The whole story of Geoffrey Martel’s doings in Poitou--his wars and his marriage--is involved in the greatest perplexity. There is no lack of information, but it is a mass of contradictions. The only writer who professes to account for the origin of the war is the author of the _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_, p. 126), and his story, so far as it can apply to anything at all, certainly applies to the battle of Chef-Boutonne between Geoffrey the Bearded and William VII. (Guy-Geoffrey) in 1062. All other authorities are agreed that the battle was fought at S. Jouin-de-Marne, or Montcontour, on September 20, 1033, that William was captured and kept in prison three years, and that he died immediately after his release. As to the marriage of Geoffrey and Agnes, there is a question whether it took place before William’s capture or immediately after his death. 1. The Chronn. S. Albin. and S. Serg., a. 1032 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, pp. 23, 135) say positively that Geoffrey and Agnes were married on January 1 in that year. The Chron. S. Michael. in Per. Maris ad ann. also gives the date 1032 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 176). 2. Will. Poitiers and Will. Malm. say they married after William’s death. “Porro ipsius defuncti ... novercam ... thoro suo [Gaufridus] sociavit.” Will. Poitiers (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._), p. 182. “Tunc Martellus, ne quid deesset impudentiæ, novercam defuncti matrimonio sibi copulavit.” Will. Malm. _Gesta Reg._, l. iii. c. 231 (Hardy, p. 395). These five are the only writers who directly mention the marriage, except the Chron. S. Maxent. (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 392), which says under date 1037: “Per hæc tempora Gaufredus Martellus duxerat uxorem supradictam,” etc. “Per hæc tempora” with the chronicler of S. Maxentius is a phrase so frequent and so elastic that this passage cannot be used to support either of the above dates. There are therefore three witnesses for 1032, and two for 1036. The chroniclers of S. Aubin and S. Sergius are both Angevin witnesses, and both nearly contemporary; but the S. Sergian writer’s authority is damaged by his having confused the whole story, for he dates the capture of the duke of Aquitaine in 1028, thus evidently mistaking Agnes’s step-son for her husband. William of Poitiers is in some sense a Poitevin witness, and is also nearly contemporary. William of Malmesbury is further from the source, and in this passage seems to have been chiefly following his Poitevin namesake, but his whole treatment of the Angevin counts shews such clear signs of special study and understanding that he is entitled to be regarded as in some degree an independent authority.