Our only detailed account of the early Angevins, down to Geoffrey Greygown, is contained in two books: the _Gesta Consulum Andegavensium_, by John, monk of Marmoutier, and the _Historia Comitum Andegavensium_, which goes under the name of Thomas Pactius, prior of Loches. Both these works were written in the latter part of the twelfth century; and they may be practically regarded as one, for the latter is in reality only an abridgement of the former, with a few slight variations. The _Gesta Consulum_ is avowedly a piece of patchwork. The author in his “Proœmium” tells us that it is founded on the work of a certain Abbot Odo which had been recast by Thomas Pactius, prior of Loches, and to which he himself, John of Marmoutier, had made further additions from sundry other sources which he enumerates (Marchegay, _Comtes d’Anjou_, p. 353. This “Proœmium” is there printed at the head of the _Historia Abbreviata_ instead of the _Gesta Consulum_, to which, however, it really belongs; see M. Mabille’s introduction, _ib._ p. xxxi.). The _Historia Comitum Andegavensium_ (_ib._ p. 320) bears the name of Thomas of Loches, and thus professes to be the earlier version on which John worked. But it is now known that the work of Thomas, which still exists in MS., is totally distinct from that published under his name (see M. Mabille’s introduction to _Comtes d’Anjou_, pp. xviii., xix.), and, moreover, that the printed _Historia Comitum_ is really a copy of a series of extracts from Ralf de Diceto’s _Abbreviationes Chronicorum_--extracts which Ralf himself had taken from the _Gesta Consulum_ (see Bishop Stubbs’ preface to R. Diceto, vol. ii. pp. xxiii.–xxix). There is, however, one other source of information about the early Angevins which, if its author was really what he professed to be, is of somewhat earlier date and far higher value, although of very small extent. This is the fragment of the _Angevin History_ which goes under the name of Count Fulk Rechin. Its authorship has been questioned, but it has never been disproved; and one thing at least is certain--the writer, whoever he may have been, had some notion of historical and chronological possibilities, whereas John of Marmoutier had none. Fulk Rechin (as we must for the present call him, without stopping to decide whether he has a right to the name) gives a negative testimony against all John’s stories about the earlier members of the Angevin house. He pointedly states that he knows nothing about the first three counts (Marchegay, _Comtes_, p. 376), and he makes no mention of anybody before Ingelger. Now, supposing he really was Count Fulk IV. of Anjou, it is fairly safe to assume that if anything had been known about his own forefathers he would have been more likely to know it than a monk who wrote nearly a hundred years later. On the other hand, if he was a twelfth-century forger, such a daring avowal of ignorance, put into the mouth of such a personage,