2. William of Jumièges (l. v. c. 14, Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._, p. 255) tells the story more briefly, but to exactly the same effect. He mentions however only _one_ king: he supplies the name of the “other man” who held Melun--viz. Burchard: he clearly implies that “Odo” is Odo II. of Blois (of whose doings with Normandy he has just given an account in c. 12, _ib._ p. 254); and, of course, he gives the “pirates” their proper name of Normans, and puts them under their proper leader, Duke Richard [the Good]. 3. Hugh of Fleury tells the same tale very concisely, but with all the names, and gives a date, a. 999 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. pp. 220, 221). (He is copied by the Chron. S. Petr. Senon., _ib._ p. 222.) 4. The _Abbreviato Gestorum Franciæ Regum_ tells the same, but gives no date beyond “eo tempore,” coming just after Hugh Capet’s death (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 227). 5. The _Vita Burchardi Comitis_ gives no dates, does not identify Odo, and does not mention the Normans, but makes Burchard himself the chief actor in the regaining of the place (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. pp. 354, 355. In p. 350, note _a_, the editor makes Burchard a son of Fulk the Good; but he gives no authority, and I can find none). 6. The Angevins have a version of their own. In the _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_, pp. 76, 77) the captor of Melun is “Herbert count of Troyes”; in Hugh of Clères (_ib._ p. 388) he has the same title but no name, and neither has the king, who in the _Gesta_ is called Robert. The victim is not named at all; but the hero who plays a part equivalent to that of the Normans in the other versions is Geoffrey Greygown.