Sure thing Christophe.
Here are two good reviews that touch on that:
Quote:
Bridgeford makes this a fascinating introduction, examining each scene and coordinating it with the written histories of the time. He is not, however, a professional historian, but a lawyer, and he has a case to argue. The tapestry has been interpreted the wrong way, he explains, and he means to set the matter straight. There is a good deal of guesswork and supposition in his explanation, but it is generally well-argued, and will make little difference to those who come to the tapestry without having been drilled in the old interpretations. Bridgeford does bring the tapestry to life, with its depictions of valor and brutality, and anyone reading his work is going to want to get to France someday to see the real thing.
The tapestry is not a tapestry at all, really, but an embroidery; the pattern is not in the weave of the fabric, but stitched into the linen. The illustrations consist of hundreds of human figures, plus horses, falcons, and dogs, set within forests, churches, castles, and ships. It is about 75 yards long and one yard wide, and was sewn almost a millennium ago. The battle depicted in the tapestry was brought about by the death of Edward the Confessor in December 1065, an event depicted about a third of the way along the tapestry. William of Normandy expected to be made king, but Harold Godwinson was given the nod by the dying Edward. William set forth to get the throne he thought was his, and of course when Harold fell in the Battle of Hastings, he succeeded. The view of the tapestry ever since has been that because the Normans won, and because victors get to write the histories, the tapestry is "a work of Norman triumphalism," made by Normans who wished to celebrate their just conquest. Bridgeford has taken scholarly works of the latter twentieth century to demonstrate that the tapestry necessarily tells of the Norman victory, but it gives an English version of events. For instance, the tapestry never refers to William's claim to the throne, showing Harold's nomination as lawful; Harold is not the usurper whose actions would have justified invasion. Harold is referred to as King Harold when he is depicted, but he was almost always in other Norman documents referred to by his former title Duke.
There is an enormous amount of evidence for this new hypothesis, attractively arranged and argued with legal skill. Part of the problem is that the tapestry is from so long ago, there are no written documents from its own time that refer to its story or how it was made, and there is an enormous amount of confusing and strange inclusions on the cloth. It thus has many panels that can be interpreted in various ways. Bridgeford knows this, and wisely includes many times a phrase like, "One further piece of intriguing evidence should be mentioned, though its import is unclear." The case, full of suppositions about spears that point to particular letters and animals on the cloth's border that illustrate a fable from Aesop that might apply in some way to the goings-on in the main pictures, is an interesting one, but for most people, the new ideas Bridgeford presents will be secondary. His book primarily serves as an excellent introduction to the tapestry and how mysterious it is, with many large voids of information about and within it. He also has drawn from other sources to describe a strange and turbulent time, and his descriptions of side issues, like the process of becoming a knight, are useful to the main story. The book is illustrated with small pictures to show the whole cloth, and enlargements of the panels to which Bridgeford pays particular attention. As an appreciation of a spectacular work of art, the book is fine guide, particularly in its explanation of symbolism that appealed to the medieval mind.
Quote:
Although the Tapestry is certainly famous, its origins and even the meanings of certain of its embroidered scenes are mysterious. In this book Bridgeford provides persuasive, if not necessarily final, answers to many of the old questions, including who was the patron who had the Tapestry created (Bridgeford believes it was Count Eustace of Boulogne, as a sort of peace offering to Bishop Odo, William's half-brother, who might have been just a little unhappy after Eustace had attacked the bishop's castle at Dover), who was Aelfgyva and what was she doing with that cleric (Aelfgyva was a rather popular name at the time, but Bridgeford argues that the Tapestry's Aelfgyva was the mother of Norway's Harold Harefoot, a rival contender for the English throne, and it was a reference to an old scandal, made to undermine the legitimacy of Harold's claim), and who the dwarf Turold was (Bridgeford speculates that the horse-holding Turold may have been the artist-designer of the Tapestry and the author of the famous Chanson de Roland). This is a book worth reading about one of the great art treasures of Europe and about one of the critical turning points of European history.
There are also some interesting family trees and color shots of the whole tapestry scene by scene. (Much of the book is a chapter history of the tapestry's known discovery in the 1400s and a complete walk through of each scene in order as they appear and their possible meanings. Further chapters deal with specific topics of interest.)
Login
Register
FAQ
) would provide plenty of inspiration.