I am really in two minds with this read. On the one hand, I liked the fact that it was a study of the Bayeux Tapestry via the marginalia (the images in the top and bottom borders); on the other hand, it left me quite baffled.
Whilst I have read a lot on the tapestry and the period in question, most of what I had read covered off the main, central component - the part that everyone is familiar with - and the various interpretations (ie: Norman POV, English / Anglo Saxon POV). I had not really considered the margins as telling another story - hence my curiosity when this tome was available.
However, the more I read of this book, the more confused I became. I am not a student of symbolism, allegories, fables, and their interpretations, so I really was at a loss to see what the author was seeing. Where I saw colourful critters, the author saw secret messages and conspiracy - and I do love a good conspiracy! I felt like I was in a Dan Brown novel and any moment now, Brown's protagonist, Robert Langdon, was going to be drawing lines to the Holy Grail. So for the theory to make sense, one needs to know what the symbolism means from the very get-go. And the multitude of underlying tones leaves all of this open to diverse speculation and interpretation, and in my case, confusion.
Having said that, one question the author posed regarding the tapestry really did intrigue me - what would it have meant at the time? And more to the point, to whom? Who was the intended audience at a time when the vast majority of the population was illiterate. This in itself leads to speculation as to who crafted this embroidery (ie: made it) , who commissioned the piece (ie: suggested it be made and quite possibly set the tone), where is the missing piece, why was it removed, and what image did it contain to warrant its removal. These questions in themselves demand further investigation - and some of the answers put forward by the author do pique one's imagination. This would be something I would happily traverse a rabbit hole for.
If your interest is deeply focused on this subject, then this book will definitely be of interest.
1 comment:
The BT is neither Norman nor English: it is Breton. Its designer was Scolland, a senior monk and then abbot of St Augustine's Abbey in Canterbury. At the time of the events depicted, he was the treasurer and master illustrator of manuscripts at the Abbey of St Michel.
The principal witness to the events (Scenes 10 to 53) is Count Alan Rufus, a close kinsman of King Edward and Duke William who served for many years as William's factotum: for example as emissary, counsellor, palace guard captain, economic adviser, estate manager and architect.
Bishop Odo of Bayeux and his brother Count Robert of Mortain had connections to Alan's father Duke Eudon of Brittany, but Alan and Odo increasingly drifted apart, as their goals (conciliation vs domination) were incompatible.
Reportedly, Alan maternal grandmother's mother was Melisende of Maine.
Post a Comment