1921 THE DATING OF THE EARLY PIPE ROLLS 333 omitted by Mr. Poole also, or if he had substituted for it the word
- fiscal ' or ' exchequer ', there would not have been any difference
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).
