1066 (31 page)

One further piece of intriguing evidence should be mentioned, though its import is unclear. There is a curious reference to a 'large high-loom tapestry without gold, the story of William of Normandy, how he conquered England' in an inventory dating from 1420 of the tapestries of Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy (1419-67).
¹²
In the context it seems unlikely that this 'tapestry', of which we have no other description, is the Bayeux Tapestry. But could the conjectured recent discovery of the Bayeux embroidery in 1412 have inspired a tapestry, in the strict sense, to be commissioned on the same theme by Duke Philip's immediate predecessor, Duke John the Fearless? Both dukes were noted as collectors of many and various tapestries of their day; news of the Bayeux discovery may have quickly been brought to Burgundy. Moreover, the 'William the Conqueror' tapestry does not appear in an earlier Burgundian inventory of 1404, and so it is not impossible that it was made in the years between 1412 and 1420. Clearly however, we are at the very limit of what is knowable. Sufficient evidence is simply not available to give anything like a definitive answer to these questions.

22

The Patronage of the Bayeux Tapestry

The view that Bishop Odo of Bayeux was the patron of the Bayeux Tapestry - because it flatters him and at least two of his knights - has remained unquestioned in over 100 years of study. It has, in short, become the settled orthodoxy on the matter. We have seen, however, how subtly and cleverly the work is shot through with an astonishing English undercurrent, undermining the Norman claim to the English throne at every turn. We have seen, too, that the tapestry highlights Odo's former adversary, the enigmatic Count Eustace II of Boulogne, and implicitly favours the French (and in particular Boulogne) over and above the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. This suggests, on the contrary, that Odo was not the patron. It is, of course, always possible that Odo commissioned a work which was, unbeknownst to him, secretly designed in a way that undermined and subverted Norman interests. While this theory cannot be disproved, it is surely likely that, if Odo commissioned the embroidery, he and his associates would have taken great interest in the work as it progressed and overseen the labours of the artist and embroiderers so as to ensure that no such mixed messages were promulgated.

The alternative hypothesis we have proposed that the forgotten Count Eustace of Boulogne was the patron, has several advantages. Eustace must have made considerable efforts to achieve his reconciliation with the Normans in the early 1070s. The idea that the tapestry was a peace offering to Odo accounts for the highlighting of both Odo and Eustace on either side of Duke William. It accounts, too, for what we have identified as a pro-French, rather than Norman, portrayal of the Battle of Hastings, for Eustace might well have wished this to be subtly recorded. We have seen that the appearances of Turold,
Æligyva,
Wadard and Vital can be understood in ways that are consistent with Eustace's patronage. The English undercurrent can also be understood. Eustace, as a non Norman, would have been open to alternative views on the matter of Duke William's claim to the throne, such as may have been preserved at St Augustine's Abbey, and he did, in any event, form a mysterious alliance with the men of Kent in the autumn of 1067. Ultimately, however, the patronage of the Bayeux Tapestry is simply a matter which lies beyond the available evidence. The tapestry certainly flatters Odo but there could be several explanations for that aside from the idea that Odo commissioned the work. The desire of Eustace to reach a reconciliation with him is one such explanation. Might there not be others too?

We could even suggest a hypothesis which does away with the whole idea of an outside patron. The monks of St Augustine's could have themselves decided to commission the Bayeux Tapestry, as a gift, secular in tone, to Bishop Odo of Bayeux, Earl of Kent, in order to cultivate him as an ally. St Augustine's was certainly wealthy enough to cause such a work to be produced. Its income of £635 in 1086 made it one of the richest abbeys in England. As the oldest Abbey in England, dating from the time of St Augustine himself, it claimed freedom from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The monks of St Augustine's even produced a series of forged charters in the 1070s in an attempt to retain this privileged position.
¹
Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury was not disposed to tolerate such an independently-minded monastery in his own back yard. Ill feeling between the monks of St Augustine's and the rival Christ Church Abbey over which Lanfranc presided, was already evident in the 1070s and this was to boil over into outright violence on the streets of Canterbury in the late 1080s.
²
Odo, too, had poor relations with Lanfranc and thus he may well have been perceived by the monks as a valuable potential ally able and willing to stand up for the Archbishop. If anything like this is right, the appearance of Wadard and Vital, both knights of Odo having strong ties to the abbey, is unremarkable. Furthermore, the monks may have also desired to flatter Eustace, whose stone from Marquise was helping rebuild their abbey, presumably around this same time. On the other hand, the more subtle and hidden ways that the Tapestry promotes Eustace and his Frenchmen suggest that the designer was already favourable to Eustace, perhaps being of Boulonnais origin himself, and that the Count of Boulogne was involved in some more direct capacity from the start, if not as patron, then at least as a supporter in some sense. Either way, he is a very much more central figure than has traditionally been believed.

If the question of patronage is less certain than it has previously been thought, it has become clear that the tapestry's content is far removed from the 'Norman propaganda' of con ventional myth. Whoever was the patron and whatever the genesis of the idea, it is clear that the artist was playing a delicious and thoroughly dangerous game. The picture of the Bayeux Tapestry that has emerged in this book is one of an artistic masterpiece of intellectual brilliance, shot through with multiple layers of meaning. The purpose of Harold's voyage, the significance of Ælfgyva, Harold's oath, the meaning of the word 'French' in the battle scenes and the death of Harold are all treated by the artist in a way that deliberately teases the audience with ambiguity. At one level all of these scenes can be read as consistent with the Norman story. Ultimately, however, the artist's underlying meaning is revealed by subtle and persistent pictorial clues. He flattered Bishop Odo, but at the same time stitched ingeniously into the embroidered story are veiled statements of the English point of view and coded clues as to the role of Count Eustace and his men in the downfall of Harold, even an indication that Eustace himself struck the fatal blow that brought the last Anglo-Saxon king to his knees. The tapestry tells us that the Norman claim to the throne was built upon a lie. It was the lie that near the end of his reign King Edward sent Harold to Normandy in order to confirm William's status as the next king. In fact, Harold had journeyed to the continent on his own account but foolishly he swore an oath in William's favour in order to extract himself from his prolonged and dangerous stay in Normandy. When Harold himself ascended the throne in January 1066, in breach of this oath, God's judgement was not long in falling upon him and his country alike. Instrumental in the enforcement of God's will were not the Normans but rather Count Eustace II of Boulogne and his Frenchmen, Eus­tace the noble heir of Charlemagne whose merits were perhaps being regularly sung and vaunted by the dwarf
jongleur
Turold in the baronial halls of northern France. Elsewhere the English viewpoint was being silenced and censored, and the role of the non-Norman Frenchmen minimised, but Odo would be taking back to Normandy a work of art that, unbeknownst to him, subtly undermined Norman propaganda in almost every respect. The Bayeux Tapestry emerges from all this not as a Norman work or even a purely English one but as a truly Anglo-French production, foreshadowing the age that dawned with the Norman Conquest, but in ways quite unexpected.

It was at St Augustine's Abbey that one of the versions of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
was kept up, nowadays called the E version. The E version of the
Chronicle
tends to be the most favourable towards Earl Godwin and his family, but it, like the other versions of the
Chronicle,
passes over in silence the whole matter of Harold Godwinson's fateful journey to the continent that was the catalyst of all that followed. The truth behind Harold's mission, and with it King Edward's crucial wishes towards the end of his reign, was recorded at St Augustine's not, on this occasion, in ink scratched upon parchment but with colourful stitches pierced through white linen cloth. In this sense, the Bayeux Tapestry can truly be described as the lost
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
as well as the secret Chronicle of the House of Boulogne, a generation before the blood of Charlemagne achieved a new pinnacle of success in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

As long ago as 1935 the French historian Henri Prentout wondered whether there was anything new that could be written about the Bayeux Tapestry, whether, in fact, everything that could be said had already been said.
³
The same sentiment is not infrequently expressed today. Such pessimistic notes have often quickly been followed by some fresh insight or intriguing argument. The secrets of this extraordinary work of genius continue to fascinate and beguile us. It is by no means impossible that further astonishing discoveries await to be made.

Notes

1
In Search of the Bayeux Tapestry

2
For the tapestry's subversive English point of view, this work is particularly indebted to the studies of Bernstein and Wissolik listed in the bibliography. The view that the tapestry is entirely pro-Norman (which it will be argued is incorrect) also has an academic pedigree and is represented by Grape,
Bayeux Tapestry.

2
Liber Eliensis,
II, 63, p. 136.

3
For general accounts of the Norman Conquest, see R. A. Brown,
The Normans and the Norman Conquest;
Williams,
The English and the Norman Conquest;
Douglas,
William the Conqueror;
Bates,
William the Conqueror.

4
Simeon of Durham,
Opera Omnia,
II, p. 188.

5
Orderic Vitalis,
Ecclesiastical History,
II, p. 233.

6
For example, see Michel de Bouard, 'La chanson de Roland et la Normandie'; Rita Lejeune, 'Le caractere de l'archeveque Turpin'.

7
Song of Roland.

8
Loyd,
Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families;
Keats-Rohan,
Domesday People.

2
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Accounts of the Norman invasion are found in version 'E', which is considered to have been written at St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, and version 'D', which was probably written at Worcester. Manuscript 'C', from Abingdon, ends in 1066.

3
Life of King Edward.

4
William of Jumieges,
Gesta Normannorum,
ed. and tr. by E. M. C. van Houts.

5
William of Poitiers,
Gesta Guillelmi.
William of Poitiers was a Norman. The designation 'of Poitiers' refers to where he was educated.

6
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio,
ed. and tr. by F. Barlow.

7
Eadmer,
Eadmer's History,
tr. by G. Bosanquet.

8
William of Malmesbury,
Gesta Regum Anglorum;
Henry of Huntingdon,
Historia Anglorum;
Orderic Vitalis,
Ecelesiasheal History;
Wace,
Roman de Rou.

9
Orderic Vitalis,
Ecclesiastical History,
IV, p. 95.

2
Baudri,
Oeuvres poetiques;
the relevant section of the
Adelae Comitis-sae
is translated by Michael Herren in Brown,
Bayeux Tapestry: History and Bibliography,
Appendix III; on the probability of Baudri having seen the Bayeux Tapestry, see Brown and Herren, 'The
Adelae Comitissae
of Baudri de Bourgeuil'.

3
Quoted in Wilson,
Bayeux Tapestry,
p. 12.

4
Quoted in S. A. Brown,
Bayeux Tapestry: History and Bibliography,
p. 4.

5
Montfaucon,
Monuments,
II, p. 2.

6
Ducarel,
Anglo-Norman Antiquities,
pp. 79-80.

7
Hume,
History of England.

8
Barre
et al., La Tapisserie de la reine Mathilde, comedie, en un acte

9
Stothard, 'Some Observations on the Bayeux Tapestry'.

10
Dubosq,
La Tapisserie de Bayeux: dix annees tragiques,
p. 21.

11
Dibdin,
A Bibliographical, Antiquarian and Picturesque Tour,
I, p. 248.

12
Dubosq,
La Tapisserie de Bayeux: dix annees tragiques,
and S. A. Brown,
Bayeux Tapestry: History and Bibliography,
pp. 17-20.

13
Nicholas,
Rape of Europa,
p. 285.

14
Von Choltitz, 'Pourquoi, en 1944, je n'ai pas detruit Paris'.

15
The attempt of the SS men to take the Bayeux Tapestry is briefly portrayed in the fact-based 1966 film
Is Paris Burning?
starring Jean Paul Belmondo, Yves Montand and Orson Welles and based on a book by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre.

2
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(D), 1063.

3
Brooke,
The Saxon and Norman Kings,
pp. 25ff.

4
Harald Hardrada's claim was based on a treaty entered into in the 1030s between King Harthacanute of Denmark and Magnus, Harald Hardrada's predecessor as King of Norway. It was apparently agreed that if either died childless the survivor would inherit the deceased's domain. Harthacanute was at that time not yet king in England, although he did become king in 1040. He died childless in 1042 and was succeeded in England by Edward the Confessor.

5
McLynn,
1066,
chapter 3.

6
For William the Conqueror, see the biographies of Bates, Douglas and de Bouard listed in the bibliography to this book.

7
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(D), 1051 (literally 1052). William of Poitiers
(Gesta Guillelmi,
p. 121), writing after the Conquest, states that Archbishop Stigand and Earls Godwin, Leofric and Siward formally consented around this time to William succeeding. The several problems with this later contention are discussed by Barlow,
Edward the Confessor,
pp. 107-9.

8
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(D), 1057.

9
Walker,
Harold,
pp. 8Iff.

10
Barlow,
Edward the Confessor,
p. 58.

11
Gesta Guillelmi,
p. 69.

12
Orderic Vitalis,
Ecclesiastical History,
II, p. 199.

13
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(E) 1052 states that Edward and Godwin both took hostages as part of the negotiations for their settlement in September 1052. Eadmer
(History,
p. 6) is quite clear that Wulfnoth and Hakon were handed over at this time and that they were merely transported to Normandy (presumably without Godwin's consent) for safekeeping. However, William of Poitiers
(Gesta Guillelmi,
pp. 21, 121) states that the hostages were specifically sent to Normandy as security for the supposed designation of Duke William as heir to the throne and that they were brought over by Robert of Jumieges, the Norman Archbishop of Canterbury. This latter contention suggests that they were taken to Normandy in the spring of 1051, when Robert passed through Normandy on his way to Rome, although in the autumn of 1052 he also returned from England to Normandy, in haste and never to return, when the Godwins were restored. The whole matter is rendered uncertain by these conflicting accounts but the evidence of Eadmer, both as to the purpose and date of Wulfnoth and Hakon's detention, tends to be overlooked by modern historians. For general commentary see Barlow,
Edward the Confessor,
pp. 107-9; Barlow,
The Godwins,
p. 48; Walker,
Harold,
chapter 3.

14
Eadmer,
History,
p. 6. Wace,
Roman de Rou,
Part III, lines 5585 ff., repeats both stories and confesses he does not know which to prefer. Of the other twelfth-century writers, William of Malmesbury,
Gesta Regum Anglorum,
p. 417, reports that Harold was simply on a fishing trip that went wrong. This cannot be the tapestry's view for the party departs with hawks and hounds. Later Henry of Huntingdon,
Historia Anglorum,
p. 381, baldly states that Harold was on his way to Flanders, not Normandy, and was driven by a storm southwards to Ponthieu.

15
The insight that the artist of the tapestry is telling a smilar story to Eadmer is made by Wissolik, 'Saxon Statement: Code in the Bayeux Tapestry', and by Bernstein,
Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry,
especially pp. 115-17.

16
Barlow,
The Godwins,
p. 54.

17
Jenkins,
England's Thousand Best Churches,
pp. 685-6.

18
Musset,
La Tapisserie de Bayeux,
pp. 92-3; Taylor, 'Belrem'.

19
The story of Canute and the tide first appears in Henry of Huntingdon,
Historia Anglorum
(first half of twelfth century), p. 367.

20
Marwood,
The Stone Coffins of Bosham Church.
The story of Canute's daughter is, however, doubted by D. W. Peckham in 'The Bosham Myth of Canute's Daughter'.

21
The place where Harold landed is identified as the River Maye by Eadmer,
History,
p. 6. The Maye is a tiny river that flows into the sea on the north side of the Somme estuary.

22
Wace,
Roman de Rou,
Part III, lines 5623ff.

23
Morton and Muntz,
Carmen,
p. 5n.

24
William of Poitiers
Gesta Guillelmi,
p. 69.

25
On Harold's gifts to Waltham Holy Cross, see Barlow,
The Godwins,
pp. 78-9.

2
The interpretation here follows Taylor, 'Belrem'. For alternative views, see the commentary in Foys,
Bayeux Tapestry Digital Edition.

3
Hariulf,
Chronique de Saint-Riquier,
p. 250.

4
William of Malmesbury,
Gesta Regum Anglorum,
p. 419.

5
Grierson, 'A Visit of Earl Harold to Flanders'.

6
The memory, much garbled, of resistance against pagan incursions into Ponthieu in the ninth century was preserved through the heroic poem,
Gormont et Isembart,
of which unfortunately only part survives. See Hariulf, p. 149.
Gormont et Isembart
is quite possibly the very earliest surviving, albeit fragmentary,
chanson de geste.

7
The 'Frenchness' of Ponthieu and Boulogne in implicit in the
Carmen.
See also Keats-Rohan,
Domesday People,
p. 14.

8
Orderic Vitalis,
Ecclesiastical History,
IV, p. 89.

9
William of Poitiers,
Gesta Guillelmi,
p. 71, states that William gave Guy lands and other gifts. The later twelfth-century source, Wace,
Roman de Rou,
Part III, line 5664, specifies that William gave Guy land on the River Aulne.

10
Bates,
William the Conqueror,
p. 115.

11
Eadmer,
History,
pp. 6-7.

12
In the tapestry's present condition this man has a beard. However, in the eighteenth-century reproduction made around 1730 by Antoine Benoît for Bernard de Montfaucon the figure in question has a moustache. In the present context the difference is immaterial; both scenarios strongly suggest that the figure is English. For commentary see Foys,
Bayeux Tapestry Digital Edition.

13
The interpretation that Harold is here attempting to negotiate the release of the hostages was first suggested by Wissolik, 'The Saxon Statement: Code in the Bayeux Tapestry', but the force of his point has not been noted by others. Wissolik suggests the bearded figure is Harold's nephew Hakon but his reasons are not compelling. I suggest the figure is more likely to be the more senior of the two, Harold's brother Wulfnoth, but neither can this strictly be proved.

14
William of Poitiers,
Gesta Gullelmi,
p. 71.

15
Bertrand, 'Le Mont-Saint-Michel et la tapisserie de Bayeux'; Bates,
Regesta,
no. 213.

16
Suggestions for the identity of the figure are made in Bertrand, 'Le Mont-Saint-Michel et la tapisserie de Bayeux' (Ranulphe); McNulty,
Narrative Art,
p. 42 (Richard II); Messent,
The Bayeux Tapestry Embroiderer's Story,
p. 88 (Scolland/tapestry's artist).

17
Keynes, 'The Æthelings in Normandy'. The authenticity of the document recording this gift has been questioned but it is regarded more favourably by Keynes. As to its relation to a later grant of St Michael's Mount to Mont-Saint-Michel by Count Robert of Mortain, see Bates,
Regesta,
p. 667. For Edward's charter see also Fauroux,
Recueil,
no. 76.

18
William of Poitiers
(Gesta Guillelmi,
p. 71) tells us that Duke William provided Harold and his men 'with knightly arms and the finest horses, and took them with him to the Breton war'.