Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/341

 1921 THE DATING OF THE EARLY PIPE ROLLS 333 omitted by Mr. Poole also, or if he had substituted for it the word between the two statements. The reader must not imagine that this is hypercritical : to insert here ' thirty-first ' before the word ' year ' involves the proposition that there was a sequence of fiscal as there was of regnal years. Indeed, on the preceding page (p. 153) Mr. Poole himself — when explaining the change of practice in the treatment of arrears after Richard's reign — observes that, under John, ' praeteritus annus was alone allowed, and the years before that were cited by the Exchequer [sic] years of the king '. Now Hunter, to whom he here refers us, observes (p. xi) that the formula in 3 John was ' hoc anno — preterito anno — anno primo — anno decimo — anno nono — the numerals plainly indicating the years of the reign of John and of his predecessor Richard '. Why then does Mr. Poole speak of ' the Exchequer years ' ? He himself, on the opposite page (p. 152), observes that ' the roll was always cited as the roll of a given year of the king's reign '. Regnal years are easy to date ; but how should we date ' Exchequer ' years — say, for instance, in the case he gives, * the first year ' of John, or ' the tenth year ' of Richard I (p. 153) ? Speaking of the famous passage with which the first book of the Dialogue opens, viz. ' Anno xxiii Regni Regis Henrici Secundi ', which he duly renders — ' In the twenty-third year of the reign of King Henry II ', Mr. Poole observes that ' This gives the year ending, according to the Exchequer rule, at Michaelmas 1177 ' (p. 8). Is this certain ? To me, at least, the author seems to be clearly speaking of the regnal year. This appears also to have been the view of Madox, 1 although I may be mistaken. But what of the words in my foot-note : ' in termino sancti Michaelis xxiii j anni regni sui ' ? This date is rendered by Mi*. Poole as * at Michaelmas 1178 ' ; but what the Dialogue says is, ' in Michaelmas term ' of the twenty-fourth year of the reign. If this was the regnal year (ending 1 8 December 1178), this term was in October-November 1178, but if the author meant the 1 Exchequer ' year (ending, says Mr. Poole, ' at Michaelmas '), the Michaelmas term of the twenty-fourth year would be in October- November 1177. This surely would overthrow the very important conclusion that * either the composition of the work was not finished until after that date, or else the passage is a later insertion ' (Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, p. 8). Probably Mr. Poole is right, but the point seems to me to be at least worth raising. J. H. Round. 1 'Testatur auctor se scribere incepisse anno Regis illius vigesimo tertio' (Disser • tatio Epistolaris [ed. 1711], p. vii). He also cites the Dialogued. 8): ' Praecepit namque Dominus Rex Henricus secundus in termino Sancti Michaelis xxiiij anni Regni sui ' (p. 25).
 * fiscal ' or ' exchequer ', there would not have been any difference