[355] The statement in _Gesta Ricardi_ (_Gesta Hen. et Ric._, ii.), 71, that he met the funeral procession on the way and accompanied it “flens et ejulans” is at variance with a better authority for the details of the burial—the _Hist. G. le Mar._—and is improbable for geographical reasons. [356] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9294-8. [357] Disfigured, “sicut perhibent qui presentes fuerunt et viderunt,” by a bleeding from the nostrils which began as soon as Richard entered the church and ceased only when he went out again; Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 28. [358] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9299-303. [359] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 28. [360] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9304-41. [361] Gilbert Pipard, a well-known officer of the Exchequer; _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9347-51. [362] The _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9350-1, says Richard bade the envoys themselves “Si pernez garde de ma terre E de trestot mon autre afaire”; but the English chroniclers know nothing of this, and one of them distinctly asserts that Eleanor was made regent: “Alienor regina ... statuendi quae vellet in regno potestatem accepit a filio. Datum siquidem est in mandatis regni principibus et quasi sub edicto generali statutum ut ad reginae nutum omnia disponerentur.” R. Diceto, ii. 66. (This passage is immediately followed by the one about “aquila rupti fœderis.”) Cf. _Gesta_, 74. [363] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9361-408. Châteauroux, it will be remembered, had been in Philip’s hands since June 1187. [364] His very identity is a puzzle; under Henry II we read of Stephen de Matha, Stephen de Marzay, Stephen of Turnham, and Stephen “de Turonis,” all bearing the title of “Seneschal of Anjou,” and it is doubtful whether or not all these names represent the same man. In the passage now before us the _Gesta_ (71) call him “de Turonis,” but it is clear from other evidence that this means Turnham, not Tours. The _Gesta_ continue (71, 72): “Et uxorem filii praedicti Stephani propter ignobilitatem mariti ab ipso separari fecit [rex] et alii marito dari; minans se hujusmodi nobilium puellarum vel viduarum cum ignobilibus contubernia sua auctoritate secundum leges separare.” Is it possible that Stephen’s crime consisted in having contrived or connived at a ceremony of marriage, without licence from the Crown, between his son and some royal ward who had been committed to his custody? Such a marriage, if merely formal and if the parties were under age, might be voidable by a sentence of the king. According to R. Devizes, 6, 7 (ed. Stevenson), Richard brought Stephen over with him, in chains, to England, and kept him in prison at Winchester till he redeemed himself by a heavy fine. This fine may have been either for the misdemeanour which I have suggested, or in remission of a vow of Crusade—which vow, however, Stephen fulfilled after all. [365] _Gesta_, 72. [366] Gerv. Cant., i. 451. [367] R. Diceto, ii. 66, 67. [368] _Gesta_, 73; R. Diceto, ii. 67.