What do you think?
Rate this book
1066: The Hidden History in the Bayeux Tapestry
This text presents a new reading of the Bayeux tapestry that radically alters our understanding of the events of 1066 and reveals the astonishing story of early Medieval Europe's greatest treasure.
368 pages, Paperback
First published September 22, 2004
106 people are currently reading
1444 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 102 reviews
April 30, 2019
The most famous tapestry in the world isn't actually a tapestry at all, but somehow, "The Bayeux Wool-Embroidered-on-Linen" doesn't have the same kick, does it?
This almost millennial work of art resides in the city of Bayeux in Normandy. Over 230 feet long and approx. 1.6 feet wide, the tapesty is a vibrant, colorful, stylistic representation of the events leading up to and including the Battle of Hastings in 1066, in which William the Conqueror envaded Anglo-Saxon England, defeated and killed its last king, Harold, and changed the course of English history forever. In fact, as author Bridgeford points out, had William lost, the English language as we all now know it wouldn't have been "English" at all, but closer to a Germanic form.
Bridgeford is a wonderful writer, and embues what might have been a dry, academic story with intrigue, mystery and page-turning interest. He provides a scene by scene descriptive account of the story unfolding on the linen, and makes some speculative observations that, while not conclusive, do seem to have some validity as to the nature of the tapestry. To wit: Who actually commissioned the tapestry to be made? Why has it lasted over 900 years virtually intact? Is the tapestry merely a glorious work of Norman boasting, or is there a subversive Anglo-Saxon counter-story sewn into it as well? And what to make of some of the woolen characters who populate the piece: a dwarf, a mysterious lady with sexual connotations surrounding her, two lesser knights who are specifically named, and a French nobleman who comes in for a wide share of the Norman glory. Bridgeford's research reveals some tantalizing clues about these questions and more.
Reader, I was hooked, and if you're a fan of the Bayeux Tapestry, of speculative non-fiction, or just want a good read, well told, this book's for you.
This almost millennial work of art resides in the city of Bayeux in Normandy. Over 230 feet long and approx. 1.6 feet wide, the tapesty is a vibrant, colorful, stylistic representation of the events leading up to and including the Battle of Hastings in 1066, in which William the Conqueror envaded Anglo-Saxon England, defeated and killed its last king, Harold, and changed the course of English history forever. In fact, as author Bridgeford points out, had William lost, the English language as we all now know it wouldn't have been "English" at all, but closer to a Germanic form.
Bridgeford is a wonderful writer, and embues what might have been a dry, academic story with intrigue, mystery and page-turning interest. He provides a scene by scene descriptive account of the story unfolding on the linen, and makes some speculative observations that, while not conclusive, do seem to have some validity as to the nature of the tapestry. To wit: Who actually commissioned the tapestry to be made? Why has it lasted over 900 years virtually intact? Is the tapestry merely a glorious work of Norman boasting, or is there a subversive Anglo-Saxon counter-story sewn into it as well? And what to make of some of the woolen characters who populate the piece: a dwarf, a mysterious lady with sexual connotations surrounding her, two lesser knights who are specifically named, and a French nobleman who comes in for a wide share of the Norman glory. Bridgeford's research reveals some tantalizing clues about these questions and more.
Reader, I was hooked, and if you're a fan of the Bayeux Tapestry, of speculative non-fiction, or just want a good read, well told, this book's for you.
February 12, 2014
Andrew Bridgeford sets out to change the popular opinion of the Bayeux Tapestry and being a Norman celebration of the conquest of England. In stead he proposes that it actually tells the story of the conquest from an English point of view. This he bases on a largely subjective 'reading' of the scenes in the tapestry. I can see, how some of the things he says make a certain amount of sense, but to he did not convince me, that his was of interpreting the tapestry is the only one and the true one. It seemed much to subjective.
I was also a little disappointed that he 'read's the tapestry while holding an English source, that of Eadmer, in the other hand. When interpreting the tapestry while reading an English source, of course you are going to see an English story! There was, however, two things that made me pause and think. These things were not pictoral, which is Bridgeford's greatest interest and, I repeat, largely subjective (i.e. 'in this instance Harold looks almost apologetic' - how can you tell??).What I was most interested in are the describtion on the tapestry.
On it Harold is refered to as Harold Rex, King Harold. In the Norman sources he is never refered to as 'King'. Here he is only given the title of Earl, which makes is curious that he should be King Harold on the Bayeux Tapestry if it was in fact a Norman celebration, that should also be used to descredid Harold. Surely you would not call him a King if the point is to portray him as a usurper. The other thing is the constant reference to the French in stead of the Normans. There is a clear distinction between these two, at least from a Norman point of view. William saw himself as being Norman, not French. To call him French would practically be an insult. But that is what he is in the tapestry - French. Again, surely a Norman would name them by their true name and not the insulting title of French.
But these are the only two points were Bridgeford has me thinking. On other points he seems to be more than just grasping for sense - he is fishing, using a fishing rod lacking of string, hook or bait! Here I am mostly refering to his 'explanation' of the mystery of the only named woman on the tapestry, Ægilvufa. He completely fails to convince me that this woman is the supposed to be the mistress of King Cnute of Denmark and the mother of Hardacnut. For the life of me I cannot see what role this woman plays in the tapestry, especially when combined with the scene in which she appears. And Bridge only dedicates a couple of paragraf's to explain it, hardly anything compared to how much space he uses to tell us about her life. But why is she there???
Futhermore, I was not convinced either that Eustace of Bolougne is given the 'most important' role in the tapestry. Or that he was the one who comisioned it for Bishop Odo of Bayeux. Eustace is only depicted once, maybe twice, in the tapestry. This hardly points to him being the hero of it all. All in all it seems far fetched. But the two points noted above do intrigue me. That is the only positive thing I have to say about this work.
I was also a little disappointed that he 'read's the tapestry while holding an English source, that of Eadmer, in the other hand. When interpreting the tapestry while reading an English source, of course you are going to see an English story! There was, however, two things that made me pause and think. These things were not pictoral, which is Bridgeford's greatest interest and, I repeat, largely subjective (i.e. 'in this instance Harold looks almost apologetic' - how can you tell??).What I was most interested in are the describtion on the tapestry.
On it Harold is refered to as Harold Rex, King Harold. In the Norman sources he is never refered to as 'King'. Here he is only given the title of Earl, which makes is curious that he should be King Harold on the Bayeux Tapestry if it was in fact a Norman celebration, that should also be used to descredid Harold. Surely you would not call him a King if the point is to portray him as a usurper. The other thing is the constant reference to the French in stead of the Normans. There is a clear distinction between these two, at least from a Norman point of view. William saw himself as being Norman, not French. To call him French would practically be an insult. But that is what he is in the tapestry - French. Again, surely a Norman would name them by their true name and not the insulting title of French.
But these are the only two points were Bridgeford has me thinking. On other points he seems to be more than just grasping for sense - he is fishing, using a fishing rod lacking of string, hook or bait! Here I am mostly refering to his 'explanation' of the mystery of the only named woman on the tapestry, Ægilvufa. He completely fails to convince me that this woman is the supposed to be the mistress of King Cnute of Denmark and the mother of Hardacnut. For the life of me I cannot see what role this woman plays in the tapestry, especially when combined with the scene in which she appears. And Bridge only dedicates a couple of paragraf's to explain it, hardly anything compared to how much space he uses to tell us about her life. But why is she there???
Futhermore, I was not convinced either that Eustace of Bolougne is given the 'most important' role in the tapestry. Or that he was the one who comisioned it for Bishop Odo of Bayeux. Eustace is only depicted once, maybe twice, in the tapestry. This hardly points to him being the hero of it all. All in all it seems far fetched. But the two points noted above do intrigue me. That is the only positive thing I have to say about this work.
September 24, 2008
When the "Sopranos" ended last year, the show simply cut to black in the middle of a scene. Fans were outraged at the lack of resolution, but the producers explained that viewers were supposed to supply their own interpretation of what happened next. Clues to Tony Soprano's fate were sprinkled throughout the series, but the actual events, the definitive explanation, would always remain a point of conjecture. Maybe it's this unease with ambiguity that leads us to make histories, to get down on paper "what really happened".
The Norman Conquest is a corner of history I stumbled on to fairly recently. I was fascinated by the intertwining paths of a the very small group of nobles involved, the remarkable number of coincidences and sheer luck that struck both parties, the scheming of the Normans and the achingly difficult decisions faced by King Harold. The bulk of our knowledge of the events comes from a few historical written records, as well as the Bayeaux Tapestry, a unique piece of embroidery that tells the tale of Harold Godwinson's voyage to Normandy, his ill-fated decision to promise the throne to Duke William in order to escape back to England, and the eventual war that broke out once Harold reneged on the deal and took the crown of England.
Summed up like so, the story doesn't sound that thrilling. The book spends a similarly brief amount of time recounting William and Harold's politicking and eventual slugfest, and I was initially disappointed with "1066" when it failed to embellish the events of the Norman Conquest with details I hadn't learned before. But getting the story "out of the way" is what author Bridgeford needed to do in order to get to the real thrust of his arguments. After explaining how the tapestry recounts William's victory, Bridgeford begins delving into each mysterious element that was glossed over during his initial explanation. Minor characters that have apparently nothing to do with the politics and war of the time are called out and named in the tapestry and Bridgeford illuminates who these people were by pulling in details from other sources. The presence of these chracters, the letter spacing on their names, the juxtoposition of decorative elements and a host of other semingly trivial details hint at a hidden message woven into the tapestry. Unlike "The Davinci Code", the underlying subtext is actually plausible, and gave me an even greater understanding of the players involved and the impact the Norman Conquest had on the people of England and France than I had initially realized.
"1066" is only superficially book about the Norman Conquest. The real delight in reading it is seeing a historian piece together his interpretation of events, trying to pull out the thread of truth from the tangle of biased and contradictory scraps of information that have survived 1000 years. Some of Bridgeford's extrapolations seem far fetched when he does not have sufficient evidence to back up his theory, but he wistfully points that fact out. "Ah well," he seems to say "I guess we'll never know." I bet he was totally fine with the end of the "Sopranos".
The Norman Conquest is a corner of history I stumbled on to fairly recently. I was fascinated by the intertwining paths of a the very small group of nobles involved, the remarkable number of coincidences and sheer luck that struck both parties, the scheming of the Normans and the achingly difficult decisions faced by King Harold. The bulk of our knowledge of the events comes from a few historical written records, as well as the Bayeaux Tapestry, a unique piece of embroidery that tells the tale of Harold Godwinson's voyage to Normandy, his ill-fated decision to promise the throne to Duke William in order to escape back to England, and the eventual war that broke out once Harold reneged on the deal and took the crown of England.
Summed up like so, the story doesn't sound that thrilling. The book spends a similarly brief amount of time recounting William and Harold's politicking and eventual slugfest, and I was initially disappointed with "1066" when it failed to embellish the events of the Norman Conquest with details I hadn't learned before. But getting the story "out of the way" is what author Bridgeford needed to do in order to get to the real thrust of his arguments. After explaining how the tapestry recounts William's victory, Bridgeford begins delving into each mysterious element that was glossed over during his initial explanation. Minor characters that have apparently nothing to do with the politics and war of the time are called out and named in the tapestry and Bridgeford illuminates who these people were by pulling in details from other sources. The presence of these chracters, the letter spacing on their names, the juxtoposition of decorative elements and a host of other semingly trivial details hint at a hidden message woven into the tapestry. Unlike "The Davinci Code", the underlying subtext is actually plausible, and gave me an even greater understanding of the players involved and the impact the Norman Conquest had on the people of England and France than I had initially realized.
"1066" is only superficially book about the Norman Conquest. The real delight in reading it is seeing a historian piece together his interpretation of events, trying to pull out the thread of truth from the tangle of biased and contradictory scraps of information that have survived 1000 years. Some of Bridgeford's extrapolations seem far fetched when he does not have sufficient evidence to back up his theory, but he wistfully points that fact out. "Ah well," he seems to say "I guess we'll never know." I bet he was totally fine with the end of the "Sopranos".
November 24, 2011
Thank you to the author for introducing me to the tapestry, its history, the history of the Norman conquest and the fun detective work to untangle all the mysteries. For example, I never knew that William the Conqueror's men swept through northern England on a wave of terrorization and just how destructive their policies were to generations of Anglo-Saxons. I also didn't know that Harold, days before before he met his end at the Battle of Hastings, thoroughly beat up the Vikings.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book as a fantastic, easy to read introduction to the period. It is like Game of Thrones, only it really happened and there was also a prominent dwarf involved in the whole thing.
Generally, I like to give books I want to reread over and over five stars. This is one of those books. I am withholding a star as I think some readers will be put off by some of the repetitious parts (near the beginning) and perhaps some readers, like me, may not be entirely convinced about the Turold's story. Still, I want to encourage history fans (and maybe even light fantasy fans into Games of Thrones style realpolitik) to check out this book.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book as a fantastic, easy to read introduction to the period. It is like Game of Thrones, only it really happened and there was also a prominent dwarf involved in the whole thing.
Generally, I like to give books I want to reread over and over five stars. This is one of those books. I am withholding a star as I think some readers will be put off by some of the repetitious parts (near the beginning) and perhaps some readers, like me, may not be entirely convinced about the Turold's story. Still, I want to encourage history fans (and maybe even light fantasy fans into Games of Thrones style realpolitik) to check out this book.
September 25, 2021
This book investigates what is, on the surface, an embroidered telling of the Battle of Hastings in 1066 - what lead up to it, the battle itself and the outcome. That would seem to be the invaders from Normandy who came across the English channel and conquered England with William the Conqueror celebrating their victory. But was it really? If you like both history and mystery, this author will intrigue you with musings about whether Englishwomen actually embroidered this banner (hundreds of feet long) in the 1070's and slipped in some subversive stories, people and actions that are not part of the "official" version of the conquering force.
Who commissioned this tapestry? It's been nearly a thousand years since the creation of this "tapestry", so that a piece of embroidered cloth this old even exists is truly amazing, that information about its creation is not readily available is not so surprising. But the author, an historian, theorizes about who created it and finds facts in other sources to support his theories. Amazingly he tells a story full of double crosses, lies and intrigue; certainly something to be expected of the Normans who descended from Vikings and of primitive people who held nobles hostage for ransom as a fund-raising strategy. He also tells stories of those who in later years wanted to possess the tapestry -- among them Napoleon and Hitler -- to find out how to successfully conquer England.
This book is a fascinating story that keeps you guessing what surprise will pop up next, who the "good" people are and who the "bad" people are, and how you could have missed how cool this was when you studied European history. The book also contains pictures of the entire tapestry divided into scenes about which the author tells you. The last few scenes have been missing (destroyed? damaged and thrown out? who knows) since the 1700s, but what is there is intriguing enough. Oh, and of course there is a dwarf named Turold. But read it yourself and enjoy.
Who commissioned this tapestry? It's been nearly a thousand years since the creation of this "tapestry", so that a piece of embroidered cloth this old even exists is truly amazing, that information about its creation is not readily available is not so surprising. But the author, an historian, theorizes about who created it and finds facts in other sources to support his theories. Amazingly he tells a story full of double crosses, lies and intrigue; certainly something to be expected of the Normans who descended from Vikings and of primitive people who held nobles hostage for ransom as a fund-raising strategy. He also tells stories of those who in later years wanted to possess the tapestry -- among them Napoleon and Hitler -- to find out how to successfully conquer England.
This book is a fascinating story that keeps you guessing what surprise will pop up next, who the "good" people are and who the "bad" people are, and how you could have missed how cool this was when you studied European history. The book also contains pictures of the entire tapestry divided into scenes about which the author tells you. The last few scenes have been missing (destroyed? damaged and thrown out? who knows) since the 1700s, but what is there is intriguing enough. Oh, and of course there is a dwarf named Turold. But read it yourself and enjoy.
November 8, 2011
I happily stumbled onto this fascinating look at textile as history. The tapestry is a very long, horizontal piece of embroidery that depicts events relating to the Battle of Hastings in 1066. This event changed the course of history. However, what interests me is not the battle itself; I'm most curious about those people who put in the hours to make the tapestry. Did they make and dye their own thread? What plants did they use? Were they monks or nuns? Whom was it made for?
The history of human beings, especially individuals within a culture, is fascinating to me; so I see this book as a jumping off point for further learning. I didn't know about this tapestry until I learned about this book in one of those desktop calendars: This particular calendar had a great book,with its review,for everyday of the year.
The history of human beings, especially individuals within a culture, is fascinating to me; so I see this book as a jumping off point for further learning. I didn't know about this tapestry until I learned about this book in one of those desktop calendars: This particular calendar had a great book,with its review,for everyday of the year.
June 14, 2020
Before reading this book, in February 2006, I had never heard of the Bayeux Tapestry, and if I had not stumbled over it in Westminster Abbey's bookshop, it would have been very unlikely I would ever noticed its existence in a normal bookshop, medieval English history being as far away from my interests as the grammar of ancient Phoenician... Having said this, I can only be thankful for having discovered this book and the marvelous story it unfolds. Well known to all Britons, the Bayeux tapestry is a fragile and exquisite embroidery (reproduced in the book in full colour and in its entirety), remarkably large (about seventy meters long by circa half a meter wide), and whose very survival, from the date of its creation in the second half of the eleventh century, has being nothing short of miraculous. It depicts the story of the Norman conquest of Britain in 1066, and this book is about the tapestry, the conquest, and much else. Written in a lively and engaging style, it starts by telling the story of the tapestry itself (or what is known of it), from the first unequivocal reference to its existence in 1476 (some four hundred years after its creation) through the dangerous times of the religious wars in France, the Revolution, the 2nd World War and the Nazi occupation, until its present day location in a museum in Bayeux. After this, the book turns into the story depicted in the tapestry, telling what seems to be a rather consensual reading of it, and finally it gives the author's interpretations of certain more obscure aspects of the tapestry (Count Eustace's role, Turold the dwarf, Ælfgyva's episode, Wadard and Vital's significance) in a way that does make sense in relation to the rest of the story told by the tapestry, which is shown by the author to have several reading layers and to be rather removed from the linear piece of Norman propaganda that more conventional readings have postulated. An enticing book about a marvelous work of art, and historical document, whose close observation would by itself be a very good reason to visit Normandy!
March 28, 2020
The Bayeux Tapestry - a 230 foot long piece of wool-embroidered linen - that depicts many of the events that lead to Duke William of Normandy's invasion and conquest of England at the battle of Hastings in 1066. The last few 'feet' are missing - no one knows exactly how much larger the tapestry originally was but are suspected to have shown William's coronation. To be honest, it is not a 'tapestry' since the designs/images are not woven but rather embroidered onto the linen.
Bridgeford made an immense amount of research - admittedly, the time period has limited resources that can be trusted - and gives his opinion on various aspects. The political and historic background that led to William believing that Edward promised the throne to him; the influence of the Godwin family (Edward's powerful in-laws); who the woman AElfgiva is (it was a popular name and two noted women were connected with Edward); backgrounds of Harold Godwinson life along with his oath to William which he broke by taking the throne along with the numerous battles he fought even before William crossed the Channel. And far more.
He attempts to identify - or at least propose an identification - of the named in the tapestry. Differing theories have the tapestry ordered by Bishop Odo of Bayeux to celebrate his half-brother's conquest of England. Bridgeport actually puts forward two possible new theories as he considers the subtleties.
The first confirming that it was commissioned by Odo or by an individual currying favor with the powerful bishop and Earl of Kent as Odo is shown having greater significance at important events. That William looked to him for decisions before the invasion as well as amidst the fighting, Odo encourages the Norman fighters.
The other option was rather that Count Eustace of Boulogne (French territory just south of the Strait of Dover) commissioned it as an apology to Bishop Odo after Eustace attempted to take Dover Castle in 1170 while Odo was away. Eustace lost the siege and the lands gifted to him in England.
No matter who commissioned it and the exact location where the embroiderers worked - one theory is a nunnery in Odo's territory - as well the exact year it was finished, the fact that something so delicate as 270 foot piece of linen has survived over a thousand years when stone buildings have crumbled to dust. Bridgeford had a theory about part of it's survival - in the 1400's, a section of the Bayeux Cathedral crypts was discovered to have been blocked off/bricked up and shortly afterwards, the tapestry was part of the inventory. Then there was the Nazi treasure hunters that almost managed to get ahold of it along with many, many other crisis that it should not have survived over all these centuries.
Now for where I was disappointed. Yes, it was an e-books so the illustrations were quite small and the specific images were a bit larger than the photos of strips of the full tapestry. But even when making multiple clicks to enlarge the images, they only blurred and were still not large enough to see the details the author was describing. Especially when the original is 20 inches high, the best image was about 2 inches in high. And that's with the edges of the border 'trimmed' which makes when the author describes images in the border, there is a good chance, the reader can only see part of the blob that may or may not be what Bridgeford is referring to.
The second thing was the punctuation. There were parenthesis that didn't match. Hyphens for no reason. Spacing lacking in places. Italics for no apparent reason. The editor or proof-reader did a poor job overall and it was to the detriment of the book.
Overall, an intriguing and interesting read but really would have been truly amazing if we could have seen the images he was referring to.
2020-059
Bridgeford made an immense amount of research - admittedly, the time period has limited resources that can be trusted - and gives his opinion on various aspects. The political and historic background that led to William believing that Edward promised the throne to him; the influence of the Godwin family (Edward's powerful in-laws); who the woman AElfgiva is (it was a popular name and two noted women were connected with Edward); backgrounds of Harold Godwinson life along with his oath to William which he broke by taking the throne along with the numerous battles he fought even before William crossed the Channel. And far more.
He attempts to identify - or at least propose an identification - of the named in the tapestry. Differing theories have the tapestry ordered by Bishop Odo of Bayeux to celebrate his half-brother's conquest of England. Bridgeport actually puts forward two possible new theories as he considers the subtleties.
The first confirming that it was commissioned by Odo or by an individual currying favor with the powerful bishop and Earl of Kent as Odo is shown having greater significance at important events. That William looked to him for decisions before the invasion as well as amidst the fighting, Odo encourages the Norman fighters.
The other option was rather that Count Eustace of Boulogne (French territory just south of the Strait of Dover) commissioned it as an apology to Bishop Odo after Eustace attempted to take Dover Castle in 1170 while Odo was away. Eustace lost the siege and the lands gifted to him in England.
No matter who commissioned it and the exact location where the embroiderers worked - one theory is a nunnery in Odo's territory - as well the exact year it was finished, the fact that something so delicate as 270 foot piece of linen has survived over a thousand years when stone buildings have crumbled to dust. Bridgeford had a theory about part of it's survival - in the 1400's, a section of the Bayeux Cathedral crypts was discovered to have been blocked off/bricked up and shortly afterwards, the tapestry was part of the inventory. Then there was the Nazi treasure hunters that almost managed to get ahold of it along with many, many other crisis that it should not have survived over all these centuries.
Now for where I was disappointed. Yes, it was an e-books so the illustrations were quite small and the specific images were a bit larger than the photos of strips of the full tapestry. But even when making multiple clicks to enlarge the images, they only blurred and were still not large enough to see the details the author was describing. Especially when the original is 20 inches high, the best image was about 2 inches in high. And that's with the edges of the border 'trimmed' which makes when the author describes images in the border, there is a good chance, the reader can only see part of the blob that may or may not be what Bridgeford is referring to.
The second thing was the punctuation. There were parenthesis that didn't match. Hyphens for no reason. Spacing lacking in places. Italics for no apparent reason. The editor or proof-reader did a poor job overall and it was to the detriment of the book.
Overall, an intriguing and interesting read but really would have been truly amazing if we could have seen the images he was referring to.
2020-059
May 18, 2020
The Bayeux Tapestry is an astonishing piece of art and history, telling the story of William of Normandy’s invasion of England in 1066. This 70-meter long work of embroidery is surprisingly well-preserved, given that it is thought to have been completed just a few years after William’s conquest.
In 1066: The Hidden History in the Bayeux Tapestry, author Andrew Bridgeford sets out to decipher the tapestry’s hidden meanings and posits a theory that the tapestry does not take the Norman viewpoint of events as widely believed but was actually completed by an English artist. He uses other known historical accounts of the same time period as well as minute details in the tapestry itself to support his claims while acknowledging that a piece of the tapestry is missing and some sections may have been altered at a later date. Some of the more intriguing details: of the 626 human figures depicted in the tapestry, only the key players are identified (such as King Edward and the two men—William and Harold—vying for his throne) with the exception of a few characters whose identities have been lost to history, including a dwarf named Turold. Then there’s the strange scene which seems to be showing a named woman engaged in a liaison with a “cleric” or priest. But who is the woman and what is the artist alluding to?
Through Bridgeford’s analysis of the tapestry, he dives into the context of the events that led up to William’s invasion, referencing historical records that give a fully-formed idea of who the key players are and why both Harold and William have a claim on the throne. He says of the tapestry: “Like all historical sources, it has its own perspective and the temptation must be resisted of assuming that the events were recorded as they happened.” Likewise, as interesting as Bridgeford’s theories are, the reality is that all recorded events of history are authored by real people with their own beliefs and agendas, that works of art like the Bayeux Tapestry are commissioned by patrons; therefore telling a story through a viewpoint that favors their perspective. We cannot know what really happened before 1066, leading up to one of the biggest events of all of English history. Despite these obvious limitations, I enjoyed reading about this famous work of art and the fascinating events it recounts.
In 1066: The Hidden History in the Bayeux Tapestry, author Andrew Bridgeford sets out to decipher the tapestry’s hidden meanings and posits a theory that the tapestry does not take the Norman viewpoint of events as widely believed but was actually completed by an English artist. He uses other known historical accounts of the same time period as well as minute details in the tapestry itself to support his claims while acknowledging that a piece of the tapestry is missing and some sections may have been altered at a later date. Some of the more intriguing details: of the 626 human figures depicted in the tapestry, only the key players are identified (such as King Edward and the two men—William and Harold—vying for his throne) with the exception of a few characters whose identities have been lost to history, including a dwarf named Turold. Then there’s the strange scene which seems to be showing a named woman engaged in a liaison with a “cleric” or priest. But who is the woman and what is the artist alluding to?
Through Bridgeford’s analysis of the tapestry, he dives into the context of the events that led up to William’s invasion, referencing historical records that give a fully-formed idea of who the key players are and why both Harold and William have a claim on the throne. He says of the tapestry: “Like all historical sources, it has its own perspective and the temptation must be resisted of assuming that the events were recorded as they happened.” Likewise, as interesting as Bridgeford’s theories are, the reality is that all recorded events of history are authored by real people with their own beliefs and agendas, that works of art like the Bayeux Tapestry are commissioned by patrons; therefore telling a story through a viewpoint that favors their perspective. We cannot know what really happened before 1066, leading up to one of the biggest events of all of English history. Despite these obvious limitations, I enjoyed reading about this famous work of art and the fascinating events it recounts.
September 7, 2016
This is the sort of book that is perfectly made for a reader like myself. On one level this book is a stellar piece of art history [1] examining one of the most famous artifacts of the world, the Bayeux tapestry, one of those artifacts that is so well known that people think mistakenly that everything about it is known and has been said. One another level, this is a history about the Norman conquest [2] and the way that English society was drastically affected by that conquest in ways that resonate to our times, and on a different level this book is a multi-layered book about how conquered and marginal people make their perspective known when they cannot say it plainly, and how the truth can hide in plain sight and not be understood because others read into it what they want to see rather than follow the brave and even dangerous message of the art that they see and touch and handle and try however unsuccessfully to understand. All of these layers combine in the roughly 300 pages of this book to make a wonderful account of a well-known tapestry that tells a different story than may first appear to be the case when its subtlety and design are taken into account.
Beginning with a map of Northern France and England and genealogical charts of the royal families of England, Normandy, Blogne/Jerusalem, and Ponthieu, the book immediately sets out to put the reader in a context of the complicated relationships and terrain of the events of 1066. The author then sets the stage for talking about the tapestry in more detail by discussing its history, the sources that cover the same material, and the importance of the tapestry as a historical artifact of the first order. After this the author spends several chapters giving a detailed historical background of the various scenes and images portrayed on the tapestry--the strange and deeply unwise journey of Harold Godwinson from the safety of England to Ponthieu and then Norman genteel captivity, the dark meaning of the fox and crow, the English decision to give the throne to Harold despite a large number of possible rulers, the invasion of both the Norwegians and Normans and the long and difficult course of the battle of Hastings. After this the book, which is about halfway done at this point, takes a decidedly striking turn by examining the tradition of English art and embroidery of which the Bayeux tapestry is the foremost extant remnant, before taking most of the rest of the book to discuss matters of biographical history and intelligent speculation concerning the provenance and origin of the tapestry and its symbolic and politically charged meaning, looking at the connection between the tapestry and Bishop Odo of Bayeux, the symbolism of the Babylonian captivity, the family history of King William the Bastard and his half brothers (including Odo), the heirs of Charlemagne, Count Eustace's prominence in the death of Harold and his role in the attack on Dover, the downfall of Bishop Odo, and the odd nature of the named people Turold the Dwarf, the possible poet of the chanson de Roland, the scandalous Aelfgyva, and Wadard and Vital, who end up being knights in the retinue of Bishop Odo, as well as the mystery of the tapestry's survival and a possible story for the origin that shows some possible connections and explanations and a recognition that much remains unknown and, given the state of our knowledge, perhaps impossible to know at this far remove from the events shown.
What makes this book particularly enjoyable is that it recognizes the way that subversive history can survive by allusion and hints that are seldom taken seriously by those who only give a superficial glance to art and read into it what they want to see. Seen as a tapestry made at the best of Count Eustace in an attempt to get into the good graces of a former enemy and now ally of convenience in a particular historical context and period after 1066, and informed by pro-English sources that cast considerable doubt on the legitimacy of the Norman claim to the throne despite the inability of the English to overthrow the Norman yoke, the tapestry takes on a sort of Greek or biblically tragic aspect in the aftermath of the death and dispossession of the Anglo-Saxon elite, already weakened by generations of efforts to free themselves from Viking invasions and conquest. The survival of a remarkable piece of embroidery becomes all the more remarkable when one thinks about the political difficulties discussed on it and the bravery of the artist in showing a story that is decidedly less pro-Norman and more pro-English and pro-French than is often recognized, not least by showing the coercion that Harold was under to make a feigned oath of loyalty, and the way that Norman historiographers made a biased case in order to gain papal approval for William's English adventure. The result is a piece of art history and criticism that offers a reminder of the wide space between realpolitik and the ideals and ethics of leadership, something as relevant for our corrupt age as in our studies of medieval history.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[2] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
Beginning with a map of Northern France and England and genealogical charts of the royal families of England, Normandy, Blogne/Jerusalem, and Ponthieu, the book immediately sets out to put the reader in a context of the complicated relationships and terrain of the events of 1066. The author then sets the stage for talking about the tapestry in more detail by discussing its history, the sources that cover the same material, and the importance of the tapestry as a historical artifact of the first order. After this the author spends several chapters giving a detailed historical background of the various scenes and images portrayed on the tapestry--the strange and deeply unwise journey of Harold Godwinson from the safety of England to Ponthieu and then Norman genteel captivity, the dark meaning of the fox and crow, the English decision to give the throne to Harold despite a large number of possible rulers, the invasion of both the Norwegians and Normans and the long and difficult course of the battle of Hastings. After this the book, which is about halfway done at this point, takes a decidedly striking turn by examining the tradition of English art and embroidery of which the Bayeux tapestry is the foremost extant remnant, before taking most of the rest of the book to discuss matters of biographical history and intelligent speculation concerning the provenance and origin of the tapestry and its symbolic and politically charged meaning, looking at the connection between the tapestry and Bishop Odo of Bayeux, the symbolism of the Babylonian captivity, the family history of King William the Bastard and his half brothers (including Odo), the heirs of Charlemagne, Count Eustace's prominence in the death of Harold and his role in the attack on Dover, the downfall of Bishop Odo, and the odd nature of the named people Turold the Dwarf, the possible poet of the chanson de Roland, the scandalous Aelfgyva, and Wadard and Vital, who end up being knights in the retinue of Bishop Odo, as well as the mystery of the tapestry's survival and a possible story for the origin that shows some possible connections and explanations and a recognition that much remains unknown and, given the state of our knowledge, perhaps impossible to know at this far remove from the events shown.
What makes this book particularly enjoyable is that it recognizes the way that subversive history can survive by allusion and hints that are seldom taken seriously by those who only give a superficial glance to art and read into it what they want to see. Seen as a tapestry made at the best of Count Eustace in an attempt to get into the good graces of a former enemy and now ally of convenience in a particular historical context and period after 1066, and informed by pro-English sources that cast considerable doubt on the legitimacy of the Norman claim to the throne despite the inability of the English to overthrow the Norman yoke, the tapestry takes on a sort of Greek or biblically tragic aspect in the aftermath of the death and dispossession of the Anglo-Saxon elite, already weakened by generations of efforts to free themselves from Viking invasions and conquest. The survival of a remarkable piece of embroidery becomes all the more remarkable when one thinks about the political difficulties discussed on it and the bravery of the artist in showing a story that is decidedly less pro-Norman and more pro-English and pro-French than is often recognized, not least by showing the coercion that Harold was under to make a feigned oath of loyalty, and the way that Norman historiographers made a biased case in order to gain papal approval for William's English adventure. The result is a piece of art history and criticism that offers a reminder of the wide space between realpolitik and the ideals and ethics of leadership, something as relevant for our corrupt age as in our studies of medieval history.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[2] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
August 23, 2013
The Bayeux Tapestry is known to many as a footnote to William, Duke of Normandy's conquest of England; it is a record of the Norman Conquest and that's where we leave it. Andrew Bridgeford's book, "The Hidden History in the Bayeux Tapestry" reveals what could have been another story: a subversive, pro-English commentary on the events of 1066. Embroidered in threads of blue, green, scarlet, yellow, the artist who designed the hanging (for that's what the tapestry really is - a long and strip of embroidered linen),according to Bridgeford, posits the idea that the work was made not to glorify William the Conqueror, and offers the English side of the event in certain of the illustrations. Using the usual contemporary resources such as "The Anglo Saxon Chronicle," and relying on transcripts D and E of that chronicle, the author draws our attention to scenes and characters within those scenes that, according to his theories, are not what they appear to be. The author also compares "The Song of Roland" to the Tapestry and suggests that several different people as commissioners of the work. Was it Odo, the worldly Bishop of Bayeux, who is shown rallying troops at Hastings, the same Odo who was the half-brother of William who wanted the hanging for his cathedral? Was it Eustace II of Boulogne, William's rival who came along for the conquest in hopes of receiving some of the spoils? And who actually executed the work, and where? Bridgeford touches on all of these questions and goes into depth. You get the back story, but not a substantiated story, however.
I would have offered five stars for this book, but for repetition and no conclusions; the author gives us familiar arguments, especially about Harold Godwinsson's mysterious journey to the continent, when he is blown off course and lands in unfriendly territory and winds up a hostage of William, Duke of Normandy, swears the infamous oath that he will uphold William's claim to the throne and then breaks it by being elected king of England later - but it is tantalizing, nevertheless, to read the suggestions of what the Tapestry really means and what is being depicted. Unfortunately, Bridgeford gives no final answer or reveals the Tapestry's patron or the artists involved in its execution because despite the fact the Tapestry has survived almost completely intact after 900+ years, that information is wanting.
The author's explanations and descriptions had me studying an online copy of the Tapestry while I read and I'm hoping I get to see the actual work one day.
William the Conqueror may have won the battle, but I'd like to think, as does Bridgeford, that the English had the last laugh and tells us what really happened on October 14, 1066.
I would have offered five stars for this book, but for repetition and no conclusions; the author gives us familiar arguments, especially about Harold Godwinsson's mysterious journey to the continent, when he is blown off course and lands in unfriendly territory and winds up a hostage of William, Duke of Normandy, swears the infamous oath that he will uphold William's claim to the throne and then breaks it by being elected king of England later - but it is tantalizing, nevertheless, to read the suggestions of what the Tapestry really means and what is being depicted. Unfortunately, Bridgeford gives no final answer or reveals the Tapestry's patron or the artists involved in its execution because despite the fact the Tapestry has survived almost completely intact after 900+ years, that information is wanting.
The author's explanations and descriptions had me studying an online copy of the Tapestry while I read and I'm hoping I get to see the actual work one day.
William the Conqueror may have won the battle, but I'd like to think, as does Bridgeford, that the English had the last laugh and tells us what really happened on October 14, 1066.
March 22, 2012
Subversive art: Banksy? duChamp? How about the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Norman conquest of Britain in 1066? At least those are the thoughts of Mr Andrew Bridgeford in this title.
This was a terrifically fun read. The author's prose is as enjoyable as the story. Mr Bridgeford details not only the accepted versions of Bayeux interpretation, but at the end even offers other possible conclusions in the final chapter to the one he gives throughout the book.
Tracing the lives of William the Conqueror and his erstwhile compatriots Bishop Odo and Eustace II of Bolougne Bridgeford shows us the various possibilities of who the patron of the tapestry could have been. He also addresses the canonically accepted version of understanding concerning this work of art. That being the Bayeux Tapestry was commissioned, quite simply, to celebrate the conquests of the Duke of Normandy, William.
But there are questions to still be had concerning much of this and Bridgeford takes us along for a fascinating ride through the intrigues, background, relationships and rebellions of those most involved in the story of 1066. However, he also pricks out of the tapestry threads discomfit concerning the traditional interpretation. Why are certain virtually unknown individuals named on the tapestry when so little is labeled at all? Who is the dwarf Turold and does he have something to do with the beginning of early French literature? What of the woman Aelfgyva and the priestly caress she receives while below her a nude man points up at both of them?
These are questions Bridgeford deals with in a detective's style. I will admit that at times the bits and pieces he attempts to weave together do get a bit thin. The connections he makes are certainly plausible, but there are other options, which he admits and even gives voice to in this book. After all sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But isn't so much more fun to think perhaps it isn't?
This was a terrifically fun read. The author's prose is as enjoyable as the story. Mr Bridgeford details not only the accepted versions of Bayeux interpretation, but at the end even offers other possible conclusions in the final chapter to the one he gives throughout the book.
Tracing the lives of William the Conqueror and his erstwhile compatriots Bishop Odo and Eustace II of Bolougne Bridgeford shows us the various possibilities of who the patron of the tapestry could have been. He also addresses the canonically accepted version of understanding concerning this work of art. That being the Bayeux Tapestry was commissioned, quite simply, to celebrate the conquests of the Duke of Normandy, William.
But there are questions to still be had concerning much of this and Bridgeford takes us along for a fascinating ride through the intrigues, background, relationships and rebellions of those most involved in the story of 1066. However, he also pricks out of the tapestry threads discomfit concerning the traditional interpretation. Why are certain virtually unknown individuals named on the tapestry when so little is labeled at all? Who is the dwarf Turold and does he have something to do with the beginning of early French literature? What of the woman Aelfgyva and the priestly caress she receives while below her a nude man points up at both of them?
These are questions Bridgeford deals with in a detective's style. I will admit that at times the bits and pieces he attempts to weave together do get a bit thin. The connections he makes are certainly plausible, but there are other options, which he admits and even gives voice to in this book. After all sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But isn't so much more fun to think perhaps it isn't?
February 12, 2012
A diverting read that presents the case (based on the work of a researcher or two) that the Bayeaux Tapestry is not a piece of Norman propaganda deifying William the Conqueror but a more subversive Anglo/French work expressing the view that the Conquest was God's revenge on the Godwins among others. I enjoyed it (another book borrowed and read electronically0 but I have a sneaking suspicion that "them as knows more about it" than me may feel the author's conclusions are a bit over the top. The author isn't like Erik von Daniken or that nutter who said the Chinese reached Connecticut, in terms of the "reaches" he makes but the bit about the Song of Roland seems to be backed by rather lightweight research.
What the heck, I enjoyed it.
What the heck, I enjoyed it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 10, 2014
A fascinating read providing insights into the details surrounding the Norman conquest. As you might expect for a book that poses new theories about a 950-year-old event about which there are limited surviving contemporary documents, much of the book is based on guesswork and conjecture, some theories better supported than others. A few times too often, a hypothesis is posited without support, then idea and conjecture upon theoretical premise is stacked upon a hughly fragile foundation, but it was still an enlightening study of the embroidery we know as the Bayeux Tapestry and the times around it. Enjoyable all the way around, even if some of the conclusions are not very well supported, and can't be.
May 28, 2007
Andrew Bridgeford takes a very thorough look at the events of 1066, which lead to the Norman Conquest of England. His main purpose of doing so is to explain the iconography of the Bayeaux Tapestry, challenging the long accepted interpretations of the embroidered tale. He comes up with some very interesting theories and clearly has done his research, but sometimes with 11th century history, you just can't prove things. Bridgeford runs into this problem at times. I think his ideas are very good and provocative, whether or not they are actually true or not.
June 23, 2016
I first saw pictures of this embroidery in 1966, when my grandmother used the cover and article of National Geographic to show me how learning embroidery could be a good thing. I vowed to go there some day, and I have. By reading this book, I learned that many of my previous misconceptions were untrue. I had thought it was made for the Bayeux Cathedral, and this was untrue. Reading the book gives you the chance to look at all the panels in such details, that are never allowed in Bayeux, as the people behind you would run you over if you looked at everything in such detail.
July 1, 2014
Bridgeford is a gifted amateur historian who raises interesting question about the meaning and sponsorship of the famous Bayeux Tapestry. Despite generations' of belief that the work celebrates the Norman Conquest of England, his theory is that the work was commissioned by a non-Norman and includes a coded message that is antithetical to the Norman claim on the English Crown. These are astonishing and very new conclusions. I'm concerned that there is an awful lot of assumption-making especially where documentary sources are non-existant, so more debate is called for.
May 13, 2016
This took me MONTHS to finish and in retrospect I have no idea why. It's a really intriguing and accessible account of the Bayeux Tapestry (er, embroidery), challenging the view that it was a piece of Norman celebratory work or propaganda and instead suggesting it was crafted by persons with more English sympathies. Incredibly readable for its academic subject matter and enjoyable and engaging the whole way through.
March 5, 2016
If you are a history buff and very interested in the English conquest, then you will love this book. I did, however, if you are neither, you will probably not get past the first few chapters. Andrew Bridgeford delves into the Bayeux Tapestry is detail, divining the hidden messages and stories woven into but hidden by the tapestry. Not for all, but a fascinating book.
December 17, 2016
Interesting book. The author is careful not to overstate his position, which is good. The distance in time is too far removed for us to be able to correctly assertain all of the relevant facts. Somethings will always have some mystery.
September 8, 2015
Starts off interesting, soon gets tedious.
Gave up after a few chapters.
Gave up after a few chapters.
October 26, 2022
Did you ever have someone argue your point of view so badly you wish they were on the other side? That is me with this work.
First, credit must be given that this work is notable for being one of the first to suggest Count Eustace as the patron of tapestry, perhaps has a peace offering to Bishop Odo after his disastrous raid on Dover in 1067. However there is an over-abundance of back story, as if the author couldn't decide if he was writing a history novel or about the tapestry. So if you know only a little about the Norman Conquest yet want to know about the Bayeux Tapestry this may of use. Otherwise no.
Bridgeford has a fascinating conjecture: That Count Eustace of Boulogne, instead of Bishop Odo, is the patron commissioning the Tapestry, perhaps as a peace offering to Bishop Odo (takes until page 151 to reach this!) His theory is compelling, if only because it answers how a Norman patron commissioning the work would not have been even more pro-Norman (The oath spelled out if nothing else!) or why Eustace is mentioned at all.
Quite laughable this article lays out Bridgeford's argument better than he does himself (although I'm really not convinced?) : https://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-... [Actual points start in paragraph 40]
Very chatty, decidedly non academic in nature with a mixture of (very) detailed description of every single tapestry scene ["We are now inside the hall, a large impressive building" or "At the front, two men are busy boiling meat in a great cauldron, which has been hung by poles over a flickering red fire of tounge-like woolen flames."] overlaid with history / conjecture in a "fly on the wall" narrative. [Example: "Perhaps Guy is thinking now, biting his lip, wondering whether he might just be able to defy Duke William and get away with it. He remembers the long captivity at Bayeux. He remembers that God is his witness and that William has a fiery temper, which no on in their right mid would with to rekindle." or "William knows that Earl Harold holds the keys to England; he can hardly believe how foolish the Earl of Wessex has been in allowing himself to fall uninvited into his grasp. For the moment he is keeping his plans to himself."]
While the supposed point of this book is that here in an English narrative under the Norman propaganda (and actually that its Eustace not Odo commissioning it), it's a bit hard to find! Again, I was expecting a discussion of the hidden significance within the tapestry, not history like: "at some point during the day Harold's brothers, Earl Gyrth and Earl Leofwine, both perished while fighting loyally by his side." The histories of Duke William (chapter 13) and Count Eustace of Bologune (Chapter 14) are well written at least. His ideas that the tapestry shows that Eustace killed Harold are silly, if only because not a page before he waxed eloquent about the mustache, which is clearly missing, however the discussion about Eustace's attack on Dover is interesting (as a potential reason that Eustace needed the peace offering to Odo.) but not overly compelling.
Some additional annoyances: Seems uptight morally! He calls Harold Harefoot "Canute's illegitimate son"; he routinely calls Edith Swan-neck (who is Harold's concubine and possibly handfasted wife of over 20 years) Harold's "mistress." Moreover, he seems to think children of these unions were considered bastards (they weren't!) and that being a bastard was a problem in the early eleventh century (it wasn't!) Literally when discussing Edith finding Harold on the battlefield: "according to one later story, his mistress ... was able to identify the body of her lover" About Canute and his first wife he writes "Contemporaries euphemistically referred to their union as "Danish" in style (more danico)." Sir, handfasting or the Danish Style marriage was indeed a real thing in eleventh century England. You need to get over moralist nonsense.
Conclusions:
+ Count Eustace of Boulogne is the person who commissioned the tapestry
+ Additionally believes Turold the dwarf is the author of the song of Rolland (which he thinks was written in Pontiu after the battle of Hastings,)
+ AElfgigu is Cnute's first wife and this is a sneer against parentage of Harold Harefoot (who ordered the killing of the Boulogne soldiers with Alfred in 1036,)
+ that Odo's knight's Wadard and Vita "might have been the knights who were responsible for capturing his [Eustace's] nepos [relative]" so Eustace would include them in the tapestry trying to get his nepos released.
+ Overall believes a "pro-French" instead of a "pro-Norman" viewpoint.
I really wish this was better written because these conclusions could be valid.
Anyway, I did learn there is scholarship discussing the point of Eustace in the tapestry! However I found only nuggets of tapestry "hidden history" amongst a lot simple facts about the lives of Harold, Odo and Eustace.
First, credit must be given that this work is notable for being one of the first to suggest Count Eustace as the patron of tapestry, perhaps has a peace offering to Bishop Odo after his disastrous raid on Dover in 1067. However there is an over-abundance of back story, as if the author couldn't decide if he was writing a history novel or about the tapestry. So if you know only a little about the Norman Conquest yet want to know about the Bayeux Tapestry this may of use. Otherwise no.
Bridgeford has a fascinating conjecture: That Count Eustace of Boulogne, instead of Bishop Odo, is the patron commissioning the Tapestry, perhaps as a peace offering to Bishop Odo (takes until page 151 to reach this!) His theory is compelling, if only because it answers how a Norman patron commissioning the work would not have been even more pro-Norman (The oath spelled out if nothing else!) or why Eustace is mentioned at all.
Quite laughable this article lays out Bridgeford's argument better than he does himself (although I'm really not convinced?) : https://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-... [Actual points start in paragraph 40]
Very chatty, decidedly non academic in nature with a mixture of (very) detailed description of every single tapestry scene ["We are now inside the hall, a large impressive building" or "At the front, two men are busy boiling meat in a great cauldron, which has been hung by poles over a flickering red fire of tounge-like woolen flames."] overlaid with history / conjecture in a "fly on the wall" narrative. [Example: "Perhaps Guy is thinking now, biting his lip, wondering whether he might just be able to defy Duke William and get away with it. He remembers the long captivity at Bayeux. He remembers that God is his witness and that William has a fiery temper, which no on in their right mid would with to rekindle." or "William knows that Earl Harold holds the keys to England; he can hardly believe how foolish the Earl of Wessex has been in allowing himself to fall uninvited into his grasp. For the moment he is keeping his plans to himself."]
While the supposed point of this book is that here in an English narrative under the Norman propaganda (and actually that its Eustace not Odo commissioning it), it's a bit hard to find! Again, I was expecting a discussion of the hidden significance within the tapestry, not history like: "at some point during the day Harold's brothers, Earl Gyrth and Earl Leofwine, both perished while fighting loyally by his side." The histories of Duke William (chapter 13) and Count Eustace of Bologune (Chapter 14) are well written at least. His ideas that the tapestry shows that Eustace killed Harold are silly, if only because not a page before he waxed eloquent about the mustache, which is clearly missing, however the discussion about Eustace's attack on Dover is interesting (as a potential reason that Eustace needed the peace offering to Odo.) but not overly compelling.
Some additional annoyances: Seems uptight morally! He calls Harold Harefoot "Canute's illegitimate son"; he routinely calls Edith Swan-neck (who is Harold's concubine and possibly handfasted wife of over 20 years) Harold's "mistress." Moreover, he seems to think children of these unions were considered bastards (they weren't!) and that being a bastard was a problem in the early eleventh century (it wasn't!) Literally when discussing Edith finding Harold on the battlefield: "according to one later story, his mistress ... was able to identify the body of her lover" About Canute and his first wife he writes "Contemporaries euphemistically referred to their union as "Danish" in style (more danico)." Sir, handfasting or the Danish Style marriage was indeed a real thing in eleventh century England. You need to get over moralist nonsense.
Conclusions:
+ Count Eustace of Boulogne is the person who commissioned the tapestry
+ Additionally believes Turold the dwarf is the author of the song of Rolland (which he thinks was written in Pontiu after the battle of Hastings,)
+ AElfgigu is Cnute's first wife and this is a sneer against parentage of Harold Harefoot (who ordered the killing of the Boulogne soldiers with Alfred in 1036,)
+ that Odo's knight's Wadard and Vita "might have been the knights who were responsible for capturing his [Eustace's] nepos [relative]" so Eustace would include them in the tapestry trying to get his nepos released.
+ Overall believes a "pro-French" instead of a "pro-Norman" viewpoint.
I really wish this was better written because these conclusions could be valid.
Anyway, I did learn there is scholarship discussing the point of Eustace in the tapestry! However I found only nuggets of tapestry "hidden history" amongst a lot simple facts about the lives of Harold, Odo and Eustace.
June 23, 2017
Quite an excellent book. The author translates the tapestry in a new way, consolidating the theories of previous writers with all the available evidence, to show that the needlework was not done as a propaganda piece in praise of the conquering Normans, but as a sneaky underground counter-history showing that William didn't have any right to the English throne at all. Bridgeford makes an excellent case for his theory, and finds documents more or less contemporary with the Tapestry to support it. He is also a very good writer, managing to keep his history as interesting as it should be (not all that common among historians, really). One of the best things is that he emphasizes what is actually KNOWN versus his own speculations (and the speculations of others) - he presents his ideas as just that, not as gospel. It was very refreshing.
I enjoyed reading this, and I'm now working on tracking down a number of his sources (from the very helpful notes and bibliography) to read them, too.
I'm still looking for the book about the sewing techniques used on the Bayeux Tapestry - all I've found to date is: it's wool on linen, split stitch is used a lot, the colors are limited. I want to know what other stitches are used, what kind of wool thread, what dyes colored the wool - embroidery details, not history details. I know there has to be such a book somewhere, I just haven't found it yet.
I enjoyed reading this, and I'm now working on tracking down a number of his sources (from the very helpful notes and bibliography) to read them, too.
I'm still looking for the book about the sewing techniques used on the Bayeux Tapestry - all I've found to date is: it's wool on linen, split stitch is used a lot, the colors are limited. I want to know what other stitches are used, what kind of wool thread, what dyes colored the wool - embroidery details, not history details. I know there has to be such a book somewhere, I just haven't found it yet.
February 13, 2017
In this welcome reinterpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry (BT) from a perspective favourable to Boulogne and its Count Eustace II, Andrew Bridgeford assembles evidence from a wide range of pertinent medieval sources (the embroidery itself, chroniclers, poets, Domesday Book and others) to argue that the famous artwork was designed with multiple layers of meaning by persons who did not self-identify as Norman, but rather as Flemish/French and more sympathetic to the English.
Bridgeford's book is brief but jam-packed with information, which his clear, direct style makes easy reading, though I found the frequent repetition of his primary thesis a needless distraction from some of the many intriguing new points he was introducing.
He contends that the BT may contain further surprises yet to be discovered. Indeed, I was led to this publication by observations of my own that together with Bridgeford's insights expand the understanding of the depicted story.
In particular, the BT makes recurrent references to places and persons of Brittany. Mont St-Michel, despite its long location within the expanded borders of Normandy, was in its earliest years both a Frankish and a Breton Abbey. It is the burial place of Duke Conan I of Brittany, an ancestor both of William the Conqueror and of his Breton cousins who included his staunchest friends and most formidable foes.
Scolland, the head of the abbey's scriptorium which was renowned for the quality of its illuminations, was himself Breton. Bridgeford notes that he was the Abbot of St Augustine's in Canterbury, under the aegis of which he adduces much evidence that the BT was designed and embroidered. Yet he is curiously reluctant to identify Scolland as the master designer.
Scolland's family were naturally close associates with the Breton sovereign house, in particular Count Eudon (Odo) of Penthievre and his sons, who were Duke William's allies in the Breton-Norman War and its principal beneficiaries.
The 12th century Jersey-born chronicler and Arthurian romancer Wace extolled the contribution of Eudon's son Alan to the victory at Hastings, writing that "Alan and his men did the English great damage".
Domesday informs us that King William and Count Alan divided many of Earl Gyrth's manors between them, in equal numbers. (However, the most valuable of Gyrth's manors went to William de Briouze, so he was likely the Earl's slayer.)
Looking at the scene in the BT where Earls Leofwine and Gyrth perish, we see knights holding identical white shields converging on them and engaging in the fiercest combat of the whole battle, a foot soldier spearing an axeman in the act of striking a horse's neck, horses tumbling and the Earls falling.
White shields also occur in the sieges in Brittany and two are at the prow of a ship during the Channel Crossing. It is reasonable to associate these simple white shields with the Breton soldiers, led by one or two of his sons, who were sent by Eudon to support William in both the Breton and English campaigns.
The emblem of Brittany is an array of small black ermine tails on a white background; it was probably beyond the embroidresses' art to depict ermine spots accurately on such minute items as the shields they drew.
A curious reference in Domesday to a Pre-conquest landholder at Wyken in Suffolk, most unusually named Alan, brings to mind that Eudon's son Alan Rufus, founder of Richmond and Boston, was buried in 1093 by King Edward's physician Baldwin at St Edmund's, in the yard of the church serving the parish that contains Wyken.
David Roffe's analysis of royal thegns includes the pre-conquest Alan among them. The Latin translation of "royal thegn" was "Comes" (Count), rendering both Alans as "Alanus Comes". This is surely too great a coincidence to be ignored.
Several Bretons, Normans and Frenchmen had served King Edward only to reappear as rewarded members of William's government. These include William Malet, Ralph the Staller and Walter d'Aincourt, of whom the latter two are known close associates of Count Alan Rufus. It may be supposed that King Harold had relieved them of their posts and therefore of their duty to him, and sent them into exile. Evidently this was a grave mistake.
In the scene where King Edward's shrouded body is borne to Westminster Abbey, the lower margin has a uniquely elegantly drawn red fox watching. In colloquial Breton "the red fox" is "Alan ar-Rouz", precisely Alan Rufus's name in his native language, a fact that Scolland would also have been acquainted with. A fair interpretation is that the red fox represents Alan Rufus, the deposed royal thegn, mourning his father Eudon's younger maternal first cousin from an enforced distance.
The BT highlights Bretons, Normans and men of Ponthieu, Boulogne and France. It's probable therefore that its designer, probably the master illuminator Abbot Scolland, received input from several of the leading participants in the various events it depicts.
Bridgeford's book is brief but jam-packed with information, which his clear, direct style makes easy reading, though I found the frequent repetition of his primary thesis a needless distraction from some of the many intriguing new points he was introducing.
He contends that the BT may contain further surprises yet to be discovered. Indeed, I was led to this publication by observations of my own that together with Bridgeford's insights expand the understanding of the depicted story.
In particular, the BT makes recurrent references to places and persons of Brittany. Mont St-Michel, despite its long location within the expanded borders of Normandy, was in its earliest years both a Frankish and a Breton Abbey. It is the burial place of Duke Conan I of Brittany, an ancestor both of William the Conqueror and of his Breton cousins who included his staunchest friends and most formidable foes.
Scolland, the head of the abbey's scriptorium which was renowned for the quality of its illuminations, was himself Breton. Bridgeford notes that he was the Abbot of St Augustine's in Canterbury, under the aegis of which he adduces much evidence that the BT was designed and embroidered. Yet he is curiously reluctant to identify Scolland as the master designer.
Scolland's family were naturally close associates with the Breton sovereign house, in particular Count Eudon (Odo) of Penthievre and his sons, who were Duke William's allies in the Breton-Norman War and its principal beneficiaries.
The 12th century Jersey-born chronicler and Arthurian romancer Wace extolled the contribution of Eudon's son Alan to the victory at Hastings, writing that "Alan and his men did the English great damage".
Domesday informs us that King William and Count Alan divided many of Earl Gyrth's manors between them, in equal numbers. (However, the most valuable of Gyrth's manors went to William de Briouze, so he was likely the Earl's slayer.)
Looking at the scene in the BT where Earls Leofwine and Gyrth perish, we see knights holding identical white shields converging on them and engaging in the fiercest combat of the whole battle, a foot soldier spearing an axeman in the act of striking a horse's neck, horses tumbling and the Earls falling.
White shields also occur in the sieges in Brittany and two are at the prow of a ship during the Channel Crossing. It is reasonable to associate these simple white shields with the Breton soldiers, led by one or two of his sons, who were sent by Eudon to support William in both the Breton and English campaigns.
The emblem of Brittany is an array of small black ermine tails on a white background; it was probably beyond the embroidresses' art to depict ermine spots accurately on such minute items as the shields they drew.
A curious reference in Domesday to a Pre-conquest landholder at Wyken in Suffolk, most unusually named Alan, brings to mind that Eudon's son Alan Rufus, founder of Richmond and Boston, was buried in 1093 by King Edward's physician Baldwin at St Edmund's, in the yard of the church serving the parish that contains Wyken.
David Roffe's analysis of royal thegns includes the pre-conquest Alan among them. The Latin translation of "royal thegn" was "Comes" (Count), rendering both Alans as "Alanus Comes". This is surely too great a coincidence to be ignored.
Several Bretons, Normans and Frenchmen had served King Edward only to reappear as rewarded members of William's government. These include William Malet, Ralph the Staller and Walter d'Aincourt, of whom the latter two are known close associates of Count Alan Rufus. It may be supposed that King Harold had relieved them of their posts and therefore of their duty to him, and sent them into exile. Evidently this was a grave mistake.
In the scene where King Edward's shrouded body is borne to Westminster Abbey, the lower margin has a uniquely elegantly drawn red fox watching. In colloquial Breton "the red fox" is "Alan ar-Rouz", precisely Alan Rufus's name in his native language, a fact that Scolland would also have been acquainted with. A fair interpretation is that the red fox represents Alan Rufus, the deposed royal thegn, mourning his father Eudon's younger maternal first cousin from an enforced distance.
The BT highlights Bretons, Normans and men of Ponthieu, Boulogne and France. It's probable therefore that its designer, probably the master illuminator Abbot Scolland, received input from several of the leading participants in the various events it depicts.
May 20, 2017
Much better organized than "A Needle in the Right Hand of God" which I read first. This book repeats the information from that one, but in a more sensible (to me) way. The entire tapestry is explained in sequence, almost panel by panel, with brief digression into background information or discussion of various interpretations of the scenes. Later chapters are devoted to several of the mysterious figures who appear in the tapestry (Aelfgyva, Turold) and to more detailed coverage of the historical events depicted. What fascinates me is that this piece of cloth has survived for so long and that there is still so much about it that is unknown. Truly one of the masterworks of history and art.
March 14, 2022
Wow, I thought I knew a lot about 1066 and this period of time, but this book made me realize that there was so much more going on and so many characters that were a part of this amazing period of time. To think that there is so much mystery behind the Bayeux Tapestry and how history wasn't just written, it was rendered artistically.
It did have to take a few breaks reading this book because there is so much information and there were times, I needed to do some reference checks to understand the context of the material more closely. But I did learn so much and I appreciate the extensive research that went into writing this book.
It did have to take a few breaks reading this book because there is so much information and there were times, I needed to do some reference checks to understand the context of the material more closely. But I did learn so much and I appreciate the extensive research that went into writing this book.
August 27, 2022
Originally I read about 50 pages almost 15 years ago and it got put down then packed away. I rediscovered it about a month ago and decided to restart it. The first half of this work is wonderful. The pages melt away and the author’s arguments for his conclusions are quite persuasive. The interpretation of the tapestry is very entertaining and informative. The second half, however, is a bit of a slog through family ties and obscure historical events as the arguments become tied to more and more tentative evidence. There’s a lot of ifs and maybes here.
Still, read the first half, but save the second half for if you decide to research a dissertation.
Still, read the first half, but save the second half for if you decide to research a dissertation.
July 25, 2023
I’ve always been fascinated by the Bayeux tapestry having visited it on a quiet December afternoon in 1995. With very few other visitors it was possible to really spend time with all of the panels. I may not have known all the historical details at the time but a visit a few days later to Battle and the town of Hastings was another good supplement to my knowledge. I was hoping this book would add further insight but I finished this book and just felt like I’d been sold a story with little substance. Now history is always told from a bias but I just didn’t feel that Andrew bridgeford provided enough for me that could confidently subscribe to his different view.
February 10, 2021
I loved this book. The author gives a great detailed history of many events surrounding the conquest of england, and delves into many well thought out theories regarding who commissioned the tapestry work and who the figures were within the work itself, drawing from a wide variety of sources that retell the conquest. It felt like I was reading about well kept secrets, with juicy drama, that surrounded this tapestry. It is a book definitely worth reading. It was a quick & easy read. I couldn't put it down.
November 18, 2021
Really fascinating assertions. Sometimes I thought the author would hand wave away something that seemed obvious to find a more obscure solution, but on the whole, he was mostly even-handed to recognize that we just don’t know the true meanings behind some of the scenes, probably never will.
But I was impressed by the knowledge he had collected and drew from to come up with a different source and patron for this beautiful artistic work of 11th century embroidery.
Would love to see it in person sometime.
But I was impressed by the knowledge he had collected and drew from to come up with a different source and patron for this beautiful artistic work of 11th century embroidery.
Would love to see it in person sometime.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 102 reviews