382 [9th S. IV. Nov. 4,' NOTES AND QUERIES. THE PLACE-NAME OXFORD. (9th S. iii. 44, 309, 389 ; iv. 70, 130.) In my former note I showed that the river Ock was called Eocce, and that there was a ford over it at Abingdon, and I there maintained that Eoccenford, whence the boundaries of Abingdon commence, was this ford over the Ock. The evidence of the boundaries adduced by me supported this conclusion. Mr. Shore, on the other hand, holds that Eoccenford is "the earliest form of the name of Oxford "(which is recorded in O.K. asOxna- ford), although there was no Eocce there. This latter was undoubtedly the name of a river, but Mr. Shore does not hesitate to identify it with Oseney (O.E. Osan-ig), an island, as its name implies. To do this he has to take an oblique form of the name; but even this Eoccen will not explain Oseney. The etymologies here involved only need stating to any one with a scientific knowledge of English philology to ensure their instantane- ous rejection. The assumption that Eocce has produced Ox- and Osen-, within half a mile of one another, at Oxford and Oseney, ought to be difficult for the philological lay- man to swallow. Scholars will need no further evidence than this. But the notion that Oxford—a name that is perfectly in consonance with the O.E. system of local names, and a name for which many parallels could be adduced—does not mean "ford of oxen" seems to exercise such an attraction for unscientific etymologists that it is desirable to examine Mr. Shore's reply. He claims that I have not refuted his evidence, but have " raised side issues from other and later boundaries which it is not necessary to discuss -that is, 1 have cited the Abingdon boundaries of Eadwig's charter of 950 by the side of those ascribed to Cead- wealla in Eadred's charter of 955. Mr. Shore attempts to escape from the conclusive evidence derived from the 956 set by arguing at length that the boundaries would have changed in the 270 years that had elapsed between Ueadwealla's death and that date. But no lapse of time could reverse the direction taken by the perambulation. A comparison of the portion of the two sets that concern us will show that if the later set pro- ceed southwards, as they clearly do, so also must the earlier one. Thus neither of them could ever reach Oxford or Oseney:— Eadred, 955. hiweg Ecguues wyrfi Buccal] lean Eadwig, 956. hiweg Ecgunes wyrfi Bacgan lean Bacgan broc Bacgan broc Heafoces ora Hafoces ora Teiiies Temes Ocoenes grestun die Oct enes gajrstun die. Both sets of boundaries arc preserved in early thirteenth-century MSS., and for philo- logical purposes that is the only date that can be cited. No scribe of this period ever copied an older piece of English without modernizing some of the forms. We have good proof of this in the present case in the Occenex of the last line. This can only be twelfth or thirteenth century English, for river names were fem. in O.E., and the real gen. of tins name was in O.E. Eoccan. Mr. Shore, however, persists in referring the 955 boundaries to the time of Ceadwealla. lie says that they are " recited after what looks like an insyexinius of his grant or charter, which, or a copy of which, must have been in existence, so far as the boundaries are concerned, in Eadred's time. Otherwise how could he have known them ? This recited copy of Cead- walla's grant contains internal evidence that it is older than Eadred's time, and also internal evidence that it is no forgery." Let us examine these bold assertions. In the first place, inspeximus charters were not used by the English kings until about three centuries after Eadred's time. Secondly, the obvious answer to the naive question is that we have no proof that Eadred did know these Ceadwealla boundaries, and, if the chatter were genuine, they might very well be the boundaries (committed to writing for the first time in 955) of the lands that were alleged to have been bestowed upon the abbey by Cead- wealla The early part of the Abingdon history, apart from its late date, contains so many lying statements that a judicious his- torian would not accept without question its claim that Ceadwealla was the founder. The abbey was refounded in the time of Eadred, on tlie site of an older " monasteriolum," as we know on the unimpeachable authority of the great /Elfric* Although this older estab- lishment possessed forty hides of land, it seems to have been devoid of monks.t The
- ' Vita .^Ethelwoldi, ap. Chron. Mon. de Abing.,'
ii. 257. The foundation of the abbey is ascribed to Ceadwealla in the charter of Edgar in 959 (' C. S.,' iii. 254) and of .^thelred in 993 (' C. U.,' iii. 268). The former is a spurious adaptation of the latter, which in its turn is not of unquestioned authenticity. From this one may see how little credence can be given to any charter in the Abingdon chartulary. t ' Vita /Ethelwoldi,' ii. 258; definitely Btated in the ' Historia,' i. 120.
