Student: Zlatibor Dogandi, Index No.

140/10

Class: Anglo-American civilisation

Bayeux Tapestry
Introduction
We are all familiar with Norman conquest of England and battle of Hastings which occurred in 1066. But, have we ever wondered how that information came to us? By which means? While the average English person would claim to know quite a lot about 1066, their knowledge is not often based on actual historical fact. The source of most of their information about those events is the Bayeux Tapestry. But, this tapestry is not just a dead depiction - it's alive with controversy and myth, providing us with a classic example of the old saying that history is written by the victors, in this case, Normans. The tapestry is probably the most important pictorial image of the 11th century. A work of enormous skill, it has priceless value as a piece of art in itself, and it is also an important source - a vital piece of historical evidence - for a key moment in Britain's national past. This does not, however, mean that its version of events is an entirely accurate one.

About the tapestry

The tapestry was commissioned by William the Conqueror's half-brother, Bishop Odo of Bayeux, depicting the events surrounding the conquest. It details events leading up to the invasion and shows the key aspects of the conquest itself, not least the Battle of Hastings. The tapestry actually is not a tapestry. It is embroidery of eight coloured wools, worked into pieces of linen. It is divided into a series of connected panels approximately half a metre wide and 70 metres long. The exact length of the original tapestry is unknown as the final panel is incomplete. The length of the tapestry fits well around the nave of Bayeux Cathedral, suggesting that it was custom built for the church, which also fits with the fact that Odo was the Bishop of Bayeux. The Bayeux tapestry is embroidered using two methods of stitching: outline or stem stitch for lettering and the outlines of figures, and couching or laid work for filling in figures. Eight different colours were used in the making of the Bayeux Tapestry: dark blue, blue-green, grey-blue, light green, dark green, tan, yellow-beige, yellow. 'Tituli', or captions, are included on many scenes to point out names of people and places or to explain briefly the event being depicted. The text is in Latin but at times the style of words and spelling shows an English influence. There are two probable places where it is most likely to have been made. The first is Winchester which was renowned for its needlework. Winchester was an important city at the time of the Norman invasion with a newly enlarged royal residence and the royal treasury was also based at Winchester. The second is Canterbury, famous for its cathedral and it was also known to have a famous school of tapestry which used a style of work very similar to that found on the Bayeux tapestry; though some French historians maintain it was made in Normandy. Even the name is disagreed over, depending on which country you are in: to the French it is La Tapisserie de la reine Mathilde, or Queen Matilda's Tapestry (Matilda was the Conqueror's wife). What can be said with certainty and on which both sides agree is that the nuns of noble backgrounds spent much of their time on embroidery menial tasks in the convent were given to lower class women. It is highly probable that these talented nuns, from various convents made the Bayeux tapestry. The plans, designs and scenes for the Bayeux Tapestry would have first been approved by Bishop Odo. The Bayeux Tapestry was first shown at the dedication of Odo's cathedral on July 14, 1077. Considering that battle of Hastings was 1066, this gives a period of ten years during which time the Bayeux tapestry was made.

The story
The pictures of the tapestry tell the story of the adventures of Duke Harold Godwinson, brother-in-law of King Edward the Confessor, who was shipwrecked in Ponthieu in 1064. Following his rescue by William, Duke of Normandy, and Harold is shown swearing to support William in his quest to succeed Edward the Confessor as King of England - a promise which he was later to break. We then see Harold returning to England and being acclaimed as king after Edward's death. The tapestry approaches this piece of history from the Norman perspective, attempting to justify the invasion launched by William to claim what he believed was rightfully his. The image of Harold that the tapestry projects, is one of a double-dealer who broke a sacred promise to William. But the oath sworn by Harold to William is reported in only one other source - William of Poitiers' 'Deeds of Duke William', another Norman account, written some ten years after the conquest. The Norman version clearly needed this event to have happened - but a historian cannot be sure whether it did, or did not, take place. Next we see William's preparations for the invasion of England and the decisive Battle of Hastings. One of the most striking images is the one that depicts the slaying of Harold with an arrow through his eye. That Harold died in this way is a fact 'known' to almost every English schoolchild. But is it true? The inscription here reads 'hic harold rex interfectus est', with the name 'harold' written above a warrior with an arrow in his eye. But the words 'interfectus est' (has been killed) appear to refer to a second warrior being hacked down by a mounted Norman swordsman. The tapestry is our only source on this point, so we cannot know which of the two figures was meant to be King Harold. Let me just say that this tapestry can serve as some kind of window on the past; as well as being a source for political events, it is also a source for cultural history because it is a record of the way 11th-century people reflected on their world. It reveals something of how people represented themselves to each other. By show-casing the art and skill of designers and embroiderers, it tells us what early medieval people were capable of in their workshops. We can also see a little of how people lived. It demonstrates the style of castles at the time - they were originally built as wooden stockades placed atop artificial mounds. We gain a view of the interior of famous places such as Edward the Confessor's palace at Westminster or William of Normandy's court at Rouen. There are banquets, troop actions, and battle scenes.

Mysteries
The tapestry contains several mysteries:

1) Missing panels At least two panels of the tapestry are missing, perhaps even another 6.4 m worth. This missing area would probably include Williams coronation. A reconstruction of the missing panels - which show Duke William accepting the surrender of London and his coronation as King of England - was made by artist Jan Messent.

2) Harolds death

The identity of Harold II of England in the vignette depicting his death is disputed. Some recent historians disagree with the traditional view that Harold II is the figure struck in the eye with an arrow. The view that it is Harold is supported by the fact that the words Harold Rex (King Harold) appear right above the figure's head. However, the arrow is a later addition following a period of repair. Evidence of this can be found in a comparison with engravings of the tapestry in 1729 by Bernard de Montfaucon, in which the arrow is absent. However, needle holes in the linen suggest that there had been something previously in this place: though possibly a lance. A figure is slain with a sword in the subsequent plate and the phrase above the figure refers to Harold's death (Interfectus est, "has been killed"). This would appear to be more consistent with the labelling used elsewhere in the work. It was common medieval iconography that a perjurer was to die with a weapon through the eye. So, the tapestry might be said to emphasize William's rightful claim to the throne by depicting Harold as an oath breaker. Whether he actually died in this way remains a mystery and is much debated. 3) Ubi unus clericus et lfgyva

There is a panel with what appears to be a clergyman touching or possibly striking a woman's face. No one knows the meaning of the caption above this scene (ubi unus clericus et lfgyva, "where [or in which/during which] a certain cleric and lfgifu" a Latinised version of a popular Anglo-Saxon woman's name. The elided AE shows familiarity with English spelling. There are two naked male figures in the border below this figure; the one directly below the figure is squatting and displaying prominent genitalia, a scene that was frequently censored in former reproductions. Historians speculate that it may represent a well known scandal of the day that needed no explanation. However, similar naked figures appear elsewhere in the lower border where there seems to be no connection at all with the main action.

Interesting facts
1) Only three women are shown on the main narrative of the Tapestry. The women depicted are believed to be Edith, the wife of Edward the Confessor and sister of King Harold. A Fleeing woman is shown either trapped inside, or fleeing from, a burning building at Hastings. And a woman referred to as 'The Mysterious Lady' who has been referred to as Aelfgyva, which was a common Saxon name of the era. 2) The upper and lower borders of the Bayeux tapestry are filled with mythological figures, lions, dragons, farming and hunting, and scenes from Aesops fables. The Aesop fables on the borders of the Bayeux tapestry have been identified as The fox and the crow, The wolf and the lamb, The wolf and the crane, The wolf and the kid. The significance of the scenes has been debated and there are views that believe the themes of deceit, and unlawful possessions in the fables have been used as a vehicle by the English embroiders to express their dissent and horror of the Norman invasion of Britain. 3) In numbers, pictures in the scenes depict: 623 people 202 horses 55 dogs 506 other birds and animals (some mythical) 49 trees 41 ships 37 buildings 57 Latin inscriptions containing nearly 2000 letters

Further destiny of the Bayeux Tapestry

The tapestry has survived through time by a combination of luck and good judgement. Indeed, its own history tells us much about France at various times. It is assumed that it was displayed in Bayeux for around 700 years after its completion, but it was put at risk at various points. It was nearly used as a tarpaulin to cover ammunition during the French Revolution and was moved around a lot during this time of ceaseless fighting. It became a subject of much interest to 19th-century scholars and in 1818 an English draughtsman spent two years inspecting and cataloguing the work of art. This detailed examination included listing every pin-hole, and resulted in a plan for restoration which was completed in Bayeux in 1842. It had been kept on scrolls for many years and 4

after it was restored the tapestry was displayed under glass. When the Franco-Prussian War broke out in 1870, it was moved again and, later, it was spirited away during the Nazi invasion to prevent it being sent to Berlin like so much other foreign art. The tapestry is now exhibited at Muse de la Tapisserie de Bayeux in Bayeux, Normandy. Because it resembles a movie storyboard and is widely recognised and, by modern standards at least, so distinctive in its artistic style, the Bayeux Tapestry has been used in a variety of different popular culture contexts. The tapestry has inspired later embroidery and artwork, particularly those involving invasions (such as the Overlord embroidery now at Portsmouth). It was also redone on the 15 July 1944 cover of the New Yorker magazine to commemorate D-Day. A number of films have used sections of the tapestry in their opening credits or closing titles. For those who are interested for complete Bayeux Tapestry, you can download panoramic picture of it from following link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Tapisserie_de_Bayeux_311 09.jpg/795px-Tapisserie_de_Bayeux_31109.jpg We have seen from this examination of the Bayeux Tapestry how problematic sources can be. History is often like this. What evidence of the past we have, has survived by chance or because it is valued and kept for all sorts of non-historical reasons. Sometimes historians simply don't have enough evidence to be certain about what happened, and must fall back on educated guesswork. Even so, to be good history, whatever account they come up with must fit with what evidence there is.