[396] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 12585–662. The writer appears to date this affair in autumn 1202; and the _Itinerary_, a. 4, shows that John did in fact go from Alençon to Le Mans on October 29, 1202. But the rest of the story is irreconcileable with John’s subsequent movements. The only documentary evidence which I have found as to the date of Count Robert’s treason is unluckily not decisive; it is a charter of John, given “apud Beccum, xx die Aprilis anno regni nostri quarto, quo comes Robertus Sagiensis fecit nobis proditionem apud Alenconem” (Round, _Cal. Doc. France_, vol. i. p. 131). John in the fourth year of his reign made three visits to Alençon besides the one already mentioned; viz. one on December 7, 1202, and two in January 1203. The first of these two January visits is probably the one recorded by the Marshal’s biographer. John was at Alençon January 15–19, at Le Mans January 21–23, and at Alençon again January 25 (_Itin._ a. 4). The Marshal’s biographer indeed asserts that the king on his return from Le Mans “Ne s’en vint pas par Alençon; N’i passast unques sanz tençon Anceis qu’il venist en sa terre; Aileors ala passage quere; Par Mamerz et par Belesmeis S’en vint en sa terre li reis” (vv. 12657–62). It seems, however, possible to reconcile this with the dates as given in the _Itinerary_ by supposing that, as he had an escort of “granz gens e rotiers,” he may have ventured close up to Alençon, perhaps with an idea of surprising it, but turned away again immediately. The _Itinerary_ shows him at Séez on January 25–28, at Argentan on 28–30, and at Falaise 30–31. [397] R. Coggeshall, pp. 139–41. [398] _Itin._ a. 4. [399] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 170. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 143. [400] _Ann. Margan._ a. 1204; the annalist, however, clearly meant to date the event 1203. On the value of his authority see Bémont, _Revue historique_, vol. xxxii. (1886), p. 59. [401] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. vi. vv. 552–66. [402] See _Revue historique_, vol. xxxii. pp. 33–72 and 291–311. M. Bémont’s conclusion on this point, though disputed by M. P. Guilhiermoz in _Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes_, vol. lx. (1899), pp. 45–85, still holds the field. Cf. _Revue hist._ vol. lxxi. (1899), pp. 33–41, and _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, vol. lx. pp. 363–72. [403] Delisle, _Catal. des Actes de Phil.-Aug._ No. 783. According to R. Coggeshall, pp. 144, 145, Philip virtually declared himself still ignorant on the point six months later still.