The Bayeux Tapestry, actually an embroidery over 63 metres long, has attracted scholarly attention since the early eighteenth century. That attention has been directed at many different aspects, not the least of which is an ongoing discussion as to where it was made (see The Bayeux Tapestry. Embroidering the Facts of History , eds P. Bouet, B. Levy and F. Neveux, Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen, 2004). In recent years, the consensus has been that the tapestry was probably made and/or designed in England (although probably in more than one workshop); and the favoured commissioner is William's half- brother, Odo of Bayeux. Nevertheless, because the arguments in favour of one place of manufacture or another are based on deductions from internal evidence and a small number of contemporary documentary sources, the author of the present book is not the only recent writer to re-open the discussion in favour of France, although the alternative to England is usually Normandy.
George Beech has entered the argument, however, with the more surprising claim that the tapestry was made neither in Normandy nor England, but in Angevin France, at a particular monastery in the Loire valley. He claims as supporting evidence that the abbey of Saint-Florent of Saumur was a centre of textile production in the eleventh century; that the considerable favour shown to the monastery of Saint-Florent of Saumur in the form of land-holdings and other gifts could be explained by the commissioning of the tapestry from its workshop; that the account of Duke William's campaign in Brittany on the tapestry requires the knowledge of a Breton insider in a position to influence the design of the tapestry; that the tapestry reflects the art of the Loire region; and finally that Baudri of Bourgueil, who later became archbishop of Dol in Brittany, and who wrote a poem to Duke William's daughter, Adele, in which a hanging with the same subject as the Bayeux tapestry is described, most probably saw the tapestry in the Saumur workshop when he was a monk in the Loire valley and friend of Abbott William of Saint-Florent, who had been formerly lord of Dol, and whose family were allies of Duke William in his Breton campaign.
There is much interesting material in each section, though detailed somewhat repetitively, but very little of it can be shown to support the overall hypothesis. The connections between Duke William and Abbott William, continued through the exercise of patronage after the former became king of England, and the latter gave up the lordship of Dol for the religious life, for example, are really interesting as part of a discussion of the way in which a medieval ruler made and cemented alliances with important families whose domains lay along his borders. The fact that the monastery of Saint-Florent seems to have been singled out beyond the call of piety surely requires no other justification, and is not direct evidence that any textile, large or small, was commissioned from there. The only potentially interesting part of this section of the argument is the emphasis on the Breton campaign in the tapestry itself, which has several scenes, including five of the fifty-seven extant inscriptions, devoted to it. Beech contends that both the visual detail and the events, some not covered by the only contemporary account, implies an eye witness who knew the region well and who was able to pass on his knowledge to the designer, and that this could have been Abbot William of Saint- Florent of Saumur. However, this is to ignore the obvious fact that both Normans and English (including Harold and any companions) would certainly have known the three sites mentioned, including the very distinctive Mont St. Michel (of which William was a patron), and witnessed the events portrayed: the Normans in particular could hardly have been unaware of troublesome fortresses on their border, or of the details of their own campaign. More importantly, Beech ignores the part played by this section within the narrative of the tapestry itself. It shows the positive treatment of Harold, who was apparently present throughout the campaign, by Duke William, leading up to the oath which Harold swears to the Duke, and which in the Norman view Harold later betrays. This interpretation is fully in accord with that in the Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers (eds R. H. C. Davis and M. Chibnall, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). The account of the campaign on the tapestry centres on the defeat of the enemy, Conan, Duke of Rennes, not at all on the alliance with the lords of Dol (Conan is mentioned by name, Rivallon of Dol, father of Abbot William not at all), and on the freedom and honourable treatment accorded to Harold, who is shown rescuing some of the Normans from the quicksand. It is difficult to see what interest Abbott William would have had in showing this. The tapestry account of the campaign therefore fits the Norman view of the run-up to the Conquest of England, and does not show any special knowledge which could only have come from the lords of Dol. Neither is it necessary to assume that Baudri of Bourgueil could only have seen the Bayeux tapestry while he was a monk in the Loire valley: the intertwined careers of these men again tells us quite a lot about early medieval society, and particularly about patronage, while it tells us nothing at all about when or where Baudri saw the Bayeux tapestry. That he saw the tapestry at all is an inference based on the details on his poem, but it must also be remembered that the hanging he described, whether imaginary or real, was made of much richer materials--so to say he must have seen it in a particular place is to pile speculation on speculation.
The most important section of Beech's argument, however, is his suggestion that there was a textile workshop at Saint-Florent, and that this was of a type and contemporary significance that makes feasible his contention that it was where the Bayeux tapestry was designed and made. Now, while it is true that there seem to be few accounts of weaving workshops in the documentary sources, there must actually have been many such to supply the vast numbers of hangings, curtains, seat covers and vestments which are recorded in documentary sources of the period. There is certainly plenty of evidence for textile production at various centres from archaeological sources. Moreover, C. R. Dodwell, in a passage referred to by the author, while noting the lack of references to weaving workshops, is at pains to note the number of references to embroiderers and groups of embroiderers, clearly workers, whom he distinguishes from the aristocratic ladies often associated with this art. Although a fragile medium compared to sculpture and metalwork, a sufficient number of embroideries, including embroidered hangings, survive from especially the tenth to the early twelfth centuries, to prove the existence of a number of centres of production of a professional standard.
The account of the Saint-Florent workshop has other difficulties. If, as Beech says, it is a late twelfth century text, and the period to which it refers is the late tenth, early eleventh century, it is not a contemporary description, and the period to which it refers is not contemporary with the period in which the Bayeux tapestry could have been made. The passage apparently records that a particular abbot both hired workers to make hangings and vestments, and also received others as gifts or collected them in various ways himself. Its purpose seems to suggest a period of unusual activity in the decoration of the church associated with a particularly famous abbot, and contains no information about an ongoing workshop. The passage also has a rather unusual vocabulary: the word translated by Beech as workers (trapezetae ) appears, in every dictionary I have found, to mean 'moneylenders' but must mean, in context, makers of tapetia which could be hangings, coverings or carpets: this and other odd words in the passage surely required comment when so much is made to hang on them. The author, in his commentary in this passage as opposed to his translation, refers to these workers interchangeably as weavers or embroiderers, for which I can see no justification, and indeed appears to make no distinction himself between practitioners of the two techniques. He also speculates that, if the woollen hangings referred to in the passage were 'woolen embroideries on a linen base' this would mean they were producing hangings "of the same composition as the Bayeux tapestry at the beginning of the eleventh century"--but there is more than one unwarranted inference here.
The section on the relationships with the art of the Loire region (nothing survives from the monastery of Saint-Florent itself) is equally inconclusive. The author does not in fact engage with the arguments which have been put forward to show that resemblances with particular late Anglo-Saxon manuscripts are close in both composition and stylistic detail. He dismisses out of hand the work of art historians who see the animals in the borders of the tapestry and those in a manuscript of Aesop's fables by Ademar of Chabannes as unrelated, and probably, according to the only detailed study of this question, not even from a common source. He is happy for the Bayeux designer to have used several sources, but is clear that he must have leafed through this specific manuscript for some details--probably all of which could indeed have been found elsewhere. There are large issues here concerned with the transmission of visual images, which again have not been tackled at more than a superficial level, although here the author admits this, suggesting, quite correctly, that much more work needs to be done in this as in other pertinent areas of study.
Was the Bayeux Tapestry made in France? This question must always remain open so long as the answers, including the present consensus, depend on inference and deduction drawn from a variety of disciplines --but it has not been answered here.