Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 5.djvu/530

 518

NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. v. JUXE so, im

evidence of Nature is against me," and caps this by remarking, in answer to my descrip- tion of this Geafling lacu = forked-shaped channel as an imaginary feature in the boundaries, that "Nature makes no mistakes"! The pomposity of these invocations becomes the more amusing when it is known that it is Only by a comparatively recent arrange- ment that the boundary of Berkshire follows the delta of the Cherwell. The old line ran through the middle of Christ Church Meadow, the portion nearest the river, formerly known as Stockwell Meadow, being until the four- teenth century the property of Abingdon equally with the islands in the delta of the Cherwell. Moreover, the boundaries do not mention two islands in the delta; The de- scription is "forth with the stream (of the Thames) above Micclan-ig (i.e.j the great island) to the Cherwell, then below Ber-ig to the Thames." The latter was between Iffley and the Thames, and was a meadow, not an island, except in time of flood (' Hist. Mon. de Abend.,' i. 89), a description that shows that it cannot be identified with either of the islands at the mouth of the Cherwell. Further, as it is mentioned as impinging upon the meadows of Bay worth ('Cart. Sax.,' iii. 108, 6), it would seem to have been south of Ifney. Nor is it easy to believe that Aston's Eyot, the larger of the Cherwell islands, could have been called the Great Isle when there are facing it on the other side of the Thames two islands considerably larger. The identification of Geafling lacu with the delta of the Cherwell is equally impossible. The boundaries mention six features, including a valley (denu\ an impossibility in such swampy ground as that about the delta, between the Cearewylle and Geafling lacu. It is unlikely that all these features can have been packed into the delta, whilst " physical geology " shows that it is impossible that the Thames could be twice mentioned between the Cher- well and the delta of the latter. Another feature between the Cearewylle and Geafling lacu is Bacgan broc, which, as I have already shown on the evidence of another Abingdon charter, flowed by the edge of Bagley Wood, which is on the Berkshire side and to the south of the Cherwell. It is therefore clear that the Geafling lacu was not the delta of the Cherwell. but was some considerable distance to the south. It follows that the boundaries come back to the neighbourhood of Kennington and proceed southwards from there. This, as MR. SHORE admits, " touches a vital part of his argument." It destroys whatever life it ever possessed. To strengthen the proof I quoted the 956

charter ('Cart. Sax.,' iii. 96), which differs from the one that MR. SHORE has so sadly misunderstood by including Bayworth and omitting Kennington. It mentions several features that occur in the Kennington boundaries (' Cart. Sax.,' iii. 161), to which I referred in my first note. After vainly trying to escape from the evidence of the 956 charter oh the specious ground that it was cen- turies later than his imaginary Ceadwealla boundaries, and was not concerned with the issues, MR. SHORE now quotes these Kenning- ton boundaries, in which the features in question are named in reverse order, to dis- prove my contention that the 956 set proceed south from Kennington. From his iubilation over my discomfiture about these bounds it would seem that this is one of the most "stubborn" of all his facts. He states that " there is no escape from [his] conclusion that the Kennington boundaries proceed south- wards, and the 956 ones, consequently, north- wards," for "Kennington and Sandford are known places, which have had a definite and known place for nearly a thousand years." The impasse in which MR. SHORE has landed rne has no existence. It depends solely upon the convenient but unconvincing statement that " the Kennington boundaries, from geo- graphical considerations, must go south- wards," and upon the identification of the Stanford of the boundaries with Sandford, a village on the Oxfordshire bank. It is un- likely that the former name should become corrupted to Sandford, and as it is mentioned in the boundaries of Hinksey (' Cart. Sax.,' iii. 201), it must obviously have been north of Kennington. Moreover, it is evident from the passages in which it occurs (ibid., iii. 68, 17; 161, 9; 201, 16) that it was not on the Thames, so that it cannot possibly be identical with the ford from which Sandford derives its name. Finally, we have evidence that the latter was on the Oxfordshire brook that flows into the Thames through Sandford ('Cod. Dipl.,' iv. 124, 16 : 134, 23). With this disappears the whole of MR. SHORE'S case, and the field is left open for the obvious sug- gestion that the Kennington boundaries start from the bank of the Thames to the south of the village, turn inland, and then proceed northvyards. This is clearly what they do, mentioning features that occur in Bayworth (ibid., iii. 107), and proceeding by the edge (efic) of Bagley Wood to Sceaceling acer and Stanford on the north. On the return south they mention last of all Hyrdig, which Prof. Earle has identified with Herd Eyot below Sandford. The boundaries therefore start from the bank of the Thames below