The Patronage, Production and

Purpose of the Bayeux Tapestry.

Group III: The Norman Conquest of Britain.

Word Count: 10,522 words

1

Abbreviations

BT The Bayeux Tapestry

VER Vita Ædwardi Regis qui apud

Westmonasterium requiescit ed. and trans.

Barlow, F. (Oxford Medieval Texts, 1992).

WP The ‘Gesta Guillielmi of William of

Poitiers, ed. and trans. R.H.C Davis and

M. Chibnall (Oxford Medieval Texts, 1998).

WJ The ‘Gesta Normannorum Ducum’ of William

of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of

Torigni ed. E.M.C Houts (Oxford Medieval

Texts, 1992-5).

WM William of Malmsebury, Gesta Regmum

Anglorum, ed. and trans. R.M.A Mynors,

R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, 2 vols

(OMT, 1998- 1999) pp. 349-365.

2

3

Chapters

I. Introduction.

II. Patron: Matilda, Odo, Edith or Eustace?

III. Origin of Production: The Case for Canterbury.

IV. Purpose, Message and Meaning of the Bayeux

Tapestry

V. Harold: Evil Perjurer or Tragic Hero?

VI. Conclusion.

4

I. Introduction

The Bayeux Tapestry is extraordinary, both as a piece of

art and historical document1. Strictly, the work should be

classified as embroidery; a tapestry should be woven by

loom, whilst this was stitched by hand onto a surface of

already woven fabric.2 Nine individual pieces of cloth

were worked on, presumably simultaneously by different

workers, and then were joined together to produce a long

ribbon-like composition, measuring 70.34 metres long by

50 centimetres high. 3 The BT is worked in eight coloured

wools on a plain linen ground, in couched and laid work,

defined by stem or outline stitch. The narrative is

arranged in a continuous horizontal line of action, one

scene merging into another without any vertical division4.

Yet the background of the BT is extremely elusive, there

is very little information concerning its provenance, its

designer or the individual embroiderers, other than

suggestions we can deduce from the text itself.

1 Hereafter BT.2 E. Maclagan, The Bayeux Tapestry, (Penguin, 1943).3G. Wingfield-Digby, ‘Technique and Production’ ed. Stenton, F.M., The Bayeux Tapestry: A Comprehensive Survey (London, 1957), 37-56, at 36; Measurements from F. Wormald, ‘Style and Design’ in Stenton, The Bayeux Tapestry: A Comprehensive Survey, 9-25, at 25; S.A. Brown, ‘The Bayeux Tapestry: History or Propaganda’ in The Anglo Saxons, Synthesis and Achievement eds. Douglas Woods, J and Pelteret, D.A.E., (Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1985) 11-27, at 11.4 S. D. Lloyd  "Bayeux Tapestry"  The Oxford Companion to British History. Ed.John Cannon. Oxford University Press, 1997. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  King's College London.  14 March 2009 .

5

Firstly documented in the Bayeux Cathedral inventory of

1476, the work was recorded as being hung at the time of

the Feast of the Relics on 1 July. M. Lancelot and Dom

Bernard de Montfaucon then rediscovered it in 1780,

Montfaucon then publishing engravings of the work. 5

Brown has suggested why it remained undiscovered for such

a long time, namely that after France annexed Normandy in

1204, there was little interest in the topic of the

Battle of Hastings (although it is difficult to assert

this) and that Bayeux sank into poverty by Caen and Rouen

in the twelfth century. 6 There are ongoing discussions

about dating, patronage and purpose that will presumably

remain unresolved, but common consensus argues that it

was commissioned by Bishop Odo of Conteville, William the

Conqueror’s half-brother and made at St Augustine’s

Canterbury, within twenty years of the Norman Conquest.

There are dissenting views however; Grape and Beech argue

for a French origin. Godding and Hicks argue for Edith

being commissioner whilst Cholokian queries whether the

BT even had a single patron. This essay shall evaluate

and review such assumptions.

The beauty of the BT lies in its difficulties,

ambiguities and uncertainties. Underlying the extent of

historical accounts on various aspects of the Tapestry

lies a lack of clarity abut its origins and meaning, 5 Maclagan, The Bayeux Tapestry 5; D.J Bernstein, The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry (London, 1986), 105; S.A. Brown The Bayeux Tapestry: History and Bibliography, (Boydell, 1998), 246 Brown S.A. The Bayeux Tapestry, History and Bibliography (Boydell,1988), 24.

6

leading to certain limitations on many arguments

surrounding the BT.7 No contemporary literature accounts

for it, except perhaps a reference in Baudri’s poem Adele

Comittesse¸ that describes a fictional hanging in the

bedchamber of William’s daughter c. 1100. Thus, whilst we

can propose patrons, purposes and politics behind the BT,

it is important we also account for the problems behind

such theories. Our investigation is further hampered by

the various restorations of the BT in the nineteenth

century, additions; especially concerning the depiction

of Godwineson’s death, which interfere with our

investigations into its original purpose. Like all

historical documents, the BT is not an objective account;

it is shaped by political bias, although determining its

particular partialities is difficult.8 The Tapestry is now

considered to evoke sympathy for the English, by scholars

like Bouet especially in its portrayal of Harold, who is

represented more as a loyal and brave soldier within the

first third of the Tapestry. 9 Wissolik and Clement-

Ferrand have even argued that the BT contains hidden

messages of Anglo Saxon subversion, although Ashe argues

that the BT is ideologically neutral, and is deliberately

ambiguous in order to leave the viewer to inform their

own judgement. 10 When studying the BT, it is important we

7 Brown, The Bayeux Tapestry, 24.8 Bernstein, Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry ,114.9 P. Bouet, ‘Is the Bayeux Tapestry pro-English?’ eds. P. Bouet, B. Levy, and F. Neveux, The Bayeux Tapestry: Embroidering the Facts (Caen, 1999), 197-217 at 198-199.10 M. Clemont-Ferrand, Anglo Saxon Propaganda in the Bayeux Tapestry (Edwin Mellen, 2004), L. Ashe, Fiction and History in England 1066-1200 (Cambridge,

7

remain close to whatever facts surround it, rather than

speculate theories.

The BT is essentially separate from the written

literature, as it is also illustrative showing the

beholder how events happened, rather than just

descriptive.11 There are peculiarities within the work;

extensive commentary is given about the excursion at

Brittany, and yet the battle of Stamford Bridge is

completely omitted. 12 The images within the work are

presented in the form of continuous narrative. The artist

was clearly interested in depicting individual behaviour

of animals and people, rendering details, such as men

tucking their skirts into their tunics to enter the

river. 13 Unfortunately, the work is incomplete, the

reasons for being so unknown, and it is difficult to

gauge how the BT finished. Scholars mainly surmise it

would have ended with William’s coronation, thus finally

depicting the Conqueror as king, although we cannot be

sure.

The essay explores the main debates surrounding the BT.

As there is such an extensive literature surrounding the

artwork, I shall focus on identifying the commissioner,

origins and purpose for BT whilst evaluating the level of

ideology and bias within the work. This essay will

2007).11 Gameson, ‘The Origin, Art and Message of the Bayeux Tapestry’, 200.12 Bouet, ‘Is the Bayeux Tapestry pro-English?’, 214.13 Bernstein, The Mystery of The Bayeux Tapestry, 71.

8

culminate with an appraisal of Harold’s representation

within the work, indicating that portrayal of Godwineson

as a leading warrior, and perhaps even a legitimate king

means that the BT is somewhat disparate from the other

written accounts of the Conquest, although it is

difficult to use this to argue that the Tapestry is

sympathetic to the English. 14

II Patron: Odo, Matilda or Eustace?

The BT’s patron remains anonymous, yet four potential

commissioners have been named. Interestingly, the

Conqueror has never been named as patron. Gameson argues

for the possibility that eleventh century viewers were

aware of its patron, information about its commissioner

perhaps included in the now lost section of the

Tapestry.15 Dom Bernard de Montfoucon first suggested

Matilda in 1729, claiming that he had heard it from Dom

Larger, the prior of the abbey of Saint Vigour at Bayeux.16 . Odo was considered in the nineteenth century, later

supported by Wormald’s assertion that many of the BT’s

figures were quoted from Canterbury manuscripts, and Odo

had close links to St Augustine’s Abbey. Bridgeford and

Godding have argued for Eustace of Boulogne and Edith

Godwine. Arguably Bridgeford’s work relies too much on

14 F.M. Stenton, ‘The Historical Background’ in F.M. Stenton, (ed) The Bayeux Tapestry: A Comprehensive Survey (London, 1957), 9-25,at 9.15 Gameson ‘The Origin, Art and Message of the Bayeux Tapestry’, 157.16 Wormald, ‘Style and Design’, 34.

9

conjecture rather than actual factual knowledge, and

whilst Godding and Hicks produce viable reasons for

Edith’s patronage (such as her connections to the

Conqueror and her skills at embroidery), their argument

lies in theory rather than fact. Through studying the

detail of the Tapestry itself, we find too many links

with Odo to convincingly detract from the common

consensus that the king’s brother was the commissioner,

but we should investigate the reasons why others have

been proposed.

Matilda

After de Montfoucon’s assertions, Matilda’s ‘patronage’

was accepted throughout

Academic circles, scholars believing that the queen made

an initial painting, despite no substantial evidence.

Matilda’s role was further stressed through nineteenth

century plays and art that depicted the BT, from the 1803

play La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathide, comédie en un act, en prose, and

Alfred Guilliard’s 1849 painting La Reine Mathilde travaillant a la

Telle du Conquest. 17

The conqueror’s granddaughter, Queen Matilda, was

proposed as the patron in 1803 by Abbe G. de la Rue

putting the dating of the BT at a much later setting in

17 ibid, 29; C. Hicks, The Bayeux Tapestry (Chatto and Windus, 2006), 182.

10

the twelfth century.18De la Rue disputed the fact it could

have been produced by the Conqueror’s wife as the

Tapestry does not appear in her will nor her husbands,

and he proposed that it could not have survived the

pillaging of Bayeux by Henry I in 1106. Alternatively, de

la Rue proposed it was made in England between 1152 and

1167, and presented to Bayeux by her son.19Yet the notion

that either women could produce work which contained

shockingly graphic images, from naked, aroused men to the

dismembered bodies in the lower borders offended

Victorian sympathies and dissuaded opinion away from the

BT being a female creation, although The BT is still

referred to as Tapestrie de la Reine Matilda in some

parts of France today. Beech revisited the claim of

Matilda’s patronage by arguing that the Historia Sancti Florenti

tells about an overseas queen ordering two tapestries,

although this again is pure speculation, as is his other

assertion that it was produced at the St Florent of

Saumur Abbey in the Loire Valley.20 The notion Matilda

created the Tapestry is pure eighteenth century

tradition, based on a romantic image of the Norman court.

No evidence with the BT supports her patronage.

Furthermore, the Tapestry might have survived the

18 Abbé G. de la Rue ‘Sur la tapisserie de Bayeux’ Rapport Général sur Travaux, Académie des Sciences, Arts at Belles Lettres de Caen, II (1811) cf. Bernstein, The Mystery of The Bayeux Tapestry.8019 S.A. Brown, The Bayeux Tapestry¸ 27.20Crafton, J.M., The Political Artistry of the Bayeux Tapestry: A Visual Epic of Norman Imperial Ambition (Edwin Mellen Press, 2007), 10; G. Beech Was the Tapestry Made in France? The Case for Saint Florent of Saumur (New York, 2005), 107-110.

11

plundering of Bayeux in 1106, being either rescued or

placed within a safe house.21

In 1803, Delauney firstly suggested that Odo was the BT’s

begetter, supported by Thomas Amyot in 1822 and Pluquet

in 1829.22 Most historians now consider Odo the official

patron. 23 Brooks and Walker have continued Delaney’s

argument for the dominance of Odo within the work, and

Owen Crocker has asserted that when Odo rallies the

troops in pl. 67 his figure is the largest in the

Tapestry, measuring from the edge to the back hoof of the

muzzle of the horse, about 53.27 cm. 24 Odo had the

resources for the production. He was the richest noble in

England, having received Harold’s patrimony in Kent. When

his brother was in Normandy, Odo and FitzWarenne had

joint regency, as stated in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle s.a 1067

and Orderic Vitalis. Unlike Matilda, Odo had experienced

first hand the actual conquest. Like Matilda, Odo had

also financially supported the Conquest. The Ship List of

William the Conqueror conveys that Odo supplied ships for

his brother. 25 Odo was directly connected to Bayeux; he

was made bishop of the Cathedral at a prematurely young

age by William in 1049, and may have commissioned the BT

21 Brown, The Bayeux Tapestry, 27.22 Bouet, ‘Is the BT pro-English?’, 217.23 ibid, 217.24 N.P Brooks and H.E Walker, ‘The Authority and Interpretation of theBayeux Tapestry’ Anglo-Norman Studies 1 (1978), pp 1-34, at 14. 25 ‘The Ship List of William the Conqueror’ trans. E. van Houts, The Normans in Europe (Manchester, 2000), 130.

12

for the consecration of the refurbished cathedral in

1077.

The arguments for Odo are compelling. The Bishop is

accredited far more in the BT than elsewhere. WP mentions

Odo’s escapades in the Brittany campaigns but cites him

only once at Hastings in conjunction with Geoffrey of

Coutances. WJ overlooks his contribution to the Bayeux

Tapestry, as does Baudri de Bourgeuil. Later writers,

such as Eadmer, William of Malmesbury26, Gaimar's and

Henry of Huntington’s Historia Anglorum are equally silent on

Odo’s contribution to 1066, as is the Hyde Chronicle. Odo is

thus promoted more within the BT than in any other

source. OV calls him ‘The Conqueror’s uterine brother’,

but mentions him alongside other ‘brilliant bishops and

magnates’ rather than distinguishing him as anything

special before and during the invasion of England. 27

Wace’s account of 1066 names Odo once, arguing that he

counselled William before the crossing, but puts the

bishop alongside Robert of Montain, Roger of Vielles and

Iwun al Chapel. The BT may have influenced Wace’s

account. 28

Conversely in the BT’s account of the Battle of Hastings,

Odo’s name appears thrice, and perhaps the bishop makes

more unaccredited appearances, such as in the depiction 26 Hereafter WM27 The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis ed. and trans M. Chibnall 6 vols. (Oxford Medieval Texts), 141.28 W

13

of the crossing of Cousenon River. 29 In pl. 80 when

William ‘ordered ships to be built’, the tonsured cleric

is Odo, instructing his brother, replacing WP’s account

of many councillors:

‘Duke William, after taking counsel with his men, determined to avenge this injury with arms … although many of the greater

men argued speciously that the enterprise was too arduous.’30

Indeed WP’s list of William’s council omits Odo, naming

only Robert of Mortaine, Robert of Eu, Richard of Évroux,

Roger of Beaumont, Roger of Montgomery, William

fitzOsbern, and Hugh the vicomte. In contrast, pl. 31

displays Odo as an advisor, his left hand gestures

towards the preparation of the ships, signifying that he

is in power not William, who passively listens,

suggesting that the BT’s artist flattered the bishop far

more than any writer. However, the tonsured cleric remains

anonymous in pl. 31 and the three men, who surround

William, could be any members of the council, although

the figure identified as Odo wears a tonsor, indicative

that he is a man of the cloth, and thus the king’s

brother. There are visual differences between Odo in pl.

31 and in the later feast scene of pl. 58, where Odo is

‘round cheeked and almost cherubic’ contrasting his thin

face in his first scene, but this might be a technical

29 Owen-Crocker, G., ‘Brothers, Rivals and the Geometry of the BayeuxTapestry’, ed. Owen-Crocker, G., Harold II and the Bayeux Tapestry (Boydell &Brewer, 2005) 109-125, at 109, 113.30 Inscription, pl. 80 Foys The BT, 2003.

14

mistake, or due to different artists; the physical

appearance of Harold changes throughout the work.31

Odo is credited elsewhere; firstly during the feast in

pl. 58, an episode which is again, not emphasised by any

other contemporary writer, and Rampton stresses that the

BT is unique in placing the feast before battle in

medieval literature32. Here, the table and its occupants

may have been extracted from the Last Supper scene from

the sixth century St Augustine’s Gospels, evidence for a

Canterbury origin of the Tapestry. Odo assumes a Christ-

like position, an indication of supreme sycophancy from

the BT’s artist. The Bishop is the largest figure, his

head intruding into the inscription. William is not

apparent, or if he is unaccredited, is pushed to the

side, obstructed by the bearded figure’s elbow that sits

next to him. After the feast, Odo and Robert sit with

William, a family portrait where the three sit on the

same bench, instructing William on what to do.

Interestingly William and Robert passively listen, whilst

Odo is again expressive, counselling his brother, the

wise figure, whilst Robert points his sword to the next

scene, impatiently awaiting battle. 33

31 M. Rud , The Bayeux Tapestry trans. C. Bojesen, (Copenhagen, 2002), 35.32 Rampton, 38. cf. Foys Bayeux Tapestry33 Gameson, ‘The Origin, Art and Purpose of the Bayeux Tapestry’, at 157-211.

15

Lastly, Odo is shown in the crucial scene of the rout in

pl. 67, where William lifts his helmet to prove he is

still alive in order to boost morale. Odo’s figure

bookends the episode with Duke William, suggesting that

the bishop restored confidence, and thus was the saviour

of the actual battle. WP, OV and Carmen account for

William raising his visor, but do not refer to Odo. Wace

does stress Odo’s importance in the rout, but his

potential drawing upon the BT means he is not an

independent source.

‘Odo, the good priest said to them … “fear nothing for if

God please we shall conquer yet” So they took courage and

Odo was of a great service on that day’ 34

Certainly, Odo is visually distinguished from the other

knights in the battle scenes, wearing full coloured

armour, as shown in pl. 67 which is decorated with

triangles, distinguishing him from the other knights,

including the Conqueror.35 Odo carries a baculum, like a

truncheon rather than a sword, as befits his status as

bishop.

Other than Odo’s physical presence within the work, there

are other serious reasons for asserting his patronage.

The BT puts Harold’s oath in pl. 26 at ‘Bagias’, the 34 Master Wace, His Chronicle of the Norman Conquest from the Roman de Rou’ ed. E. Taylor (London, 1837, rpnt 1975); cf. The Bayeux Tapestry: Digital Edition ed.M. Foys.35 Gameson, 197.

16

Norman spelling for Bayeux, adding further implying that

the BT was for the church’s consecration in 1077, as

argued by Lepelley.36 Furthermore, Lepelly argues that

the birds in the lower border have been interpreted as

two eagles, the prototype for the symbol of the two-

headed eagles that became the arms of the Chapter of the

Cathedral of Bayeux, but as this was a later emblem, we

cannot be assured of this connection.37 Interestingly,

Bayeux is not decreed the location of Harold’s oath

elsewhere. WP argues that:

‘In a council at Bonneville, Harold swore fealty to [William]

… [to ensure] that the English monarchy should be pledged to

him until death’38

Meanwhile WJ says that the event occurred at Rouen,

although this might be a later interpolation by OV. 39

Wace places the oath at Bayeux, although he arguably was

inspired by the Tapestry himself. Douglas disputes that

the oath occurred at Bayeux, arguing that this is a

deliberate assertion to promote Odo. Furthermore, Lewis

argues that the BT places the oath at Bayeux to move

Harold within Odo’s territories, as the bishop obtains

Harold’s lands after the Conquest, although Bates argues

36 R. Lepelley, ‘A Contribution to the Study of the Inscriptions in the Bayeux Tapestry: Bagias and Wilgelm’, ed. Gameson, Study of the Bayeux Tapestry (Boydell,1997), 39-46, at 39.37 Ibid, 39.38 WP, 71.39 The Gesta Guillielmi of WP, ed. and trans. R.H.C Davis and M. Chibnall (Oxford Medieval Texts, 1998), 70; The ‘Gesta Normannorum Ducum’ of WJ, OV and Robert of Torigni, ed. E.M.C Houts (Oxford Medieval Texts, 1998), 159.

17

that the treaty and oath may have occurred at Bonneville,

and then a public ceremony occurred.40There are so many

conflicting accounts of the oath that it is unlikely we

shall ever know where it occurred, although the fact the

BT solely attributes the location to Bayeux strengthens

Odo’s position as patron.

Moreover, the three named Norman soldiers in the BT have

been identified as Odo’s men by Carney in 1838 and in

1870 by Reverend Daniel Rock. 41 These are Turold in pl.

31; Wadard appearing in pl.107 as a soldier at Pevensey,

and Vital, a scout in pl. 129. It was suggested the three

tenants might have donated money to the project in return

for being immortalised within the work. There are

problems in using the naming of such characters to

confirm Odo’s patronage. Domesday Book records that

Wadard (which was a rare name) and Vital held lands in

Odo’s demesne in Kent. A Wadard held lands in

Lincolnshire, Odo’s possession, where he is dubbed ‘the

vassal of the bishop of Bayeux’. Prentout makes links to

three charters of the abbey of St Peters at Preaux in

Normandy, where Vital and Wadard were signed as

witnesses.42 Fowke points at a charter, which bears the

name Turold, Constable of Bayeux (thus linking again to

Odo) and William I. Domesday Book confirms that Turold of40 Lewis, The Rhetoric of Power in the Bayeux Tapestry, 98.41 Bouet, ‘Is the BT pro-English?’ 205.42 H. Prentout ‘Essai D’indentification Des Personnages Inconnus De La Tapisserue De Bayeux’ Revue Historique 176 (July-August 1935) 14-23; Foys ed BT: The Digital Edition; C. Hicks, The BT; (Chatto and Windus, 2006), 56.

18

Rochester held considerable estates in England from Odo.

Brooks asserts Turold was connected to Odo’s trial at

Penenden Heath. The name ‘Turold’ appears in pl. 23,

where the name is uniquely taken out of the inscription,

and placed between two characters, a Norman knight and a

dwarfish groom making it difficult to assess whom Turold

actually is. If the inscription applies to the Norman

knight, sent by Duke William to free Harold from his

captivity at Ponthieu, strengthens his connections to

Odo, but if the name refers to the groom, he might be

from Beaurain, rather than Normandy, thus weakening his

alliance with Bishop Odo. Moreover, the name ‘Turold’ was

common; there were twenty-nine Turolds living in Normandy

before 1066. 43 Whilst we can link Wadard and Vital to

Odo, there are problems with Turold’s associations with

the bishop of Bayeux, although the connections are

telling.

Other concerns need to be raised. Although scholars have

argued that BT was made during in the 1070s, both Brown

and Brooks have alternately proposed that the work was

made later in the 1080s. Bouet puts the detail at early

1067 to 1068, but any date could be conceivable up to

1083, when Odo was arrested. Brown asserts that the BT

was made after William arrested Odo in 1085, commissioned

as a desperate propaganda to impress upon his brother his

contribution to the conquest, and generally bolster his

43L. Musset. La Tapisserie De Bayeux, Oeuvre D’art Et Document D’histoire (Saint Léger- Vauban Zodiaque, 1989)Foys (ed.) BT: The Digital Edition pl.31.

19

image. Why he was arrested is unclear; the Anglo Saxon

Chronicle says ‘the King seized Odo’44. According to WM,

Odo was imprisoned after he gathered knights to help the

Pope from the Holy Roman Emperor, negating a test case of

royal prohibition against unregulated knight service. The

inclusion of Eustace of Bologna during the rout scene may

be Odo’s allusion to another figure that was shown

clemency by the conqueror. The BT would not be the first

time a patron had used another’s biography to promote

their own image; Edith had done so in the Vita Edwardi

Regis45, a work that praised her husband, whilst

emboldening her brothers.

There are problems in the later dating of the BT, mostly

deriving from the BT’s actual content. Bouet has argued

that the BT was not just a commemoration of the Conquest,

but created to support a positive dream of Englishmen and

Normans forging an Anglo-Norman kingdom. Bouet argues

that there is a deliberate lack of bias in order English

and Norman viewers, and worked to promote harmony and

stability in forging the two countries. Foys asserts

that the work was complete by 1106, else it would have

perished in the fire at Bayeux Cathedral at that year,

but this is only relevant if it was immediately housed in

the cathedral. It is difficult reconciling the positive

perspective of the English, as remarked upon by Bouet,

with Odo’s apparent disregard with the English. 46OV 44 45 Hereafter VER46 Lewis, 45.

20

records that Odo did not share his brother’s diplomacy

attitude to the English, but instead was ‘dreaded by

Englishmen everywhere’, which he might have taken from

the ASC’s assertion that Odo ‘ had men everywhere

oppressed. 47. There were legal divisions; such as the

murdum fine that announced that if a Norman was killed,

his local English community had to pay for his life.

William of Malmsebury explicitly depicts the cultural

divide between the Normans and the English, mentioning

the trauma the Conquest has induced. The ASC argued that

Odo’s attitude towards the English was disdainful and

cruel’ [he had] poor people oppressed’, After the context

of the harrying of the North in 1071, it is difficult to

say whether the English and Normans could have worked

together, as Bouet suggests, positively reconciling the

two nations and promoting social harmony, thus weakening

Brown’s assertion that the BT was made in the 1080s.

Eustace and Edith

A third suggestion is that the work is a piece

Justicative by Eustace to Odo as argued by Bridgeford.

Based on the Domesday Book’s entry for Dover and

thirteenth century castle guard knowledge, Bridgeford

argues that Wadard was instrumental in defending Odo’s

castle in Dover against Eustace in 1067. However,

Bridgeford makes speculations, and it is unconvincing

that Eustace would have to money to embark on such an

47 OV, 265.

21

expensive project. Bridgeford’s assertion that Turold,

Wadard and Vital were the knights defending Dover Castle

from his attack remains unfolded despite his findings

that the Domesday Book lists Wadard as defending the

castle at Dover.

Godding and Hicks have also proposed Edith. Edith only

appears unaccredited at Edward’s bedside, playing the

traditional grieving wife, as she poignantly holds her

husband’s feet, and uses her veil to wipe away tears in

pl. 30.The VER especially notifies her skill as

embroideress. Edith Godwine had an uncommonly good

relationship with the Conqueror; whilst the Carmen

reports her mother, Gyrtha unsuccessfully paid Harold’s

weight in gold to reclaim his body, and then fled to

Flanders after a botched plot against the Conqueror.

Contrarily during accounts of rebellion, unlike her

mother, Edith is nowhere to be seen. The Norman Conquest

enhanced Edith’s position; she remained at court, as

shown in March 1071, when she witnessed the appointment

of Walcher to Durham. Upon her death in 1075, she was

given proper burial alongside her husband, the Confessor

in Westminster Abbey. 48 WP enumerates on her talents,

mentioning not only her traditional female virtues, such

as her beauty, chastity and modesty, but also her

intelligence, and her knowledge of the arts. The Carmen 48 A. Williams, ‘Edith (d. 1075)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8483, accessed 25 Feb 2009].

22

gives Edith the role of intercessor, relating that she

asked the Winchester citizens to submit to William. We

have evidence for Edith’s previous patronage through the

Vita Edwardi Regis.

Yet, attributing the BT to Edith can be problematic.

There are no blatant clues within the BT to suggest her

commitment to the work; her followers (which included

Wulfweard White and Aelfweald) are not named like Turold,

Wadard and Vital. 49 At many points there is clear

understanding of Norman culture, which an English

designer presumably would have been unaware of. The

inclusion of castles, such as Dol in pl. 21 displays an

excellent knowledge of Norman architecture (most

historians believe the Castle was a Norman import, there

were few standing in England prior to 1066). Furthermore,

after Harold is informed of Halley’s comet in pl.32 the

narrative shifts wholly to a Norman perspective, such as

the detailed preparation of the fleets in pls. 36 to 39.

The marauding party in pl. 45 and the omission of

Stamford Bridge also indicate a solely Norman standpoint.

Moreover, during the Brittany Campaign, there is clear

knowledge about the Norman escapades unmentioned in other

sources, only the Tapestry mentions Rennes and Dinan in

pl. 22-23; WP only mentions Dol and Conan’s flight.50 49 Williams, A., ‘Edith (d. 1075)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8483, accessed 25 Feb 2009].50 F. Neveux, ‘The Bayeux Tapestry as Original Source’ ed.P.Bouet, B Levy and F. Neveux, The Bayeux Tapestry: Embroidering the Facts of History,171-

23

Another problem would be lack of motive; Edith had

nothing to gain in promoting her brothers after 1066, and

spent most of her time at Wherwell Abbey after the

Conquest.

The content of work is male dominated, and slightly

misogynistic; only four women appear in the BT, and

arguably only Edith appears without a violent or

salacious subtext. Other than the naked woman in the

lower border, the fully clothed Aelfgyva stands next to

an unidentifiable man whose pose mirrors that of a naked

male figure in the Lower Border, indicative of an

untoward relationship between him and Aelfgyva. The final

example is the mother who flees (or else is trapped,

depending on interpretation) her burning house in pl. 51,

a victim of Norman brutality.

Other patrons have been suggested ranging from Richard

Fitz Turold, Wadard and Wital the monks of Waltham Abbey,

the Chapter of Bayeux Cathedral, but all these

suppositions are unfounded, and the patronage of the

Tapestry has been linked to Odo as securely as can be

without primary information51

III. The Tapestry’s Provenance: The Case for Canterbury.

197, at 173.51 Drake (1881); Rock (1870); Corney *1836); Brown The Bayeux Tapestry (

24

The incomparability of the BT with other works is

frustrating, as no other English embroideries remain,

meaning we cannot gauge how unique the work is.

Information about English textiles in the eleventh and

twelfth can be gathered from literature, such as the

Queen Aelffleard’s stole for Bishop Frithstan of

Winchester and the Hungarian Coronation Mantle, which was

presented by Giselda, Stephen I’s queen at Vienna in

1134.52 Wingfield-Digby has argued that the BT was not a

sophisticated court production, as it is composed of

linen rather than silks and gold thread, which has

contributed to its survival, perhaps implying that it was

produced by someone outside William’s inner circle.53

However, it is more probable that the length of the piece

dictated that cheaper materials were used, in terms of

economy. It is probable that more than one master artist

supervised the entire production. The schematic overall

look of the BT suggests that the detail was sketched

first and then given to the embroiderers to sow.

Traditionally, it has been assumed only women worked on

the Tapestry, but there is no reason why it may have been

a mixed workforce.

The simple reason for suggesting the BT was produced in

England was that English seamstresses were renowned as

the best in Europe. The term Opus Anglicana was coined

in 1205 to describe the rich history of English textile

52 Wingfield Digby, G., ‘Technique and Production’ , at 37.53 Ibid, 37

25

production, as first argued in 1803, and in 1813 by de La

Rue54. WP states that ‘Englishwomen are very skilled with

the needle and the weaving of gold’. There are examples

of skilled seamstresses; In Cnut’s reign, Ealswith, a

granddaughter of the ealdorman of Essex received Coventry

and Cambridgeshire from Ely Abbey in exchange for her

teaching embroidery to the Sheriff’s daughter. In 803

Eanswith was given an estate of two family lands by the

bishop of Worcester to repair and increase the hangings

of the church. Domesday Book tells us of Leogyth in

Wiltshire, who made gold embroidery.55 The Liber Eliensis

of 991, which was complied at Ely Cathedral, mentioned

that it was Brithnoth’s (the chieflain slain by the Danes

in 991) widow, Ælfleda who commissioned ‘a coloured

woven wall-hanging showing his deeds, in memory of his

greatness’. St Etheldreda embroidered a gold maniple for

the holy St Cuthbert.56

However English textile production occurred alongside

European activity. Gregory of Tours’ Historia Francorum

narrates that streets and the church were decorated at

the King Clovis’ baptism in 406. The historian of St

Denis, Brother Jacques Doubilte recorded Queen Bertha’s

gift of wall hangings displaying her family. There were

Norman examples of embroidery, such as Duke Richard I’s

54 ibid,55 56 Crafton, J.M., 85

26

wife Gonnore, who presented a wall hanging of the Virgin

and Saints to Rouen.

Musset argues that there is no context in which to place

the BT, but Crafton suggests this is not the case, we

should look to Scandinavia, which had wall hangings

called Tjell and refill. These were similar to the

Tapestry, with bands displaying borders and narratives,

such as the Rolvsøy Tapestry, the spatial ratio of human

to ships, and the outline of the ships very similar to

the BT.57 The Överhodgal Tapestry also has similarities.

Therefore the BT did not occur in a cultural vacuum, but

related to the Norse and Scandinavian long narrow

hangings. Arguably the Normans had a far closer cultural

connection to the Vikings than the English, links to

Scandinavia were broken after Edward received the throne

from Harthacnut, suggesting a Norman origin for the

Tapestry. Furthermore, Viking warriors, who had settling

in England for more than two hundred years before 1066

arguably, spread their artistic heritage through the

kingdom.

There are other suggestions for an English provenance.

The accuracy of English names such as GYRĐ for Gyrth

suggests the involvement of Englishmen. 58 King Edward is 57 Crafton, J.M., 82.58 R.S. Loomis ‘The Origin and Date of the Bayeux Tapestry’, Art BulletinVI (1923) pp. 3-7 and Forster ‘Zur Geschichte des Reliquienkultus in Altengland’ Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen .Akademie der Wissenschaften (Philosopisch- historische Abteilung, Jahrgang, 1943); cf. Wormald, F., ‘Style and Design’ in Stenton, F.M., (ed) The Bayeux Tapestry: A

27

given his Latin name as Eadwardus. But William’s name is

only thrice written in its Norman form as Wilgelm, and

spelt Willhelm, fifteen times, as it appears in Anglo

Saxon texts. English place names are accurate, such as

Bosham. The inscriber clearly had a grasp of Latin,

although there are mistakes such as the term ‘ad Hestenga

ceastra´ rather than ‘ad Hastingae Castrati’. Furthermore

the inclusion of Bagius in pl. 26 is interesting as the

Latin name for the city was Baiocas, and thus this also

might be an anglicised version of a Norman name, although

Lepelly conveys that it may also be a French derivative.59

Yet the most important indicator of the Tapestry’s

English production was the continuous drawing upon

Canterbury manuscripts, as first suggested by Wormald and

continued by Bernstein. 60 The Norman who forages for

food after Hastings is very similar to the depiction of a

figure shown in the eleventh century version of the

Psychomachia of Prudentius, with the BT’s figure carrying

the coiled rope above his shoulders, a reversed image61.

The Bird slinger in the lower border of the BT in pl

corresponds to the depiction of Abraham I the Aelfric

Hexateuch from St Augustine’s Abbey. The depiction of

the Edward Confessor is similar to that of David of an

Comprehensive Survey (London, 1957).at 29.59Lepelley, ‘A Contribution to the Study of the Inscriptions in the Bayeux Tapestry’, 40-41.60 R. Gameson, ‘The Origin, Art and Message of the Bayeux Tapestry’163–162.61 Bernstein,. The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry, 40.

28

English Psalter made c. 1050. Moreover, the depiction of

Conan escaping at Dol is similar to the St Aelfric

Hexateuch. Edith’s pose during the deathbed scene mirrors

that of the weeping virgin in Harley MS 2904, and the

Virgin in the crucifixion scene. St Augustine’s has been

suggested rather than Christ Church Canterbury, as after

Odo’s trial at Penenden Heath, the church were involved

in a prolonged litigation to recover a great number of

estates from the hands of Odo and his tenants, and it is

unlikely that Odo would have procured the embroidery from

the church which he clashed with. Conversely, it appears

that the bishop had a good relationship wit St

Augustine’s Abbey, Clemont-Ferrand reporting that the

abbey produced a laudatory obituary praising Odo as

benefactor.62

Loomis has argued for a direct imitation of the feast

scene in pl. 58 with the representation of the last

supper in the St Augustine’s Gospels, produced in the late

1060s. Foys has argued that the two scenes are

‘drastically different’ but there are many connections;

Odo’s pose, with one hand holding what appears to be

bread, the other raised above it invokes Christ’s pose in

the Augustine’s Gospels, and both figures look out at the

audience, a rare example of a full face profile in the

BT, thus directing the viewer’s attention to Odo. The

servant’s presence in the scene compromises the idea that

the table is round, Brooks arguing that the table is 62 Clemont-Ferrand, Anglo Saxon Propaganda in the Bayeux Tapestry, 61.

29

‘sigma-shaped’ as derived from Byzantine iconography,

whilst Grape argues that the scene is quoted from the

Continental manuscripts, where the iconography of the

last supper was stronger than English ones.63 However, the

scene of the Last Supper from Saint- Maure-des-Fosses, as

suggested by Grape, is less similar to the art contained

within the Augustine’s gospels; Christ and his followers

sit on a square table, and other than the depiction of a

crouched Judas where the servant is in the Tapestry,

there is nothing to suggest a close connection. The links

between Canterbury and the Tapestry are far more

persuasive than any connections with French art.

Grape has argued the BT was made at Bayeux, stating that

the BT does not have the fluidity of the English

tapestries, and the flatness of the characters is closer

to the planar figures of French drawing. 64Beech adds that

the wall paintings of the Loire Valley were an influence,

and French manuscripts, which contain depictions of

unusual lions with curled tails between their legs, as

contained within the LB of the work. 65 Yet such

statements ignore the blatant links between Canterbury

and the Tapestry, Beech does not even account for the

connections between the Kentish city and the BT within

his book. Gameson replied that the development of Norman

pictorial art, occurred after the Conquest, and despite

63 Grape, The Bayeux Tapestry (New York, 1994), 30-31.64 Crafton, J.M., The Political Artistry of the Bayeux Tapestry, 110.65 ibid, 109.

30

the highly talented Carlif Bible scribes, there was

nothing in comparison to the BT on the Continent. Grape

asserts that the faces in profile, contained in the BT

was a Norman characteristic, although Gameson argues the

faces were put in profile to create the flow of the

narrative, and the use of profile faces was increasing in

England, as well as Normandy.66

The regularity and precision of the work confers that

there was a chief master artist, who perhaps sketched an

outline of the work in vellum, which the embroiderers

then copied onto linen. Identifying the master artist is

equally difficult as naming the patron, but many

historians, such as Clemont-Ferrand, Foys and Wingfield-

Digby argue that he was presumably a cleric at St

Augustine’s Abbey. However, through looking at the work

itself, it is clear he would have had secular, Norman

advisors as shown by the detailed, extensive knowledge of

ship building, fighting on cavalry (the English arguably

did not use warhorses, evidence suggests they rode to

battle and then dismounted to fight) and also Norman

geography, such as the closeness of Mont Michel to the

Cousenon River. 67

IV. Purpose, Meaning and Politics of the Bayeux Tapestry

66 Gameson ‘Origins of the Bayeux Tapestry’ 163,173.67 Brooks, 3; cf. Brown, 1990, 27-28.

31

Debatably, the Tapestry had a informative purpose, to

instruct about the causes and proceedings of the Battle

of Hastings. The lack of written words, and the heavy

illustration meant that it could be imbibed by the

illiterate masses.68 But was it a work of propaganda as

argued by Brown and Freeman, and if so by whom?69

Arguably, where it was displayed is important. The BT’s

lightness meant that it could be packed away and

transported throughout England and Normandy, and

conceivably throughout the Norman Empire, although is

limited evidence to validate this. 70 The fact Baudri

arguably ‘studied’ the Tapestry in detail for his poem

might support the notion the Tapestry may have travelled

to France, although as we are unclear if his poem even

relates to the BT it is difficult to make this

assertion.71 It did not need to be housed in any

particular spot and could be carried throughout different

churches, perhaps clerical and lay locations, until its

eventual housing at Bayeux, where it was displaying

during feast days in the fifteenth century. Bernstein has

negated that the Tapestry was always meant for Bayeux, by

stating that when the replica was hung in the nave, it

looked incongruous within its setting, draped from column

to column, and if placed at eyelevel, would be

continuously damaged by the constant use of the nave for 68 Gameson, ‘Origins of the Bayeux Tapestry’, 157; cf. R. Brilliant ‘The Bayeux Tapestry, a Stripped Narrative for Their Eyes and Ears’ The Study of the Bayeux Tapestry ed. Gameson (Boydell, 1997) 111-37,at 112.69 Brown; cf. Freeman70 Bernstein The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry, 107.71 Beech, G., Was the Bayeux Tapestry made in France? 89-90.

32

prayers. Gameson rejects this argument by arguing the

nave has been rebuilt since the 11th century, and in any

matter it might have been hung elsewhere in the

Cathedral. There are vertical discolorations at certain

intervals of the Tapestry, which suggests that these

correspond with the pillars in the nave at Bayeux,

although this does not mean it was the only location for

the BT.72 It may have been hung in princely halls although

the only remaining evidence of such a construction is at

Westminster, erected by William Rufus shortly after 1100,

or at the priory of St Dover, built in Kent, although we

have no evidence to certify this.73

There is debate over whether the Tapestry had a religious

or secular meaning, although there is no reason why the

two need be mutually exclusive. Bernstein argues that it

was temporal, with no signs of divine intervention save

for the consecration of Westminster Abbey, in pl.28,

arguing that other than that there is no recognition of

providentialism, especially not during Harold’s death.

Furthermore, Dodwell has proposed that it was a secular

object, linked with the French chanson de geste, a heroic

epic rather than a devotional work. Yet Gameson argues

that the work is religious, and that viewers would have

established a providential theme throughout the work;

there would be no other way to explain the Battle of

Hastings.

72 Porter, R.S., The Puzzles of the Bayeux Tapestry (Hastings, 1986), 3.73 Bernstein, The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry, 106.

33

Crafton argues that the Tapestry fitted into a wide

creation of gens Normanorumn, forging a Norman identity

by referring to the Roman imperial past. For example, the

Chanson de Roland saluted Rouen as a new Rome. WJ, WP and

WM connect Normandy to the classical world. WP places 10

66 within the contest of Troy and Rome, arguing that

William I is a better leader than Caesar as he actually

fought at Hastings, whilst Caesar was absent at Bellum

Gallicum. Carmen makes connections with Caesar, and

Baudri proposes that ‘ he will be Caesar’74. Continuing

with the Classical theme, it has been suggested that

Trajan’s column (113 AD) and Marcus Aurelius’s column

(180 AD). There are significant similarities; the pose of

mother and child fleeing from the burning house in pl. 51

is identical to scene XX. Both mothers hold their sons in

their left hand, their right hand crossed over their

bodies, whilst the child’s palm is pointed towards the

viewer. 75 Interestingly, all the scenes ‘quoted’ from

Trajan’s column can be seen from the ground, within the

lowermost third of the 100 feet, and we believe that both

Odo and Harold journeyed to Rome.76 However, arguably

links with the Trajan’s Column can be taken too far.

Recent attempts have been made to argue that the Tapestry

had an ulterior motive, and had an agenda to secretly 74 Crafton, Political Artistry, 83.75 Bernstein, The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry, 94-95.76

? Crafton, Political Artistry, 76.

34

place compassion for the English whilst being obliged to

flatter the Normans. When mentioning the level of Anglo

Saxon subversion, there is a dangerous tendency to place

conjecture above factual analysis. Witness Clemont-

Ferrand’s assertion that:

‘The Tapestry Master formulated a plan of subtle revenge …layer[ing] the text with a Saxon message that, when Odo unfurled the VT before a

mixed audience of Normans and Saxons, it would be clear who was the

real hero of the story’77

Such a fantastical theory cannot hold weight in a

historical investigation. We cannot leap from studying

the images contained within the BT to making uninformed

discussions of a work we know so little about. Wissolik

has argued the BT’s discreetly argues that the real

purpose for Harold’s voyage to Normandy was to liberate

his nephew and cousin, as put forward by the later

Eadmer, thus counteracting the claim that Harold’s

assigned purpose was to designate William as king.

Furthermore, despite claims placed by Bouet that the work

has English sympathies, there is little reference to the

Anglo-Saxon populous. There has been much study into the

symbolism of the art, such as hand gestures and letter

formation, but most of this analysis carries little

substance78. Moreover, aside from the English who cheer

Harold at his coronation, a few villages at Pevensey who

fall victim to English ravaging and members of the fyrd 77 Clement-Ferrand, Anglo Saxon Propaganda in the Bayeux Tapestry, 6.78 Brown, The Bayeux Tapestry, 42.

35

who fall at Hastings, the work mainly portrays the

political elite, and their small circle of followers,

rather than the repercussions of Hastings on a wider

English nation, meaning we cannot gauge the artist’s

general attitude towards the conquered though looking at

the images themselves.

Alternatively, Ashe has proposed the alternate thesis

that the BT is not ideologically charged, but

deliberately neutral. The BT, Ashe argues, presents a

historia, allowing the audience to form their own opinions

about the events portrayed within the work, although it

is rare for work from the eleventh century to be

consciously objective, all artwork conformed to the

personal whims of the artist and the patron. Bouet has

suggested that the work contained a dual purpose so both

English and Norman viewers might find sympathy within it,

although Crafton unlikely that is so political, may be

too many artists given creative freedom suggesting

ambiguities. Arguably, if the English and Normans saw the

Tapestry, they would interpret events differently, but

this does not mean the artist had a political plan to

present a dual interpretation of events. For example, the

image of the woman and child fleeing their house in pl.

71 would have aroused feeling of pathos and anger amongst

the Anglo Saxon viewer, whilst a Norman beholder might

have seen pillaging and devastation as inevitable in a

successful campaign, and even celebrated as shown in the

36

Carmen ‘the stupid people had denied you as king; thereby

they were punished justly’. The different interpretations

did not need to be deliberately placed in the BT by an

artist seeking revenge on his Norman masters.79

Furthermore, as we do not know even if the English saw

the work, it is difficult to convey whether the work

deliberately was sympathetic to the Anglo Saxon cause.

However within the BT there is a neutral treatment of

Harold, with the Tapestry master omitting the claims of

villainy and perjury that were directed at Godwineson by

writers.

VI. Harold: Evil Perjurer or Tragic Hero?

Harold’s presence is so striking within the BT that it

has been suggested that he is the main protagonist of the

work, which records Godwineson’s downfall rather than

appraises William. 80 Harold is repeated twenty seven

times compared with William’s twenty appearances and

Edward the Confessor’s three appearances.81 Within the

work, Harold is referred to as ‘dux Anglorum’, whilst in

reality he was only earl of Wessex matching William’s

title ‘dux Normannorum’, suggestive that the artist sees

79Gameson, ‘The Origin, Art and Message of the Bayeux Tapestry’, 159.80 H.E.J. Cowdrey, ‘King Harold II and the BT: a Critical Introduction’ in King Harold II and the Bayeux Tapestry ed. G.R Owen- Crocker,(Boydell Press, 2005), 1-19, at 2; Gameson, R.,’ Origin, Art and Purpose of the Bayeux Tapestry’ 206; Wormald, F., ‘Style and Design’,33.81 L. Ashe, Fiction and History in England 1066-1200 (Cambridge, 2007) 34.

37

both as equal. 82 WP and WM only dub him ‘comes’ (although

WP does call Harold ‘second only to the king’). 83

However, Harold is only called ‘rex’ during his

coronation, after which he reverts back to Harold, as

shown in pl. when he apparently hears of the Norman

preparations and in pl. during his death.

How far does the BT’s leniency towards Harold contradict

with other accounts? As Cowdray argues, like the BT, the

written sources also convey his impressiveness; WJ and WP

do stress that he was an eminent subject in terms of

power, honour and wealth. WP argues that ‘ we [i.e. the

Normans] do not revile you, Harold, but we grieve and

mourn for you with the pious victor who weeps over your

ruin’84. However other accounts infer that Harold’s

display of riches marks his inner morality, yet the BT

makes no commentary on his character. WP calls

Godwineson a ‘perjurer’, filled with ‘madness … an enemy

of the good and the just … you will be an abomination to

future generation of English no less than Normans’85’. 86

Neither are later accounts gentle to Harold. Aside from

Malmsebury’s claims of judiciousness towards Harold,

Orderic Vitalis says he ‘rejoic[ed] in having split his

82 Pl. 2, The Bayeux Tapestry, ed D.M. Wilson (Thames and Hudson, 2004); Mousset. The Bayeux Tapestry, 37.83 F. M Stenton, ‘The Historical Background’ 11; Bridgeford, ‘Was Count Eustace II of Boulogne the Patron of the Bayeux Tapestry?’ 158;Lewis, Rhetoric of Power, 24.84WP85 WP, 141.86 WP 114-115; Bridgeford, ‘Was Count Eustace II of Boulogne the Patron of the BT?’ Journal of Medieval History 25.3 (1999) 155-85 at 159.

38

brother’s blood … besmirch[ed] the kingdom with his

perjury and crimes’ showing him as a tantrum throwing

‘criminal’, who ‘kicks his mother’ when informed of

William’s arrival. 87 The Brevius Relatio argues that

Harold ‘usurped the royal crown, against all right’.

Furthermore, in Domesday Book, there is a determination

to erase Harold’s kingship all together; the term T.R.E,

used to show that property held by men ‘on the day King

Edward died’ seemly indicates that Normans wanted to wipe

Harold from memory. Only two royal charters from before

1068 refer to Harold’s kingship, from then on he is

referred to as comes, the Norman term for earl.88 As the

Tapestry was a piece of art, which was restricted by time

and effort of production and visual space, arguably it

could not be as descriptive as the written accounts. Yet,

the BT does not use derogatory adjectives for Harold,

unlike WP’s claims that Harold is a ‘rex perjurus’.

Harold’s motive behind his journey from pl.2 to pl. 27 is

similarly vague. Arguably, the English viewer might

interpret this passage differently than a Norman , seeing

Harold as arranging a marriage with one of William’s

daughters, or establishing an Anglo-Norman alliance

against Harald Hardrara, who had signed a peace treaty

with King Swein of Denmark in 1064. Arguably, such an

interpretation would change the meaning of Harold’s oath

87 Bouet, ‘Is the BT pro-English?’, 210.88 Bouet, ‘Is the BT pro-English?’, 210; L. Mousset The Bayeux Tapestry, 38.

39

as something spontaneous and unrelated to his original

journey. The insertion of Harold’s visit to Bosham

Church at pl. 3 is interesting; and it is odd that Odo

would bother with this detail if he were the BT’s patron.

The Bosham episode may demonstrate Harold’s morality or

pietas, with him and a companion genuflecting as they enter

the church. However, Norman viewers might have

interpreted the hypocrisy of Harold, whose family were

known for appropriating church property.89

In the first third of the BT, Harold dominates the work,

and his physical strength is evident. In the crossing, he

issues orders with the ship’s great steering oar in pl.5-

7; then before disembarking, stands firm with Guy of

Ponthieu, his arrestor. In pl.7, Godwineson holds a

spear, indicative of his refusal to be maltreated, and

when captured in pl.9, he holds a hawk, symbolic of

power, perhaps a diplomatic gift for William. Harold

rides in front of his captors, signifying his power and

position

Crucially, Harold’s bravery is shown in pl. 20 when he

rescues two Normans that are trapped in the quicksands at

Dol, an episode that is not included in WP's account of

Harold’s escapades in Brittany. Harold’s heroism is

further shown by his height, which doubles that of the

men that he rescues. McNulty negates that this scene

praises Harold, pointing to the inclusion of the eels in

the lower border, refereeing to Godwineson being as 89 Gameson ‘The Origin, Art and Message of the Bayeux Tapestry’, 159.

40

‘slippery as an eel’. 90 Yet this is purely

interpretation; the animals may be purely decorative, and

Lewis alternatively proposes that the eels are used to

intensify the danger of the piece. 91 Dodwell also

proposes that Harold is humiliated at the scenes, as

rescuing and caring for soldiers displays auxilium … (one

of the) primary services of the vassal’, emphasising that

Harold here is William’s man whilst other historians

assert that saving men would be considered women’s work92. Again, these interpretations are conjecture; most

historians consider this to be straightforward account of

Harold’s goodness.93.

The climatic turning point of the oath at pl. 26 is

interestingly silent. The inscriptions merely state

‘[The Normans] came to Bayeux where Harold made a sacred

oath’. It is unknown if the artist deliberately glossed

over the detail, or assumed his viewers were already

familiar with proceedings. All Norman accounts mention

the oath, stressed by some writers more than others. WP

was most vociferous about the claim; arguing that Harold

promised to act as the duke’s court representative and

keep a garrison at Dover Castle, at his own cost; The

Carmen thrice mentions the oath, as does WJ a later

interpolation by OV, who was familiar with Poitier’s

account. The English sources, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle 90 Bard McNulty, Visual Meaning in the Bayeux Tapestry (New York, 2003), 46.91 Lewis, The Rhetoric of Power in the Bayeux Tapestry, 90.92 Dodwell, 554; M. Foys The Bayeux Tapestry: Digital Edition 93 WP, 80-82.

41

and VER omit it. The BT importantly places the oath at

the end of Godwineson’s excursion, contradicting Eadmer

and WP who put the ceremony before William’s Breton

campaign. Eadmer stresses that Harold only swore the

oath in order to secure the release of his cousins, as

his life was in danger. This removes the immediacy of

his promise; it does not appear as though conformation of

William’s kingship was the prime goal of Harold’s

journey. Clearly, the artist presents the oath as

important; the BT solely claims that Harold swore on both

relics, thus making the covenant doubly binding.

Bernstein suggests that the oath scene contains ocular

symbols alluding to Harold’s blinding including his round

clasp, and the small circle atop the relic on the right

hand side, emblematic ‘bulls eye’ mentioned by Brevis

Relatio. Wace suggests that the relics contained within

the work were St Clair of Normandy and St Augustine of

Canterbury, identified as the patron saints of clearer

vision. 94 Yet, the Hyde Chronicle argues that the

reliquary was St Pancreas, the patron saint of vows, thus

decreasing the symbol of perjury, contradicting

Bernstein’s ideas. The location as also unknown Bernstein

suggests the lack of a porticoed structure around

William, Harold and the relic suggests the oath occurred

outside (perhaps in public), and Wilson notes the cobbles

under Harold’ s feet suggest a street scene.

94 Bernstein, D. 'The blinding of Harold and the meaning of the BT'. Anglo-Norman Studies, 5 (1982), 40-64

42

Whether the BT presents Harold’s brief kingship as

legitimate is another consideration. The BT breaks its

chronological convention, showing the Confessor’s funeral

at the newly consecrated Westminster Cathedral before his

deathbed scene. Bernstein argues that the juxtaposition

of the deathbed scene and Harold being offered crown

(without the interruption of burial) alludes to Harold

acting according to custom. Kings were elected not by

primogeniture but by the previous king’s degree on his

deathbed and being chosen by the witengamot. 95 The BT

does show Edward’s hand reaching to touch Harold, showing

that Harold is being properly elected. Brooks and Walker

make the pertinent point that the placing of hands is

important in this scene, although this might be detail

missed.

Yet again, at a pivotal moment of the Tapestry,

information is missing. Ascertaining the significance of

Edward’s final gesture is complex; Wilson argues that

Edward’s hand touching Harold is symbolic of the

Confessor bequeathing the kingdom to Godwineson. We

believe the Edward’s deathbed scene to be taken from the

VER (although it need not be; most English nobles would

have been aware of whom was present by Edward’s bedside).

Yet the ambiguity of the VER makes it difficult to

decipher precisely what this scene in the BT is saying.

The VER argues that Edward told Harold; ‘ I commend to 95 Bernstein, D.J., The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry (London, 1986), 114.

43

you with all the kingdom for safeguard’. The word

‘safeguard’ is ambiguous; it may either mean that Harold

was given permanent control of the kingdom or was only

given temporary regency until the Conqueror’s safe

crossing. Harold is given ‘safeguard’ of Edith, meaning

that he is merely the protector of his sister and the

country rather than being given both to own96. The Anglo

Saxon Chronicle C and D only mention that Edward entrusted

the kings to his earl Harold, although E seemingly

affirms Harold ruled over England by right; ‘just as the

king had granted it to him’.

When Harold is given the crown after Edward’s death

scene, the sense of immediacy may mean that the crowning

occurred with irregular speed. Identifying who gave the

crown to Harold is difficult; Bernstein and Bouet argue

that the BT indicates Harold has attained kingship

through the initiative of the great lords of the land

Yet, the two men which offer him the crown may be

Harold’s followers rather than official witengamot

members, who WP and WJ argued gave him the crown

illicitly, although JW argued that Harold was elected by

all the English primates.97 Certainly, there is

informality to the scene that seems to suggest Harold’s

accepting of the crown is not in kilter with usual

proceedings. 98 The men are standing alongside Harold,

96 Brown (1984, 59) cf; , John (1979, 265),97 Brown, S.A., ‘The BT: History or Propaganda’, 22.98 Stenton ‘The Historical Background’, 17

44

rather than are on horseback, which indicates that they

have not travelled officially from London to give him the

crown. Mousset points to one holding a two handed battle-

axe, which was an official symbol of the witan and

housecarls, a legacy of the Danish influence at court. 99

The weaponry in the scene suggests a violent undercurrent

in Harold’s accepting of the throne with both axes

pointing to Harold’s neck, this is not a peaceful scene;

indicative that God’s will has been disrupted.

Nonetheless, the BT implies that following Edward’s death

Harold was chosen and crowned in his place. Furthermore,

during the coronation scene, Harold does not crown

himself, as a usurper, as indicated in the Anglo Saxon Life of

Ædwardi.100

There is further controversy over whether the BT shows

Harold’s coronation, or merely depicts him enthroned.

Stenton argues that Harold’s coronation and his

anointment (which proves he is God’s chosen ruler, on a

separate plain from ordinary men) is not shown. The first

account of Harold sitting on his throne is inscribed by

the legend; Hic resident Harold rex Anglorum. The word

‘resident’ (resides) rather than ‘sedet’ (sits) implies

that Harold has already been assumed king, and he now

sits in state. Alternatively, Hicks and English have

99 L. Mousset The Bayeux Tapestry, 41; Stenton ‘The Historical Background’, 17.100 Lewis The Rhetoric of Power in The Bayeux Tapestry, 110.

45

argued for the depiction of Harold’s crowning. 101 Rather

than portray the brazen shame of Harold’s usurpation, the

artist confirms that he is now REX ANGLORUM, with the

proper vestments of state; the crown, (which was an

artistic representation of kinship since the depiction of

King Athelstan in the manuscript of the Life of Cuthbert c.

935) the orb and the sceptre. 102 Enthroned, Godwineson’s

head rises above his companions, suggesting that he is

physically and spiritually above them. 103 He stares

directly at the viewer, a style rarely used in the BT,

his pose suggestive of the imperial European depictions,

such as the inscription of Charles the Bald in San Callisto

Bible, or in the Munich Gospels. 104 Thus Barbara English

argues that the artist presents Harold with ‘imperial

overtones’.

The inclusion of Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury is

interesting. John of Worcester argued that Ealdred,

Archbishop of York crowned Harold, a claim given weight

by his tutor Wulfstan perhaps being present at Harold’s

coronation.105 . It is unknown as to whether the BT

deliberately named Stigand, who was excommunicated, to

stress the invalidity of the event, or if the artist was 101 C. Hicks The BT: The Life Story of a Masterpiece (Chatto and Windus, 2006), 12102 Stenton ‘The Historical Background’17103 English, B., ‘The Coronation of Harold in the BT’ in Bouet, P, Levy, B. and Neveux, F. The BT: Embroidering the Facts (Caen, 1999), 347-381at 348104 Ibid, 352105 Ibid, 17; F.M. Stenton, ‘The Historical Background’, 23.

46

simply ignorant of the real archbishop. 106 The sheer

height of the building, its top penetrating the top of

the upper border, suggests that Harold was consecrated in

a large space such as Westminster. The Brevis Relatio

argues that Harold was crowned at St Pauls, although this

might be a mistake.. The later reproductions of the

eighteenth century all contain the words ‘rex Anglorum’

indicative that this is not a later addition. Yet Bates

argues that the inclusion of Rex was a mistake within the

wok, suggesting that the eventual dismissal of Harold’s

reign was not established during the Tapestry’s designing

even if the artist wanted to show Harold’s power, he does

so briefly. 107 The inclusion of Halley’s comet is a potent

of doom, and in the next scene Harold uneasily slumps in

his throne, the above inscription dubbing him Haroldus

rather than Rex.

Finally, it is questionable as to whether Harold is

presented as a perjurer through his death. Until C.

Gibbs-Smith’s commentary in 1957, it was assumed that the

arrow-in-the eye figure was Harold, as the name Harold in

the inscription Harold interfectus est was directly

embroidered above. However, scholars now consider the axe

wielding soldier, on the original figure’s right being

cut down to be Harold; with C. Gibbs-Smith arguing that

the first man is merely a ‘headquarters staff’108, who was106 Ibid 19107 Bares, 155.108 N.P Brooks and H.E. Walker ‘The Authority of the Bayeux Tapestry’,ANS 1

47

the last protectorate of Harold109. Alternatively, it

might be both figures represent the king; Gibbs-Smith

dismissed this, arguing in the Bayeux Tapestry no figure

was shown twice in the same scene, but this is not quite

true; duplication was often used in medieval

illumination, particularly in Canterbury before and after

the Norman Conquest, for example the Cædmon manuscript,

which depicts leading figures within a single picture.110In the BT, Edward’s dead body is placed underneath the

living king, making his final promise. Moreover,

Bernstein examined seventeen stitch holes near the second

figure’s eye, adding weight to the theory Harold was shot

and then cut, although Wilson argues that no eighteenth

or nineteenth century depiction shows this. Importantly,

the words "interfectus est" are above the second figure;

which confirms both William of Poitiers and the Carmen’s

accounts that William was killed by sword and spear

thrusts.

We have scant information about how the king actually

died; the ASC C and D only mentions Harold was killed

with his brothers, Gyrth and Leowine, whilst William of

Poitiers argues the king was so mutilated his face could

not be recognised [Brooks argues this implies he was shot

through the eye, but he could easily be disfigured in

109 F. McLynn, 1066 (1998), 236110 Ibid, p.23, see also R. Allen Brown ‘The Battle of Hastings’ p. 214 in The Battle of Hastings (ed.Morillo, 1996)

48

other ways]. 111 WJ asserts Harold was ‘pierced by lethal

wounds’112, whilst the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio

graphically describes Harold being killed by the key

Normans; William cleaving Harold’s breast with his spear

point, Eustace of Boulogne decapitating him, Hugh of

Pontius disembowelling him, whilst Giffard hacks off his

thigh. Furthermore, WJ and OV assert that Harold died at

the start of the battle, not at the end, although we have

little evidence for this. Baudri of Bourgeuil firstly

wrote of Harold being shot in 1099-1102, but his poem

omits him being shot in the eye, and Gibbs-Smith argues

he was heavily influenced by the Bayeux Tapestry, and was

not an independent scholar. WM firstly conveyed that

Harold was struck by a ‘lethal arrow’ which entered his

brain as did Wace of Bayeux, who describes locates the

arrow wound being ‘below the right eye’, but the accuracy

of their descriptions is weakened by them both being

later sources.113

It is debatable whether the arrow is a symbol of divine

retribution, blinding Harold for his sin rather than the

physical murder weapon. The lack of other evidence might

infer that the inclusion of the arrow (if the arrow-in-

the-eye figure is Harold) is purely emblematic. Bernstein

points to the figure of a stripped Anglo-Saxon warrior in

111 ibid p 235; The Anglo Saxon Chronicle C.D s.a. 1066, ed. D Whitelock with D.C. Douglas and S.I Tucker (London 1961) pp.143N.P Brooks and H.E. Walker ‘The Authority of the Bayeux Tapestry’, ANS 1112 WJ, 171113 Frank McLynn 1066 (1998), 235

49

the scene prior to Harold’s death scene, about to be

executed by a Norman knight. This is the most brutal and

accurate depiction of dismemberment within the BT, and

Bernstein asserts that the figure was quoted from

depictions about Nebuchadnezzar and Zedekikah, a biblical

story of a king being blinded by God for his sins.

Blinding as a common form of biblical punishment, the

victim literally being in the ‘dark’ after rebuking God’

goodness, as shown in the Pyschomacia of Prudentius. It

is interesting that the figure on horseback squashes a

dragon (taken to be Godwineson’s emblem) under his horse,

a symbolic suggestion that the knight on horseback killed

Harold, who is not an archer but who carries a spear, who

then hacks into figure’s leg with sword. Lewis also

argues that Harold’s loss of sight was tantamount to

punishing his sin of faith fullness, a legal Norman

punishment that was inflicted on rebels and poachers, as

shown in the so-called Articles of William the

Conqueror.114 If the BT thus uses the arrow to condemn

Harold, it reduces other arguments of Norman sympathy for

Harold, and makes the BT as suggestive of Harold’s

perjury as WP and WJ. However, as we have no way of

gauging the artist’s meaning in this scene, ambiguities

and different assertions remain.

Conclusion

114 Lewis, The Rhetoric of Power in the Bayeux Tapestry, 128.

50

With a piece of work as indistinct as the BT, it is very

difficult to avoid speculating about its purpose and

meaning. However it is critical to avoid guesswork and

supposition. For example, Clemont-Ferrand and Wissolik’s

arguments that the master artist and embroiderers had an

ulterior purpose, and laced the work with hidden support

for the English, in revenge against their Norman masters,

needs to be abandoned. As imaginative and entertaining as

such a proposal may be, it lacks both artistic and

textual evidence to verify it.

It is however possible to make educative guesses,

informed by close study of the Bayeux Tapestry and

scientific analysis of the work. Odo remains the most

likely commissioner. Despite recent events to revise his

contribution and suggestions of other patrons, there are

too many references, both blatant and indirect, about his

followers, his property in Bayeux and his role at

Hastings, to divorce him from the work. Apart from the

deathbed scene in pl. 30 bearing a resemblance to

description in the VER, there is nothing to suggest

Edith’s involvement with the work. Edith had no motive,

or anything to gain from the promotion of her brothers.

The many references to Norman architecture, from the

accurate depictions of the motte and bailey

fortifications at Dol and at Pevensey, and general

interest in the Norman preparations after pl. 36 infer

that the Normans contributed largely to the production of

51

the work. There is even less evidence suggesting Eustace

patronised the work, aside from his appearance in pl.68

nothing attests to his input in the Tapestry, and

Wissolik’s theory that Wadard, Vital and Turold were the

knights defending Dover Castles is pure imagination.

Bridgeford seems to be using historical information to

fit his own theories, rather than deducing ideas through

looking at the facts.

Yet, despite Grape’s claims for the production occurring

at Bayeux and Beech’s unfounded assertion of a French

origin, it is likely the Tapestry was made in England,

under Norman supervision. The cumulative quotations of

figures within the Canterbury manuscripts cannot be

ignored, and arguably English illustration outdated the

Norman school, which reached its artistic peak after the

Conquest. The fact English embroiderers were renowned

through Europe is important.

The disparity between the BT and other accounts of the

Conquest is debatable. It is undeniable that the BT does

not blatantly criticise Harold; he is not dubbed ‘rex

perjurus’. Furthermore, Godwineson is given the crown

(albeit probably by his own companions); he does not

greedily seize it. At his coronation, the artist shows

the English people cheering him, indicating this is what

they wanted; although Levy has argued that gauging their

reception of Harold is difficult from their gestures;

52

they might be raising their hands in shock at the swift

enthronement of Harold, or even raising arms in anger. 115

116 Through skipping the narrative of Stamford Bridge, the

BT does miss an example of English military bravery, but

it also omits the point that Harold committed fratricide

by killing his brother Tostig, a heinous sin, which could

be easily capitalised by the Normans if they wanted to

defame him.117

Nevertheless, there is still the problem of

interpretation. We can never know if the artist was

always inferring Harold’s duplicity, implying his regal

actions and friendship with William hid his actual

intent, or if Harold was always portrayed as a noble man,

defeated by his own greed. Perhaps, as … suggests a

jongleur would tell the story to the spectators, and put

their own spin on the story, although again, this is

assumption rather than fact.

Determining how separate the BT is from other written

narratives is extremely difficult. There may have been

other written and oral accounts of the Conquest, now lost

to us, which displayed more sympathy to Harold and the

English, the dramatic nature of Carmen may have

represented one view. We cannot argue that the work was

uniquely sympathetic to the English, thus either

115 Bouet, ‘Is the BT pro-English?’, 203116 Wormald, ‘Style and Design’. at 35117 Bouet, ‘Is the BT pro-English?’at 206

53

suggesting an English origin, or even subversion, as

there may have been other Norman sources, which also

presented a fairer account.

The safest attitude to take when evaluating the BT is

therefore one of openness. There is much within the work

that is unknowable, and it is vital we accept our own

limitations in analysing the work.

54

55

Bibliography

Primary Sources

1. The Bayeux Tapestry Digital Edition ed. Foys, M.

(Scholarly Digital Edition, 2003).

2. The Bayeux Tapestry, ed. Wilson, D. (Thames and

Hudson, 1988).

3. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle: A Revised Translation ed.

Whitelock, D. with Douglas, D.C. and Tucker, S.I.

(London, 1961). Annals from 1041-1067.

4. The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed.

and trans. M. Chibnall (Oxford Medieval Texts, 1969-

1980), vol. ii, p. 135.

5. The ‘Gesta Guillielmi of William of Poitiers, ed.

and trans. R.H.C Davis and M. Chibnall (Oxford

Medieval Texts, 1998).

6. The ‘Gesta Normannorum Ducum’ of William of

Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni ed.

E.M.C Houts (Oxford Medieval Texts, 1992-5).

56

7. Vita Ædwardi Regis qui apud Westmonasterium

requiescit ed. and trans. Barlow, F. (Oxford

Medieval Texts, 1992).

Secondary Sources

1. Ashe, L., Fiction and History in England 1066-1200

(Cambridge, 2007).

2. Bachrach, B., ‘Some Observations on the Bayeux

Tapestry’ Cithara 27.1 (1987), 5-28.Bard McNulty,

J., Visual Meaning in the Bayeux Tapestry (New York,

2003).

3. Bard McNulty, J. Visual Meaning in the Bayeux

Tapestry: Problems and Solutions in Picturing

History (Edwin Mellen Press, 2003).

4. Bates, D.R., ‘The Character and Career of Odo,

Bishop of Bayeux’ Speculum, 50 (1975) 1-20.

5. Bernstein, D.J., The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry

(London, 1986).

57

6. Beech, G., Was the Bayeux Tapestry made in France?

The Case for Saint-Florent of Samur, (New York,

2003).

7. Bishop, M. ‘1066’ Horizon 8 (1966) 4-27.

8. Bouet, P., ‘Is the Bayeux Tapestry pro-English?’,

Bouet, P., Levy, B. and Neveux, F. The Bayeux

Tapestry: Embroidering the Facts (Caen, 1999).197-

217.

9. Bridgeford, A ‘Was Count Eustace II of Boulogne the

Patron of the Bayeux Tapestry?’ Journal of Medieval

History 25.3 (1999) 155-85.

10. Brilliant, R., ‘The Bayeux Tapestry, a Stripped

Narrative for Their Eyes and Ears’ The Study of the

Bayeux Tapestry ed. Gameson (Boydell, 1997) 111-37.

11. Brown, S.A., ‘The Bayeux Tapestry: History or

Propaganda’ in The Anglo Saxons, Synthesis and

Achievement edd. Douglas Woods, J and Pelteret,

D.A.E., (Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1985),

11-27.

12. Brown S.A. The Bayeux Tapestry, History and

Bibliography (Boydell,1988).

58

13. Brooks N.P and Walker, H.E., ‘The Authority and

Interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry’ Anglo-Norman

Studies 1 (1978), pp 1-34.

14. Cholakian, R., ‘The Bayeux Tapestry: is there

more to say?’ Annales de Normandie 47.1 (1997), 43-

50.

15. Clemont-Ferrand, M., Anglo Saxon Propaganda in

the Bayeux Tapestry (Edwin Mellen, 2004)

16. Cowdrey, H.E.J., ‘King Harold II and the Bayeux

Tapestry: a Critical Introduction’ in King Harold II

and the Bayeux Tapestry ed. Owen- Crocker, G.R.,

(Boydell Press, 2005), 1-19.

17. Crafton, J.M., The Political Artistry of the

Bayeux Tapestry: A Visual Epic of Norman Imperial

Ambition (Edwin Mellen Press, 2007).

18. Gameson, R., ‘The Origin, Art and Message of

the Bayeux Tapestry’ The Study of the Bayeux

Tapestry ed. Gameson (Rochester, 1997) 157-211.

19. Garnett, G., ‘Franci et Angli’ The Legal

Distinction between People after the Conquest’ Anglo

Norman Studies (1986) 109-137.

59

20. English, B., ‘The Coronation of Harold in the

Bayeux Tapestry’ in Bouet, P, Levy, B. and Neveux,

F. The Bayeux Tapestry: Embroidering the Facts

(Caen, 1999), 347-381.

21. Grape, W., The Bayeux Tapestry (New York,

1994).

22. Hicks, C. The Bayeux Tapestry (Chatto & Windus,

2006).

23. Hart, C. ‘The Bayeux Tapestry and Schools of

Illumination at Canterbury’ Anglo Norman Studies 22

(2000), 117-167.

24. Lepelley, R., ‘A Contribution to the Study of

the Inscriptions in the Bayeux Tapestry: Bagias and

Wilgelm’, ed. Gameson, Study of the Bayeux Tapestry

(Boydell, 1997), 39-46

25. Lewis, M. J., ‘Identity and Status in the

Bayeux Tapestry: The Iconographic and Artefactual

Evidence’ in Anglo Norman Studies XX1X (2007) 100-

120.

26. Maclagan, E., The Bayeux Tapestry, (Penguin,

1943).

60

27. Mousset L., The Bayeux Tapestry, (Boydell and

Brewer Ltd, 2005).

28. Neveux, F., ‘The Great Bayeux Tapestry Debate’

in Bouet, P, Levy, B. and Neveux, F. The Bayeux

Tapestry: Embroidering the Facts (Caen, 1999).

29. Porter, R.S., The Puzzles of the Bayeux

Tapestry (Hastings, 1986)

30. Owen-Crocker, G., ‘Brothers, Rivals and the

Geometry of the Bayeux Tapestry’, ed. Owen-Crocker,

G., Harold II and the Bayeux Tapestry (Boydell &

Brewer, 2005) 109-125.

31. Short, I., ‘The Language of the Bayeux

Tapestry’ in Anglo Norman Studies XXIII (2003) 267-

287.

32. Stenton, F.M., ‘The Historical Background’ in

Stenton, F.M., (ed) The Bayeux Tapestry: A

Comprehensive Survey (London, 1957), 9-25.

33. Wingfield Digby, G., ‘Technique and Production’

in Stenton, F.M., (ed) The Bayeux Tapestry: A

Comprehensive Survey (London, 1957), 37-56.

61

34. Wissolik R.D., ‘Code in the Bayeux Tapestry’ in

Zbozny, F., Annuale Medievale Vol 19 (Atlantic

Highlands, 1979) 69-97.

35. Wormald, F., ‘Style and Design’ in Stenton,

F.M., (ed) The Bayeux Tapestry: A Comprehensive

Survey (London, 1957), 25-37.

Websites Consulted

1. Williams, A., ‘Edith (d. 1075)’, Oxford Dictionary

of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004

[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8483,

accessed 25 Feb 2009].

2. Bates, D., ‘Odo, earl of Kent (d. 1097)’, Oxford

Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University

Press, 2004

[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/20543,

accessed 3 March 2009].

62