Chapter XI
.
Footnote 193:
The fullest list of names is given by Orderic, ii., 167.
Footnote 194:
William of Poitiers, 155.
Footnote 195:
Ordericus Vitalis, ii., 170.
Footnote 196:
Simeon of Durham, under the year 1072. He asserts that Oswulf himself slew Copsige in the door of the church.
Footnote 197:
Simeon of Durham, under 1070.
Footnote 198:
Florence of Worcester, 1067.
Footnote 199:
Ordericus Vitalis, ii., 173.
Footnote 200:
The fullest account of the affair at Dover is given by Orderic (ii., 172–5), who expands the slighter narrative of William of Poitiers.
Footnote 201:
Ordericus Vitalis, ii., 178.
Footnote 202:
Ordericus Vitalis., ii., 179.
Footnote 203:
“Ad Danos, vel alio, unde auxilium aliquod speratur, legatos missitant.”—William of Poitiers, 157.
Footnote 204:
The story of the revolt of Exeter is critically discussed by Round, _Feudal England_, 431–455.
Footnote 205:
_Worcester Chronicle_, 1067; Florence of Worcester, 1068; William of Malmesbury, _Gesta Regum_, ii., 312.
Footnote 206:
The source of our information is an original charter granted by William to the church of St. Martin’s le Grand on May 11th.—E. H. R. xii., 109.
Footnote 207:
Ordericus Vitalis, ii., 183.
Footnote 208:
The rising of Edwin and Morcar is not mentioned by the English authorities, which are only concerned with the movements of Edgar and his companions. Florence of Worcester says that the latter fled the court through the fear of imprisonment. They had given no known cause of offence since their original submission, but it is probable that they would have been kept in close restraint if they had been in the king’s power when the northern revolt broke out and that they fled to avoid this.
Footnote 209:
Ordericus Vitalis, ii., 184.
Footnote 210:
Ordericus Vitalis, ii., 185.
Footnote 211:
Simeon of Durham, 1069.
Footnote 212:
Ordericus Vitalis, ii., 188. From his statement that Earl William beat the rebels “in a certain valley,” it is evident that the military operations were not confined to the city of York.
Footnote 213:
Ordericus Vitalis, ii., 189.
Footnote 214:
For the events of 1069 Orderic is almost the sole authority, and his narrative is not always easy to follow. On the other hand he is doubtless in great part following the contemporary William of Poitiers, and his tale is quite consistent with itself if due allowance is made for its geographical confusion.
Footnote 215:
The exact scene of Waltheof’s exploit is uncertain. Orderic implies that the entire Norman garrison in York perished in the unsuccessful sally. Florence of Worcester states that the castles were taken by storm. The latter is certainly the more probable, and agrees better with the tradition, preserved by William of Malmesbury, of the slaughter at the gate. The gate in question, on this reading of the story, will belong to one of the castles; it cannot well be taken to be one of the gates of the town.
Footnote 216:
The mutilation is only recorded by a late authority, the Winchester _Annals_.
Footnote 217:
Ordericus’ narrative at this point is not very clear, but this is probably his meaning.
Footnote 218:
By Ordericus William is made to return to York through Hexham (“Hangustaldam revertabatur a Tesca”). This being impossible it is generally assumed that Helmsley (Hamilac in D. B.) should be read for Hexham, in which case William would probably cross the Cleveland hills by way of Bilsdale.
Footnote 219:
“Desertores, vero, velut inertes, pavidosque et invalidos, si discedant, parvi pendit.”
Footnote 220:
Chester castle was planted within arrow shot of the landing stage on the right bank of the Dee, and also commanded the bridge which carried the road from the Cheshire plain to the North Wales coast.
Footnote 221:
_Peterborough Chronicle_, 1069.
Footnote 222:
William of Malmesbury, _Gesta Pontificum_, § 420.
Footnote 223:
Domesday Book, i., 346.
Footnote 224:
_Peterborough Chronicle_, 1070.
Footnote 225:
The passages which follow are founded on the narrative of Hugh “Candidus,” a monk of Peterborough, who in the reign of Henry II. wrote an account of the possessions of the abbey, and inserts a long passage descriptive of the events of 1070. The beginning of his narrative agrees closely with the contemporary account in the _Peterborough Chronicle_, but his tale of the doings of the Danes in Ely after the sack of Peterborough is independent, and bears every mark of truth. Wherever it is possible to test Hugh’s work, in regard to other matters, its accuracy is confirmed. See _Feudal England_, 163, V.C.H. Notts, i., 222. Hugh’s _Chronicle_ has not been printed since its edition by Sparke in the seventeenth century.
Footnote 226:
Ordericus Vitalis, ii., 216. The death of Edwin formed the conclusion of the narrative of William of Poitiers as Orderic possessed it.
Footnote 227:
Florence of Worcester, 1070.
Footnote 228:
_Historia Eliensis_, 240.
Footnote 229:
Ordericus Vitalis, ii., 216.
Footnote 230:
Florence of Worcester, 1071.
Footnote 231:
_Historia Eliensis_, 245.
Footnote 232:
See “Ely and her Despoilers,” in _Feudal England_, 459.
Footnote 233:
Gaimar, _L’estoire des Engles_, R. S.
Footnote 234:
_Gesta Herewardi_, R. S.
##