Not until the early 18th century did interested observers in Bayeux first come to realize that the tapestry then in the local cathedral treasury, subsequently known as the Bayeux Tapestry (in fact an embroidery but commonly called a tapestry), might be an early, hence valuable, source of information on the Norman Conquest of England and also, an unusual survival of early textile art. Scholars both English and French began to focus their attention on it in increasing numbers in the 19th and 20th centuries but only in the past fifty years has it become a subject matter in and of itself, rivaling some of the most famous artistic monuments of the Middle Ages in the number of studies dedicated to it. Published editions (Stenton 1957, Wilson 1985 et al.) contributed immeasurably to the growth of Bayeux studies by making available for the first time black/white and color photos of the entire hanging. Since the tapestry itself provides no explicit information about who commissioned it, for whom, nor about where and when it was produced, these questions became the prime concern of the earliest generations of scholars who studied it. Over the course of the past century specialists have come to believe that, although proof is lacking, William the Conqueror's half-brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent after 1066, ordered it to be produced at the English abbey of St. Augustine's of Canterbury for his cathedral in Normandy in the years after the Conquest. Art historians contributed fundamentally to this hypothesis by finding similarities between stylistic and scenic elements in the tapestry narrative and their counterparts in English illuminated manuscripts of the early 11th century. The possibility that the tapestry might provide valuable historical evidence on the Norman Conquest attracted the attention of political historians, and its immense wealth of pictorial images of castles, houses, ships, animals, knights, armor, and the like, has led specialists in those domains to investigate it closely.
Fascination with the tapestry has shown no signs of waning in recent years. In 1997 the English art historian Richard Gameson edited a collection of seminal articles in order to summarize the state of the question in Bayeux studies at the time (The Study of the Bayeux Tapestry, Woodbridge, 1997) and the American medievalist, Martin Foys, followed this with a digital edition accompanied by commentaries and bibliography in 2003 (The Bayeux Tapestry: Digital Edition, 2003). The book under review here, The Bayeux Tapestry: Embroidering the Facts of History, a collection of articles presented at a colloquium in Cerisy, Normandy in the fall of 1999, falls into the same category. Edited by Francois Neveux and Pierre Bouet of the University of Caen in Normandy and Brian Levy of the University of Hull in England, it publishes 21 papers on various aspects of the tapestry as presented at a colloquium held in the Norman cultural center at Cerisy-la-Salle in 1999 and organized by the editors with the support of the two universities, the town of Bayeux, and the French Ministry of Culture and Information. This colloquium brought together French and English scholars, mainly from the two universities in question (and one North American, Shirley Ann Brown, York University, Toronto), from the disciplines of history, art and literary history, and textile studies. The subjects of their papers make clear why tapestry studies continue to flourish despite the flood of publications in the recent past: little is known about certain essential aspects of the tapestry due to neglect in the past. Above all about the technical aspects, the production of this textile hanging, the materials (cloth, threads) used, the dyes, and the stitching. Modern experts did not have an opportunity to examine the reverse side of the tapestry until November 1982 when it was moved into its present setting to the Centre de Guillaume le Conquerant in Bayeux, and then they had only ten days for photographing and studying it.
The first articles of this collection deal with "The Artefact as Textile" and among these the central one is: "The Technical Study of the Bayeux Embroidery," (83-101) by Isabelle Bedat and Beatrice Girault-Kurtzeman, experts in textile history and restoration. This is the first publication of their findings in their examination of the tapestry in November 1982. One conclusion that is bound to interest students of the subject is their view "that the entire embroidery strip (upper and lower borders, inscriptions, and central scenes) was embroidered in a single operation" (97). Prior to their examination no one had any idea of the degree to which the tapestry had been restored in the past. In the concluding article to the volume, "The Bayeux Tapestry: The Establishment of a Text," (383-402) David Hill, outlines the successive stages of restoration in an effort to point out where the original differed from what one sees today. Other papers on the physical dimensions of the tapestry include Nicole de Reynies "The Bayeux Tapestry, or Bayeux Embroidery? Questions of Terminology" (69-76); Marie-Helene Didiers "The Bayeux Tapestry: an example of Textile Embroidery. A Report on the setting-up of the 1982-83 Research Project and Scientific Analysis," (77-82); Gabriel Vial's "The Bayeux Tapestry and its Backing Strip," (111-16), a study of the cloth attached to the back of the tapestry; and Brigitte Oger's "The Bayeux Tapestry: Results of the Scientific Tests 1982-83," (117-24). This latter paper gives the results of microbiological analysis of fibre, coloring, insect residue, and samples taken from the tapestry. Oger's comment "One hopes that future technology might offer answers to some of the questions raised by historians as to the place of origin of the embroidery linen and wool material," (122) makes clear that the 1982-83 tests did not attempt to do this.
Another six articles represent the research of historians. Two of these focus on written sources for the Conquest and treat the tapestry only indirectly or briefly. From her analysis of Orderic Vitalis' treatment of the Conquest, Marjorie Chibnall concludes that this historian was not acquainted with, or did not make use of, the tapestry in his history, "Orderic Vitalis and Bayeux Tapestry" (127-34). Nor did the 14th century compiler of the Grande Chronique de Normandie in his account, a topic studied by Gillette Labory "The Normand Conquest in the Grande Chronique de Normandie." (155-69) Whereas specialists of the tapestry understand the main outlines of the story told by the tapestry images and inscriptions, many of the details and lesser elements in the narrative are obscure. In her article "The Echo of the Conquest in the Latin Sources: Duchess Mathilda, her daughters and the Enigma of the Golden Child," (135-53) Elizabeth van Houts proposes a new and intriguing explanation for the figurehead of a child standing on the stern of a Norman ship crossing the channel for the invasion of England. This child blows a horn and carries a gonfanon in one hand. Van Houts matches this with the description of the ship commissioned by Mathilda to take her husband to England as taken from the contemporary Ship List of William the Conqueror. The author of this document specifies that the duchess had the figure of a golden child mounted on the ship's prow and holding a horn to its mouth. Drawing on Biblical texts and Roman Sibylline prophecies known at the time, van Houts suggests that to Mathilda the golden child may have been an allusion to the child she was herself then bearing, as well as to "the birth of a new future in England." In an evaluation of the designer's perspective in presenting the story of the Conquest, Pierre Bouet "Is the Bayeux Tapestry pro-English," (197-216) argues that Harold is made to appear in a more favorable light than previously believed. This is to be seen as part of William the Conqueror's conciliatory moves toward the English in the months immediately after 1066 in order to overcome opposition and win their support. That this attitude gave way to one of implacable force after 1068 means that, in Bouet's view, the tapestry dates to that two year period after 1066.
With virtual unanimity modern scholars have believed that bishop Odo of Bayeux commissioned this tapestry though his precise motivation in so doing is not obvious and various explanations have been proposed. Drawing upon the nature of Odo's interventions in the narrative, Valerie Flint, in her article "The Bayeux Tapestry, the bishop, and the Laity," (217-33) believes that the Conqueror's brother, whom she sees as the designer as well as the commissioner, used the tapestry to defend the authority and rights of feudal bishops such as himself, then under attack by Gregorian Reform. Many military historians have mined the tapestry for its wealth of images of weapons, armor, defensive structure, cavalry, archers, tactics and the like. In his article "The Importance of the Bayeux Tapestry for the history of war," (289-99) John France warns against the tendency to accept the tapestry depictions of a military affairs as literally accurate. It may be trusted with regard to matters of detail--weaponry for instance--but in the portrayal of battle scenes the designer has oversimplified or resorted to convention. The historical accuracy of the tapestry narrative in comparison with that of written accounts continues to preoccupy historians and Francois Neveux focuses mainly on it in his "The Bayeux Tapestry, Original Source." (171-96) Having no doubts about its overall accuracy he illustrates this with analyses of several individual scenes. At the same time he sees it as viewing events from a pro-Norman, and especially pro-Odo, perspective. His detection of distinctive narrative structures in the portrayal of the Harold/Guy of Ponthieux (scenes 7-13), and the death of Edward (scenes 24-34) sequences may be his most interesting contribution to the study of the tapestry.
The question of accuracy of the tapestry's images of clothing and armor is raised by Olivier Renaudeau, a specialist in the history of dress. Treating both civilian and knightly apparel, with special attention to chain mail armor, he concludes that the artist and the embroiderers have depicted these with care and precision in "The Bayeux Tapestry and its Depiction of Costume: Problems of Interpretation" (237-59).
Two scholars approach the tapestry from the art historical perspective. Barbara English carries out an analysis of a single scene, the crowning of Harold as king following the death of Edward, "The Coronation of Harold in the Bayeux Tapestry" (347-81). Her concern was to find parallels or analogies for the essential elements in this scene--the throne, arrangement of the figures present, the crown, robe, insignia, etc.--in contemporary manuscript illuminations, coins, and seals. From the artist's uncompromising presentation of Harold's coronation, Barbara English concludes that it dates "in the early years after 1066 when the Normans were less hostile to Harold than they were to become (later)." In this she is in agreement with Pierre Bouet (see 197-215). In the second art historical essay, "The Bayeux Tapestry and Decoration in North-western Europe: Style and Composition," (303-26) Maylis Bayle, who has written extensively on Romanesque sculpture and architecture in Normandy, returns to the critical, and much discussed, question of the artistic world to which the tapestry belonged. Summarizing the findings of recent research on the topics of scene layout, style and decoration, the use of figures and drapery, and of colors, she concludes that the tapestry reflects the artistic conventions of what she calls the Anglo-Scandinavian region of northwestern Europe, and supports the arguments of the Anglo-Saxon school for a Canterbury provenance.
In the past literary historians have paid less attention to the Bayeux Tapestry than their colleagues from the other disciplines. Nonetheless a few have argued that its narrative structure deserves careful analysis according to literary conventions of the day, and Brian Levy joins this small group with a suggestive essay, the only one of its kind in this colloquium, "Trifunctionality and Epic Patterning in the Bayeux Tapestry." (327-45) He argues that the tapestry designer has imposed a tripartite structure on his story of the Conquest, which features "three kings, three thrones, three feudal acts." In addition it opposes two families of three brothers each, interacting in three well-defined domains, with the actions taking place in "three castles--three great halls--and in three narrative segments," and involving three main cross sections of the society of the time, the Three Orders, those who prayed, those worked, and those who fought.
Francois Neveux introduces this volume with a brief statement about the objectives of the Cerisy colloquium (11-14) and a resume of the main directions and accomplishments of tapestry scholarship in the past two centuries, "The Great Bayeux Debate, 19th-20th centuries" (17-25). Following this, Shirley Ann Brown, "The Bayeux Tapestry: A Critical Analysis of Publications 1988-99," (27-47) concentrates on scholarship on the tapestry in the eleven years preceding the colloquium, an updating of her 1988 book on this subject. Her chronological list of publications appears at the end of the volume, pages 411-18. Another most unusual addition to tapestry studies comes from Sylvette LeMagnen, director of the mediatheque in Bayeux, "The Bayeux Tapestry under German Occupation. New Light on the Mission Led by Herbert Jankuhn during the Second World War" (49-64). In this article LeMagnen recounts how, in 1992, with the cooperation of German cultural authorities, she brought to light documents describing investigations into the tapestry by a group of German scholars led by Herbert Jahnkuhn, a Viking specialist at Kiel, in 1941 during the occupation. Whether this group made original contributions to the body tapestry knowledge will become apparent only with the publication of these materials, a task being undertaken by the author. Finally, Francois Neveux summarizes the accomplishments of the Cerisy colloquium in his "The Cerisy Colloquium: Conclusions" (403-10).
One of the outstanding features of this volume is its publication of well over 200 photographic reproductions of superb quality, both in black and white and in color. In addition to this many diagrams and drawings accompany the text. After going through this book I can only wonder how the editors and the Presses Universitaires de Caen able to publish it, in both English and French versions, for only 39.50 euros ($50.00). This is an indispensable contribution to tapestry studies.