Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/339

 1921 THE DATING OF THE EARLY PIPE ROLLS 331 piled at one and the same time, viz. Michaelmas, every year, it should be known as of that date, and of that date only. That this would greatly simplify matters and avoid the risk of miscon- ception there can be no question. If the purist should object that this was not the official system of citing the rolls at the time, it is surely sufficient to reply that Stubbs himself regularly cited the famous roll of 1130 as of one date only. 1 More recently, Miss Norgate, when dealing with John's Pipe Rolls, has spoken, most accurately, of ' the treasury roll of 1201 ' (3 John), ' the Pipe Roll made up at Michaelmas 1199 '. 2 Nevertheless, Sir James Ramsay, who has made finance his special study, in his history of the period 3 — and who has examined the rolls for him- self — sometimes adopts the double, and sometimes the single, date. 4 It is of importance to observe that the (printed) * Pipe Roll 3 John ', which he has so largely used, is dated by Sir James '1201-1202' (p. 506); for the true date at which it was compiled is Michaelmas 1201, and the period with which it deals is that of the preceding twelvemonth. It is obvious that Sir James derived the date '1201-1202' from those which Hunter, as I have shown above, assigned to the printed rolls. To clinch the matter, we find Sir James, when dealing with the ' Revenues of Henry II, from the Pipe Rolls ' (p. 254), citing the roll of * 35 Henry II and 1 Rich. I (1188-1189)', and appending a foot-note that 'Mr. Hunter gives the year as 1189-1190, a clear error'. This is decisive proof of my contention above that, although Hunter had grasped the facts, he expressed them so awkwardly as to mis- lead his readers. Even, we see, an expert on the subject, such as Sir James Ramsay, took him to mean that the dates he gave (1189-1190 and 1201-1202) were those of the rolls themselves. There is but one writer more whose conclusions have to be considered. On all matters involving chronological knowledge one turns, of course, to the writings of Mr. R. L. Poole. His Ford lectures on ' The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century ' (1911) were delivered several years later than the works I have dealt with above, and the passage I quoted from them at the outset is invaluable for the student. Its clearness and its precision are the very qualities required for the right treatment of the subject. 1 I have noted that in vol. i (ed. 1873) he dates it in at least nine places as of 31 Henry I and in at least eight as of 1130. 2 John Lackland (1902), pp. 122-3. 3 The Angevin Empire (1903), pp. 10, 13, 20, 73-4, 251-4, 271-3, 336, 369-73 390, 504-6. 4 One has to examine the volume oneself, for the index is insufficient. As to the Pipe Rolls of Richard's reign, we read (p. 369) of ' the first year (1189) ', but of ' the year of Richard's accession (1188-1189) ' on p. 370. Again, on p. 505 we find the Pipe Roll of 'the ninth year of John (1207-8),' although the year dealt with by that roll ended at Michaelmas 1207. On p. 371 we read of the Pipe Roll 'for the financial year ending at Michaelmas 1193 (5 Rich. I) ', which is strictly correct. But why do we read of 'the 5th year (1159) ' on p. 252, and of ' 5th year (1158-1159) ' on p. 254 ?