Most art that I love appeals to me aesthetically first. I can come to love an artwork the more I learn about it, but my top ten, let’s say, I love because I love the way they look.
This holds true for the Bayeux Tapestry, which is a fascinating piece of art in so many ways. But deep down in that aesthetic place, I just love the way it looks. For example, check out this armor. Don’t you love it? It’s made of circles. It’s simple, but it gets the idea across. (And what’s going on in the margin underneath? We’ll get back to that.):
And this. The water, the people wading in, the boat. Magical. How the artists/designers dealt with showing water in this flat rather narrow space is definitely something to think about:
Again, aesthetically it just grabs me. But time after time, artists had to deal with how to depict water, usually within the limits of their materials and available space. And they so often come up with similar solutions. For example, here’s what the Assyrians did. You just know those lines are water, don’t you? (He’s riding on an inflated animal skin.):
Or a much later baptism of Jesus. Again, we get that the lines are water, right, even though the space doesn’t make much sense? (which, to be fair, was probably beside the point. Naturalistic space not necessary.):
Or one more, a personal favorite:
Of course you probably already know it’s water, but again, how the artist deals with showing water is just plain interesting.
Ok, back to the Bayeux Tapestry. Why do I say it’s fascinating? Well, the history of how it survived for over 1000 years in itself is fascinating. It’s made out of fabric, after all. And then there’s the fact that the Bayeux Tapestry isn’t a tapestry at all. It’s huge piece of embroidery, possibly made in England by Anglo-Saxon seamsters (men who were famous for their sewing abilities), although my old stand-by medieval art history book says that it was made by seamstresses in Kent. And some say it was created in France. We just don’t know for sure. Wikipedia has a good, detailed article about these theories and the Bayeux Tapestry in general, but I wonder about the author’s statement that the images in the border are purely decorative. Is anything purely decorative, when you get down to it? Why were the images that were put in the borders put there? While they may appear decorative to us, some thought had to be put into what was depicted. There are limitations of space and size, but there must be reasons why images in the borders were put there, even if that reason is as straightforward as it’s what I saw out my window. It’s from a story I was told last night. It fits in the with the main narrative for some reason that’s lost to us today.
As in many illuminated manuscripts, the borders are sometimes even more interesting than the main action, and give you information about what was going on at the time. Since they’re not part of what was often a prescribed story, the designer/artists could let their imaginations out a little bit and/or depict what was going on around them. In the Bayeux Tapestry, some of Aesop’s Fables are depicted, assorted animals and people, and scenes of daily life, like the one below showing men plowing and scattering seeds. I honestly have no idea what’s going on in border of the scene above (the one with the water). It looks like one man’s pulling the armor off over another man’s head. If you know, let me know!
And speaking of borders, if you only know one thing about the Bayeux Tapestry, it may be that this is thought to be the first time that Halley’s Comet is depicted (top right of the image below). And when Halley’s Comet came again in the mid 1980s, Sierra Leone used the Bayeux Tapestry on a stamp. Holy cross-cultural, batman!
So what’s depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry? The events before and during the Battle of Hastings. The gist is this: Edward the Confessor (the kind of England) died and Harold became king. (At this time, heredity didn’t determine who the next monarch would be. It was decided by a group of English nobles. Hunh. I did not know that.) William of Normandy (of France, later William the Conqueror) thought that he should be king, so he invaded England. In the end, William won, and Harold died, so England ended up with a Norman king. He ruled from 1066 until 1087, when his son took over. Supposedly Harold was killed when he was shot through the eye with an arrow (see figure on left of first image in this post), but it appears that this isn’t true. A book just came out a month or so ago that debunks stories from history, some of which I’m pretty sure had already been debunked. But anyway, it seems that the story about Harold being shot in the eye doesn’t show up anywhere until fifteen years after the Battle of Hastings: “An arrow in the eye was the punishment for perjury — the Norman invaders regarding Harold as a perjurer for breaking his promise to back William’s claim to the throne after Edward the Confessor’s death. The Bayeux Tapestry — which enshrined the arrow myth — was intended to black Harold’s reputation and act as a lesson to anyone contemplating treachery against the new regime.” Mark one down on the side of Anglo-Saxon production of the Bayeux Tapestry!
The Bayeux Tapestry dates to around 1070, making it over 1000 years old. Wow. And today it’s in a museum in Bayeux, Normandy, France, the whole thing unfurled and visible at once. Definitely on my list of must-sees. Even reproductions make me happy. And even if you’ve never seen it before, come on, admit it. You want to come with me, right? (If you want to see the whole thing before we go, and trust me, you do, click here. You can look at it panel by panel. It’s awe-inspiring.)
Quote from “Lady Godiva never rode through the streets naked . . . and the other historical facts that aren’t true” by Harry Mount, Mail Online, October 25, 2011