230ft long & 20" high
& in eight discernable colours of worsted yarn, as many as
623 humans
202 horses
55
dogs
49 trees
41 ships
Over 500 mythical and non mythical
creatures such as birds and dragons are woven
into the tapestry to portray the Norman conquest.
Another clue to its
English origin is its similarity to Anglo Saxon manuscripts produced around
this time. Yet another indication is the translation of names into Latin which
could only have originated from the Anglo Saxon spelling.
Dating of the Tapestry. Though the 'officially' accepted date is 1077, the
evidence supports a very early date for the Tapestry, predating
the rebellions in Yorkshire in the early
1070s (maybe ANY of the revolts, starting with Eustace in 1067?) but before
odo's 1077 cathedral dedication? The Tapestry went the rounds: being
put on display mostly to VIP’s in the
capital parts of the realm to tell the Norman "spin" on recent
events.
On D-Day, to avoid the
Tapestry being damaged during the inevitable conflict, it was secretly moved to
the Louvre in Paris Germany , the Tapestry was displayed again in Paris Bayeux
Suppression of Harold's title. Once the
"harrying of the north" (1069-70)had become history, William could
not have put up with any further references to his predecessor as
"king" Harold. It is king Harold and notearl Harold
(or simply Harold) who is slain. Yet a mere twenty years later the Domesday
surveyors never refer to him by his royal title. In the interim William had
ruled a sullen and frequently rebellious people with an iron hand.
Any mentioning of Harold as having once been a
legal king was anything but helpful to William's problems with getting his
subjects to accept Norman lordship. And so Harold's royal title was expunged
from all subsequent official records. Eustace of Boulogne rebelled late in 1067
and was in disfavour until the late 70s. Why would his name figure so
prominently in the Tapestry if he was in fact out of favour at the time? There
is serious doubt that Eustace of Boulogne is meant to be the man pointing to
the duke and carrying the banner of Rome
Once the Tapestry was finished and presented to Odo
(or whoever), he was probably upset by some of the more glaring faults but let
it stand. If time was critical - as it would be with a need for effective
propaganda - the Tapestry would have been bundled off to do its work in the
Anglo-Norman realm: educating the masses in the official story.
An accurate (factual) account of the battle of Hastings and events leading up to it was not the main
purpose of the Tapestry; but an acceptable, reasonable story of why the English
world had changed was necessary to help legitimize the Norman position in England
As long as the propaganda did its work well, and
the English knuckled under the new regime, there was no problem with allowing
that Harold had in fact been "king" for a short while: God had made
his judgment in favor of the Normans Normandy
Assuming Bishop Odo commissioned and
oversaw the tapestry, it was probably designed and constructed in England by Anglo-Saxon seamstresses
given that: Odo's main power base was in Kent ,
the Latin text contains hints of Anglo Saxon, other embroideries originate from
England
Assuming this was the case, the actual
physical work of stitching was most likely undertaken by skilled English
seamstresses- the best in Europe then- probably nuns
from St. Augustine's, Canterbury,
as Odo was earl of Kent(maybe some were
grieving 1066- (widows embroidering in covert anti-Norman messages- or were
they given orders to do so?).
The actual detail cannot always be
taken literally- oddities such as bowstrings passing behind the archer's
shoulder.
Other Embroideries..and English
needleworkers.
The first mention of embroidery in Anglo-Saxon England refers to St. Etheldreda, abbess of Ely
(died in 679), to St Cuthbert Maniple
and Stole. This set of vestments were made in the style known as Opus Anglicanum.
There are many references to embroidery in literature and also to those who
produced it. English noblewomen excelled at this.
Even Queen Mathilda- William’s wife- possessed and
admired English needlework, and in her will she bequeathed two exquisite
designs of English needlework to her favoured church
of Holy Trinity in Caen
In the 10th C, there is reference to St. Dunstan
working on designs for Queen Edith, wife of Edward the Confessor-
she herself was supposed to have been excellent at needlework.
There is also Queen Margaret of Scotland, wife of Malcolm III, who decorated copes, chasubles, stoles and altar cloths.
Wall hangings which commemorated Anglo-Saxon heroism
on the field of battle were certainly not unknown.
The lost work presented to the church at Ely by Aelflaed
in memory of her late husband's heroic death at Maldon in 991 is evidence of
this.
There are examples from the 9th and 10th Centuries- often interlaced with gold
thread and studded with expensive jewels.
These include the Maaseik Embroidery, a
ninth century vestment associated with Saints Harlinde and Renlindis and a
maniple, stole and girdle from the grave of St Cuthbert in Durham Cathederal
(dated by inscription to between 909-916) which was possibly visited by King
Athelstan in 934 during his rapid march to Scotland.
In the Domesday Book (1086), English needleworkers
were still esteemed for their art and in possession of land. One, Aeflgyd, held
land at Oakley in Bucks “which Godric the
sheriff granted her…on condition of her teaching his daughter gold embroidery
work”. Another, Leofgyd, held a moderate estate at Knook in Wiltshire,
because she “made and makes the gold
fringe of the king and queen”.
Gifts of
textiles to the Church formed an important part of
late Anglo-Saxon society. Vestments, made up of many
marks worth of gold, were given to various religious
communities during this period.
These vestments often the most
valuable items in the treasuries of the communities- and after 1066 the Normans often purloined them and sent them home to Normandy
Because of the intrinsic worth of these items (a cope and two chasubles burnt in the
14th century recoverd over two hundred and fifty pounds worth of gold),
many were destroyed to recover the gold. This explains why so few of these
items survive, despite their acknowledged beauty.
Tampering? At some
point before the rediscovery of the BT in the 18thC, a semicircular tear in the
border of part of the Tapestry obliterated most of Eustace's name. The tear is
large and seems deliberately centred around
his name. Was this censorship?
The first person in modern times to analyse the BT,
from 1816-18, English artist Charles
Stothard- unpicked doubled-over ragged edges & stitching to revealthree
more letters in addition to the visible VS.
The first was an E, the other two, TI, came just before the end(VS). He concluded
that it had once fully meant to read as EUSTATIUS (Latin for
Eustace).
So it seemed that the standard bearer was Eustace-
a principal commander.
But why wouldn’t someone opposed to Eustace have
tried this at the time (either before or after his revolt in 1067)?
There are only fifteen named characters in the
entire BT (three are women). All but four are easily identifiable. It is
intended to show William in a great light, but it has several curious scenes,
characters and hidden meanings & symbols.
Oddities include;-
·
Nowhere in the BT are the Normans
·
Oath. William has two grand and
ornate reliquary chests put before Harold on the open ground. The earl is to
formally swear on this open ground what he may have already been 'obliged' to
agree with the duke in private. William has his throne brought up to command
the scene(BT) and his whole haughty posture- pointing at Harold almost like a
command- with ceremonial sword in the other hand, (together with the BT's
depiction of Harold's furrowed brows and bowed head) gives off the air of
fear and coersion. Harold has to make up his mind how he will ever return to England
·
Why is earl/King Harold- shown as regal and finely
regailed- apparently depicted as the heirarchical 'equal' of duke William in
most scenes?
·
If the Norman account of Harold's visit is true-
then why Harold's forlorn posture and King Edward's scornful one in the BT
after his return? Almost like an "I told you so"? (Edward had warned
Harold against going to barter for his brother and nephew's release
beforehand.)
·
Why, in the final battle-scene at Hastings
·
Why, when the entire Norman cause rested upon
Harold's oath-breaking, is there not a single accusation in the tapestry of his
perjury?
·
In the top and bottom margins are curious animal
and bird motifs(real & mythical) which often defy interpretation but which
run throughout the tapestry, like Aesop's fables, to help tell the story. Are
these really covert symbols inserted by the orders of the sponsor(a disgruntled
or disfavoured Odo or Eustace?) to cryptically criticise William and attack the
Norman conquest?
·
Why does the Tapestry fail to boast the Norman
succession case when it could?(ie. The opening scene shows Edward sending
Harold to Normandy, but fails to establish that he did so- in the ill-fated
"oath" scene which is curiously muted, it could easily have added a
phrase like "concerning the crown" but doesn't?).
·
Nowhere
is Harold accused of perjury and only the Norman sources stated that H was in
any danger!
·
Bayeux Bayeux bayeux
Turold the dwarf. This
shaven-headed male(thus French or Norman)character is clearly a dwarf and not
simply embroiderer's concept of distance. Though it is impossible to expect an
accurate portrayal of size and persective, the entire BT seems to be the
consistent work of a few embroiderers, as there are six 'joins' in the BT cloth
it may have been worked in different places- all under perhaps one person's
supervision. He is certainly not a child -his head is disproportionately large-
about a third of his body, unlike the usual sixth on all others, and his limbs
are short.
This is a key symptom of the type of dwarfism known
as Achondroplasia. Having normal intelligence and lifespan, they are usually
well built and strong- as evidenced in his holding two horses reigns in the BT.
What this character is, is a male adult dwarf.
Could this Turold be the architect genius behind
the BT? Did he cast himself in the cameo role within his own work, as hitchcock
did recently? He is dressed in a pair of short, wide breeches with a pair of
'under-trousers' beneath.
In 1966 Rita Lejeune stated that this curious
costume can be identified as a 'jongleur' (juggler)- and acrobat, jester, poet,
minstrel or other performer who was employed at court to add humour and colour
for their wealthy patron? It seems he was Count Guy of Ponthieu's personal
performer- Turold is depicted with his feet in Picardy ,
and shown in the same scene as Guy.
Aelfgiva. A curious interjection in the
story with no apparent link to scenes before(Harold talking to William) or
after(the two men go on the Breton campaign). Standing in an ornate doorway
with scandinavian-type columns, this noblewoman-with a popular English noble
name- is being touched, maybe stroked, on the cheek by a priest standing just
outside the doorway. Whilst, in the below border, a weird naked and endowed
figure lewdly mimics the action of the priest and gestures up Aelfgyva's skirt-
hinting at some sex scandal. If not, then it a strange and clumsily rude way to
depict a noblewoman?
King Aethelred II's first wife was called
Aelfgifu(d.1001?), the great-grandmother of Edgar Atheling- is she the lady in
the BT and thus there is a detrimental comment being made to discredit edgar's
legitimacy? Her father, Aelfhelm, was tricked and murdered whilst out hunting
around the same time her brothers Ufegeat and Wulfheah were blinded, apprently
on Ethelred's orders in 1006.
His second wife, Emma of Normandy, abandoned her
native name and took up the English name
Aelfgifu. She later despised the unlucky/unwise Ethelred and in 1017 coldly
abandoned their sons also(daughter Godgifu, sons Alfred and Edward) to sail
over the Channel and marry Canute.
Clearly highly ambitious and ruthless, she retained her status and power and
bore him a son- HarthaCnut. But canute had an English mistress- another The
other Aelfgifu (ASC), who had previously bore him two sons- sweyn and
harald. The intense and bitter rivalry between the two women reached fever
pitch when Harald gained the throne, who died before Harthacnut invaded in
1040. Around this time, Emma/Aelfgyfu died.
In the Encomium Emmae Reginae - which Emma
herself sponsored, her marriage to Ethelred was never mentioned, and implies
that Alfred and Edward were sons of Canute. She also alledges that young Harald- being Aelfgifu of
Northampton's son- was the smuggled-in son of a servant girl, passed off as the
union of herself and Canute. Allegations of Harald's lowly birth are rumoured in three versions of
the ASC, written in different parts of England
Sweyn,
by implication, was then supposedly the son of a fornicating priest!
Of Harefoot he wrote "Harold claimed to be the son of Canute by Aelfgifu of
Northampton, but this is quite untrue, for some say that he was the son of a
certain sutor [cobbler or workman],
but that Aelfgifu acted in the same way that she had with Sweyn..."
Similarly then, Harald harefoot was the
illegitimate son of a "cobbler" or "workman" . It was
not alledged that Aelfgifu of Northampton had slept with the priest, but she
had desperately sought to procure a son from a fornicating priests mistress by
deceitful means, and pass him off as Canute's. Therefore, in the BT the
implication is of a secret and immoral deal between a deceitful queen and a
supposedly holy but fornicating priest.
This 'flashback' scene is likely included to
humiliate Aelfgifu's memory to an 11thC audience but also to highlight the
alledged illegitimacy of Sweyn and Harald (thus dangerously implying William's
own low birth out of wedlock? Or legitimising his reign by damning his
great-aunt's rivals?) Or is this scene pointing out that William is reminding
Harold his own 'royal' connections- through Emma(his great aunt)- to the
English throne? Eustace would have been affected by the murder of so many of
his kinsmen from Boulogne
Wulfnoth
In the scene where Harold
(depicted at the same height as the duke, and thus his ‘equal’) and William
(seated on his lavish throne) are shown to be discussing something, the earl is
seen pointing to his left at a bearded and armed man standing by three Norman
knights.
The character Harold points to is different to the
other armed Norman knights- he has long hair at the back, a thick beard and his
posturing and bearing are distinct, too.
In the iconography of the BT, only Englishmen are
shown as long-haired and bearded. His shield is also of the style that Harold
uses at Hastings
Why does he bear arms in such company? He is
obviously the kinsman of Harold who had been detained in Normandy
As this was before the open Anglo-Norman hostility,
Wulfnoth had been allowed a certain amount of freedom and even been a serving
soldier in the Norman military.
·
This is profound, for it confirms
that Harold was not in Normandy
·
And also that Edward had changed his
mind about the succession.
BT commisioner? Recent scholarly analysis about this embroidery in the 20th
century shows it probably was commissioned by William the Conqueror's
half brother, Bishop Odo. The reasons for the Odo commission theory
include:
·
Three of the bishop's followers
mentioned in Domesday Book appear on the tapestry;
·
It was found in the mid 15thC in
Bayeux Cathedral vault, built by Odo;
·
It may have been commissioned at the
same time as the cathedral's construction in the 1070s, possibly completed by 1077 in time for display
on the cathedral's dedication. No versions of the ASC detail Harold, only 'D'
pays gives attention to Hastings and only 'E' continues past 1066(until1154)!
But could it have been sponsored by
Eustace? Did Eustace commission the BT as a gift to flatter
Odo as part of the reconciliation process in the early 1070's and maybe aiming
to obtain the release of his nepos who was still in Odo's captivity? The
manner of odo's high profile and flattery in the BT (for his great hall?).
Eustace evidently employed an artist
with strong connections to St.Augustine's Abbey at canterbury-
The monks of St.Augustine's of
Canterbury could have decided to commission the BT, as a gift secular in tone,
to Bishop Odo of Bayeux England Canterbury
Odo also had poor relations with Lanfranc and thus
may have been perceived as a potential ally against Lanfranc? Further, the
monks may have been trying to flatter Eustace, whose stone from Marquise was
was helping rebuild their abbey maybe at this time.
Arrow in the eye? This
theory first started c.1085 in Amatus of Montecassino's History of the Normans ; yet he also thought William had 100,000
soldiers at Hastings
1)
Blinding was a well-known
allegory. A puppet ruler of Judah, Zedekiah, had been installed by
Nebuchadnezzar, the king of powerful babylon Babylon kingdom of Judah Jerusalem
2)
Harold isn't the only Saxon
depicted suffering this way- another is shown in a
nearby scene running away clutching the shaft in his eye, as were a few English
captives after the battle.
3)
Confusion between Stamford and Hastings Stamford and Hastings Norway Hastings
4)
The earliest copied drawings
of the BT don't show a figure being struck by an arrow at all- in 1724 a team of engravers recorded the whole BT but there
was no 'arrow' going into the eye of the figure labelled as 'Harold', but
engraved what the stitching showed was a long rod (a spear?)he was holding,
which extends across the bottom of the letter 'o' in 'Harold' and touches the
noseguard of the figures' helmet. In 1730 and 1767 similar scenes were copied.
Only after the 'restoration' do the flights appear, making it seem like an
arrow. The engravers of 1724 may be wrong, as the figure is one of a group
showing H's standard-bearer and an unnamed warrior, and spears being hurled at
them. Nor is it certain that the name 'Harold' should read Rex Interfectus
Est. This too has been restored. None of the early viewers took the 1st
figure to be H. Were the other two figures Leofwine and Gyrth?
5)
Eustace killed Harold? In plate 12, as a 'Norman' knight towers over Harold striking
him on the thigh, his helmet points at the strangely disconnected word TUS:EST
which are seperate from the words INTERFECTUS EST (was killed). There is no
reason why these words should be isolated and placed on a lower line like they
are, as there is ample room for a normal, level sentence of lettering. All it
takes is to reverse the two words to become EST TUS and it is clear that the
letters are now short for the latin for Eustace. He is Harold's primary killer,
coded in the BT, maybe so as not to displease the Normans
A suspected 'missing finale' of
maybe 20ft (maybe William's crowning)?
The BT ends suddenly (even in the 1729 drawings
during restoration it ended where we know it does today), and in those
final scenes a few Saxon prisoners are lead away tied by ropes, two with
arrows in their eyes.
There are a few final scenes missing from the BT,
and the extremities were vulnerable to damage as the Tapestry was displayed,
folded and carried around over the centuries. The top/bottom borders are the
unlikely places to look for covert criticism of the Norman regime, it's
aggression and rapacity, whilst seemingly depicting Harold in a noble and
sympathetic light.
This missing section
would almost certainly have included William's consolidation of England
His acceptance by London and the construction of the tower of London
Where and when this
portion disappeared will never be known. Considering its chequered history it
is necessary to postulate what might have been included in that section. If you
were deliberately attempting to remove a portion of the Tapestry, this end
piece (most accessible as it was rolled up?) would be a good place to do it. But who
would have done so?
