BAYEUX TAPESTRY – a continuous frieze-like pictorial narrative (70m long – upper board and

lower board largely occupied by animals, birds or beasts) of a crucial moment in England’s history
– resembles a long cartoon story; strictly speaking, it is not a tapestry at all since it was not woven
on a loom – in fact it is a long piece of linen fabric with embroidered pictures and letters. The
tapestry has text in Latin describing what is happening in the scenes.

Origins
- no documentary evidence as to the origins of the tapestry or the conditions under which it
was manufactured; scholars agree that it was manufactured in the eleventh century relatively
soon after the Norman Conquest in England. Probably commissioned by Bishop Odo of
Bayeux, half-brother (= frate vitreg) to the king (later earl in Kent); others believe that it was
made by Matilda, William’s wife.

Story / Narrative
- not an accurate historical progression (it is not the sequence of events that matters) or a
truthful chronicle of the events
- Saxons (on foot) and Normans wore similar armour: the hauberk (a heavy shirt / tunic of
chain mail) + a kite-shaped shield made of wood and leather + helmets with nasals

Characters
- above all the story of three kings: Edward the Confessor (William’s cousin), Harold
Godwinson (earl in Kent, Edward’s brother-in-law, most often referred to than William – it
is a history of the H’s fall rather than of W’s triumph) and William the Conqueror; Edward
appears at the beginning (enthroned with his crown and sceptre – symbols of his regalia)
when he admonishes Harold before his journey to France, then in the middle when crowned
he receives Harold on his return and lately he is shown on his death-bed and protagonist of
his own burial.
- Harold is at the forefront of the events. The image of the Anglo-Saxon earl presented in the
first part of the tapestry implies that he was a man of impressive personal presence and
dignity who was of acknowledged loyalty and prowess – several depictions of him convey
his impressiveness: he is shown riding in front of his retinue with a hawk on his fist and
hounds running ahead of him – obediently receiving the king’s instructions before setting
out for France (loyal subject to the king) – serves Duke William well and receives arms and
armour from him – after his arrival he duly reports to the king and at the king’s death-bed he
appears to accept the king’s special charge for him – but is this image a false one = an
instance of Harold’s duplicity (falsely swearing fealty to W. and promising to him the throne
of England upon E.’s death only to snatch it himself)?

Importance and Legacy

- the tapestry is the only evidence for Harold’s death (we cannot be sure which of the figures
was supposed to be him: the warrior hit by an arrow in his right eye or the one killed by a
Norman swordsman on horseback). There is another explanation for the final scene of
Harold’s demise: Harold was only wounded by an arrow in the eye which he manages to
pluck out and afterwards, while he was lying prostrate, he is hit in the thigh by a Norman on
horseback and slain. Tradition claims that the knight who gave Harold the final blow while
wounded and lying on the ground was stripped of his belt of knighthood by the Conqueror
for such a dishonourable act. → the code of chivalry (the honour code for a knight – was
publicised and circulated in ballads and poems sung by minstrels; in the 8 th century there
was an epic poem which circulated: The Song of Roland) had been violated. We don’t know
what happened to H’s body but we can see how the dead were plundered of their valuables:
hauberks, swords and shields.
- From the 12th century onward, the code of chivalry came to be understood as a moral,
religious and social code of knightly conduct. The particulars of this code varied so that
chivalry would (in the Late Middle Ages) come to refer to an idealization of the life and
manners of a knight in battle or at time of peace (on battlefield, in castle); Next lecture: we
would see (what triggered and) how Christianity would modify the classical concept of
chivalry understood as heroism in battle (prowess), pride and loyalty towards one’s lord
toward a more virtuous code of behaviour with limits placed on knights to honour and
protect the weaker members of society and help the church maintain peace. Warrior chivalry
(a knight’s chief duty is to fight for and protect his lord) → Religious chivalry (to protect the
innocent and serve God) → Courtly love chivalry (fealty towards one’s lady; expressing
love and admiration towards a lady / all ladies; worship from afar and declaring one’s love
artfully; prowess is now seen as polite courteous behaviour and mannered speech = ‘pretz’
in troubadour poetry)
- differences bet. the Anglo-Saxon and the Norman codes of chivalry: The A-S candidate for
knighthood went through a probationary period of fasting and penance and after having
confessed his sins he would receive absolution and be girded with a belt by a priest who laid
the blade of a sword upon his shoulders; this ceremony of performed on foot. In case of the
Normans, whose military strength laid in their cavalry, the ceremony was performed on
horseback. In the Bayeux Tapestry both William and Harold are on foot and there is no
priest sanctioning the ceremony; however, cavalry formed only one part of the Norman
army so the contrast between the Normans fighting on horseback and the A-S are all on foot
is exaggerated probably to emphasize that it was the Norman cavalry who brought chivalry
(etymologically: ‘chivalry’ enters ME from OF ‘chevalerie’) to a forsworn England.
- it was used as a propaganda device by Napoleon to support his attacks (cancelled anyway)
of England.