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
