[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.
[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.
[216]. The mutilation is only recorded by a late authority, the Winchester Annals.
[217]. Ordericus’ narrative at this point is not very clear, but this is probably his meaning.
[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.
[219]. “Desertores, vero, velut inertes, pavidosque et invalidos, si discedant, parvi pendit.”
[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.
[221]. Peterborough Chronicle, 1069.
[222]. William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, § 420.
[223]. Domesday Book, i., 346.