1921 THE DATING OF THE EARLY PIPE ROLLS 323 is that, in spite of a charter granted 26 November 1 189, the bishop is fined for exercising a right confirmed to him by that charter. 1 When, however, we correct the date (here assigned to the Pipe Roll) to Michaelmas 1 1 89, we see that the bishop must, in any case, have been fined before, not after, the charter of 26 November 1189. The whole point of the comment, therefore, disappears. Turning now from official publications to the works of eminent scholars, we find that even Stapleton, in his well-known volumes on the Rolls of the Norman Exchequer, has erred, with serious effect, on the dates of the English Pipe Rolls in the reign of Richard I. His first volume was issued in 1840, and his second in 1844, so that he was only acquainted with Mr. Hunter's notable introduction to the Pipe Roll of 1130 (31 Henry I), which had been published by the Record Commission in 1833, from which, we shall find, he cites. He could not use the printed roll of 1 Richard I, for this was only issued, like his own second volume, in 1844. 2 This, however, was of no consequence ; for it did not contain any introduction to justify the date assigned to it. For the purpose of this inquiry the index is of no use ; one has to search the author's ' observations ' for instances in point. In the second volume, for example, we read (p. lxxvii) that ' Robert de Ros . . . had livery of his land in England 2 Ric. I (1191) ' ; that in Yorkshire ' 2 Ric. I (1191) ' two men ' were tenants of lands ' (p. clxxxv) ; and, finally (p. cxxxviii) that ' in 2 Ric. I (1191) William le Mareschal gave a fine of 2,000 marks to the king for a moiety of the lands of Walter Giffard '. 3 In all these cases the Pipe Roll is wrongly dated, precisely as is the roll of 1 Richard I (1189), when it is assigned to the year 1190. My reason for observing that Stapleton ' erred with serious effect ' was that he has here misled no less distinguished a scholar than M. Paul Meyer. In his masterly edition of L'Histoire de Guillawne le Mareclml 4 that famous medieval scholar followed Stapleton with regard to the marshal's marriage to Isabel, daughter and heir of Richard (son of Gilbert), earl of Pembroke, 5 who died in 1176. Stapleton, as I have shown above, stated that ' in 2 Ric. I (1191) William le Mareschal gave a fine of 2,000 marks to the king for a moiety of the lands of Walter Giffard' (n.cxxxviii- 1 As a matter of fact, even if the dates in this comment were correct, the bishop might be thus fined for hunting between the end of September and 26 November 1189; for these two months would be within the fiscal year accounted for at Michaelmas 1190. 2 Stapleton's preface to this volume is dated January 1844. 3 Owing to the same erroneous reckoning we read of '3 Ric. I (1192)' (p. cxvii); of ' 6 Ric. I (1195) ' (p. lxxvi) ; and, finally, of an account 'in England 8 Ric. I (1197) ' (p. Ixxxi). * Issued by the Societe de l'Histoire de France, 1901. 5 Op. tit. in. lviiin., 100 n., 121 n. Y2
