The boundary clauses of Anglo-Saxon charters are not constructed with set formulas, as to some extent the Latin texts are, and the grammar and syntax of Old English are less rigid than those of Latin. This makes it virtually impossible to offer comprehensive guide-lines for the editing of bounds.
The Committee has decided that systematic capitalization of proper names will render boundary clauses more intelligible. It is easier to illustrate the intended practice than to lay down rules for it. Thus, in the boundary clause of S 624 (used as an exemplum in Annex 1) Bremre has been given a capital because it is a river-name (it survived as Bramber until c. 1600); Cumb hæma ge mæro, Den tunninga gemære, Suntinga ge mære and Bidelinga ge mære, meaning 'boundary of the people of Combes / Dankton / Sompting / Bidlington', are adjacent land-units, so their names qualify for capitals; the names of the woodland pastures also qualify, though not all of them have survived on the modern map. The only item not capitalized in this set of bounds is deopan riþe, a boundary-mark which is not known to have become a place-name. The use of such boundary-marks, as opposed to delimitation by reference to neighbouring land-units, is very much commoner in areas other than south-east England, so most edited boundary clauses will require less capitalization than this example.
Apart from this, the only generally applicable principle is that emendation should be kept to the necessary minimum. That is to say, word-division in texts preserved on single sheets should be respected, and emendation restricted to what is required to make sense of the text; but in the case of texts preserved in cartulary copies, it may well be desirable to normalize word-division, etc., in accordance with the editor's editorial judgement. Bear in mind that it will never be possible to say whether (e.g.) in to or into would have seemed more correct to the composer of a clause. Nor is there any way of knowing what would have seemed correct to him in the way of punctuation marks.
Editors of large cartularies, such as those from Winchester, Abingdon and Worcester, will become familiar with the practice of particular scribes, and will be able to correct consistent errors of transcription from Old English originals and widespread confusion of Old English letters. Apart from this, the only standards generally applicable are those provided by the existence of more than one copy of the same boundary clause, or by the occurrence of the same boundary-marks in surveys of adjacent estates, or by repetition of boundary-marks within the same survey. In such circumstances it will sometimes be possible to replace a garbled phrase with something better.
Emendation of spelling or of grammatical endings should probably only be attempted when there is another copy of the text which gives authority for it. Non-conformity to classical Old English standards may reflect regional forms which are of considerable interest, and most apparent irregularities should be faithfully reproduced in the edition.
Successful editing depends on understanding the boundary clause, and this can be a very trBAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD