13 
to the author of the “Arboretum et Fruticetum Britannicum.” It 
i8 quoted in every description of the tree, but I must be excused 
for repeating it, as there are one or two points in it on which I 
wisli to touch. 
“ Of the ago of this remarkable tree,” he says, “ I regret to be 
unable to give any correct data. It is said to have been called the 
‘Old Oak’ in the time of William the Conqueror, but upon what 
authority I could never learn. Nevertheless, the thing is not 
impossible, if the speculations of certain writers on the age of trees 
be at all correct. Mr. South, in one of his letters to the Bath 
Society, (vol. x) calculates that an oak tree 47 feet in circumference 
cannot be less than 1500 years old, and Mr. Marsham calculates 
the Bentley oak, from its girthing, (34 feet) to be the same age. 
Now, an inscription on a brass plate affixed to the Winfarthing 
oak, gives us the following as its dimensions — ‘ This oak in cir- 
cumference at the extremities of the roots is 70 feet: in the 
middle, 40 feet, 1820.’ Now I see no reason, if the size of the 
rind is to be any criterion of age, why the Winfarthing oak should 
not at least equal the Bentley oak ; and if so, it would be upwards 
of 700 years old at the Conquest, an age which might well justify 
its then title of the ‘ Old Oak.’ It is now a mere shell, a mighty 
ruin, bleached to a snowy white, but it is magnificent in its decay, 
and I do wonder much that Mr. Strutt should have omitted it, in 
his otherwise satisfactory list of ‘Tree Worthies.’ The only mark 
of vitality it exhibits is on the south side, where a narrow strip of 
bark sends forth a few branches, shown in the drawing, which 
even now occasionally produce acorns. It is said to be very much 
altered of late, but I ow T n I did not think so when I saw it about 
a month ago, (May, 1836,) and my acquaintance with the veteran 
is of more than 40 years’ standing, an important portion of my 
life, but a mere span of his own.” (Gardeners’ Mag., vol xii, 
p. 586.) 
Now, this is a very valuable letter, as it gives us good ground 
for concluding that the health and vigour of our old friend have 
undergone no perceptible deterioration in 78 years ; for the author, 
writing in 1836, states that ho had known the oak for more than 
40 years, which carries us back to 1796, and we ourselves can 
testify this day that his condition is at least as good as in 1836, 
when “ its only mark of vitality ” is said to consist “ of a narrow 
