The fullest account of this Melun affair is in Richer, l. iv. cc. 74–78. Briefly, it comes to this: Odo (described simply by his name, without title of any kind) “rerum suarum augmentum querebat,” and especially the castle of Melun, partly for the convenience of getting troops across the Seine, and partly because it had formerly belonged to his grandfather and was now in the hands, not of the king, but of “another” (not named). He managed to corrupt the officer in command and to obtain possession of the place. As soon as the kings (reges) heard of it, they gathered their forces to besiege him there: “et quia castrum circumfluente Sequanâ ambiebatur, ipsi in litore primo castra disponunt; in ulteriore, accitas piratarum acies ordinant.” These “pirates” furnished a fleet which blockaded the place, and finally discovered a secret entrance whereby they got into the town, surprised the castle, and compelled it to surrender to the king (regi).
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.
The main question is the date. One authority—Hugh of Fleury—gives it distinctly as 999. Will. Jumièges clearly identifies the Odo in question as Odo II. Now Odo II. was not count till 1004; but his father died in 995, so William may have given him the title by anticipation at any time after that date. The Abbr. Gest. Franc. Reg. would seem to place it thereabouts, as its note of time is “eo tempore” in reference to Hugh Capet’s death (which occurred in October 996). On the other hand, Richer speaks of “the kings” in the plural; from which Kalckstein, Waitz and Luchaire (Hist. des Institutions monarchiques de la France, vol. ii. p. 7, note 1) conclude that it is Odo I. who is concerned, and they date the affair 991. Why they fix upon this year, in defiance of both William of Jumièges and Hugh of Fleury, I cannot see. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (Comtes de Champagne, vol. i. p. 196) adopts Hugh’s date, 999. Is it not possible, however, from a comparison of the other authorities, that the right year is 996, just before Hugh’s death, or even that he died while the siege was in progress? for it is to be noticed that Richer mentions only one king at the surrender. Richer has made such a confusion about these Odos and their doings that it is hardly fair to set him up as an infallible authority on the subject against such writers as Hugh of Fleury and William of Jumièges. Anyhow, the Angevin story cannot stand against any of them.