How useful is the Bayeux Tapestry as a source for the events surrounding the Norman invasion of England?

Essay by blippo_ukUniversity, Bachelor'sB, May 2004

download word file, 9 pages ( 13 KB ) 4.0

The Bayeux Tapestry is unique and invaluable as an artefact of its time. It is not as simply as appears however and it is essential that we define its provenance and date. We must also understand the idiosyncrasies of its design if it's to take its place as a 'major authority for the events of the Norman conquest.'

A point that must be addressed at the start of this essay is that the Bayeux Tapestry finishes rather abruptly after Harold is slain and his army routed. The start of the Tapestry is bordered on three sides, so it's likely the end would have been the same. It is almost universally believed that the end of the Tapestry is missing. It could be presumed that the Tapestry finished as it started - with a rightful king seated upon his lion throne. However, these panels were either lost or never existed and as such the tapestry is not useful at all as a source for the events after the Battle of Hastings and certainly offers no information on William's systematic conquest of England in the next decade.

French folklore attributed the Tapestry to Matilda, William's wife. Its creation is now attributed to Bishop Odo, although French historians do still try as much as possible to connect her in some way or form to the Tapestry because it is 'both more gallant and more poetic.'

There are several clues that allow us to connect the tapestry to Odo. Firstly he is afforded prominence in the Tapestry out of sync with other contemporary accounts. He appears as advisor to the King, at one stage appearing to even suggest the invasion of England. He appears as a spiritual leader at the 'last meal' and as a warrior rallying the troops. H.P. Brooks and D.J.