Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/338

330 THE DATING OF THE EARLY PIPE ROLLS July There are, I would suggest, two causes to which it can be probably assigned : the one is the still persistent confusion between the regnal and the fiscal year ; the other, I venture to urge, is the unfortunate practice of assigning to the Pipe Rolls a double date. After a scrupulously careful examination of what Hunter has written, I have satisfied myself that he himself thoroughly understood the facts, but that he did not make his meaning sufficiently clear to others. This is more especially the case in the matter of the double date, and in that of confusion between the regnal and the fiscal year. There is, as I have already said, no introduction to the Pipe Roll of 1 Richard I as printed for the Record Commission, under his care, in 1844 ; but to the other volume of Pipe Rolls (2, 3, 4 Henry II), issued at the same time, he prefixed a brief preface. It is there that we find the dates which he definitely assigned to the rolls. The passage runs thus : There are in all four printed volumes of these Rolls ; one for each of the early reigns, viz. : Anno 31 Henrici I, a.d. 1130-1131. Annis 2, 3, 4 Henrici II, a.d. 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158. Anno 1 Ricardi I, a.d. 1189-1190. Anno 3 Iohannis, a.d. 1201-1202. These dates are reproduced on the respective title-pages and on the paper labels affixed to the backs of the volumes. The first point to be observed is that the second volume comprises only three regnal, but four calendar, years. This appears to me to be definitely out of harmony with Hunter's own system. I myself should date these rolls 1156, 1157, 1158 ; for they were certainly compiled at Michaelmas in each of these three years. As to the remaining three volumes, my criticism of the above dates is that they are those of the regnal years within which they were compiled. If this is made clear there need be no confusion ; but it is not surprising that, for those who have not mastered the system, the dates may seem to be those of the periods covered by the rolls in question. As a matter of fact, the three rolls were respectively compiled at Michaelmas 1130, 1189, and 1201. Hunter virtually combined in one what were two distinct propositions, namely, (1) that the rolls were cited as those of the regnal years he gives, (2) that these regnal years began and ended (at different dates) in those years. With regard to the practice of assigning to a Pipe Roll a double annual date, 1 I would strenuously urge that, as it was all com- 1 See, for instance, The Red Book of the Exchequer (ed. Hall), pp. 6-12, 16-134, 648-58 (Pipe Roll of 1 Hen. II), 658-92. These pages illustrate the use of double dates (in the margin). See also extracts from the rolls on pp. 768-9, where, however, the rendering of ' Anno Regis Henrici filii Regis Iohannis ij° ' as ' 1200-1 ' (instead of 1217-18) is, of course, merely a blunder.