_ in or about the whole fabric, except a few in the south porch, placed there of late years."