Talk:Bayeux Tapestry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Textile Arts Portal This article is within the scope of the Textile Arts WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within textile arts.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Misc 2 Comic strip? 3 What happened to this article? 4 Artist of the Tapestry 5 Reverting article 6 France vs England 7 Past tense 8 The Tapestry's Origins 9 French vs English 10 Possibly amusing use of the tapestry in pop culture? 11 Turkey 12 Bayeux = YTMND fad 13 Latin text 14 L.Foaly ? 15 In Normandy

[edit] Misc

More info please on how the figure of Harold II is mis-identified. Leo

There are several soldiers in this scene by the words "Harold Rex" the guy nearly in the middle on foot is the one with an arrow in his eye. The is also one (maybe two figures) on horse back. I remember when I was ten years old and say the tapestry, I though to myself then tat thst te one on horseback was most likely to be the king, so I'm not surprised if historians dispute the old story about the arrow in the eye person Dainamo 11:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Help! the Edit Page is broken. User:Renata 24/9/2002

What do you mean by this, Renata? I can edit with no problem. -- Zoe

When I try to edit from my home PC, I get an empty box, overlaid with "Warning....no header...." messages. When I try from my work PC, it's okay. It's a mystery to me. User:Renata

---

Who considers it the precursor of the comic strip?

Here, in France, it's much more know as the "tapisserie de Bayeux" than as the "tapisserie de la reine Mathilde". But my english is to poor for me to modify the article. Alvaro 14:53 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Comic strip?

...its serial storytelling is considered an ancestor of the comic strip.

The Bayeux Tapestry is an ancestor of comic strip? Medieval storytelling was highly graphic (in large past as most people could not read) and there is a long tradition of graphic serial story telling that goes back to, well, pre-historic cave paintings. It's unclear what the connection to comic strips and the Bayeux Tapestry is. This was not the first graphic serial story. Stbalbach 22:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to this article?

Would anyone object (or support) this article being reverted to the pre-June 4th version, before the mass of new text was added by 67.191.224.15 ? Stbalbach 04:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just re-read the text and its not as bad as I initially thought, but the primary source seems to be a 1966 National Geographic Magazine article, and it certainly reads that way. Lots of asides and anedotes and stories, not typical encyclopedic fare, and not typical Wikipedia material. It makes it more difficult for future editors to contribute, this is essentially a long pre-written stylized essay someone has cut and paste in. There are also a bunch of citations with no references. Stbalbach 05:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it either but I wonder whether to get rid of the POV and chatter rather than revert the whole business. The citations are absurd unless these books are listed (Setton is). But is the thing a copyright violation? I don't know whether to take your National Geographic reference literally! If so, it should be removed regardless of its encyclopedic merits. Thincat 12:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, look at the refrences, it says "Sutton" as a 1966 NatGeo article, and sutton references throughout. I was thinking of finding an old back issue and check for {{copyvios}}, but not sure where to find one. It certainly reads like a copyvio. With some work and effort it may be possible to cut out the relevant and encyclopedic parts. It would be nice if the anon editor chimed in on his sources and pedigree, but that he/she probably wont makes it all the more less credible. Stbalbach 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artist of the Tapestry

The assertion in the article that, "The main artist must have been a Frenchman," is somewhat dubious. Much work has been done in this field and there is actually significant indication that the Tapestry was the design of an English artist. As well as the skill and renown of English embroiderers at the time, the use of Latin derived from Old English and key details in the depictions suggest an Anglo-Saxon construction that was designed to appease the Norman invaders, while asserting the illegitimacy of their reign to all Englishmen (and any other Germanic people). These include: 1) An apparently apologetic Harold on his return to England (having sworn an oath) and Edward apparently admonishing his earl. This scene is inconsistent with the Norman assertion that Harold was sent to provide surety for William's succession. 2) Harold's apparent heroism in dragging member's of William's army out of the quick-sand near the River Couesnon would appear to have been included to demonstrate Harold's nobility and further emphasise the abuse of William in forcing the earl to swear an oath. This is consistent with Anglo-Saxon legal tradition that rejected sworn oaths made under duress. 3) In the scene depicting Edward's deathbed, Harold and Edward's fingers are touching, following the Anglo-Saxon tradition of a pictorial narrative. This touching of hands was symbolic of a solemn commendation, i.e. Edward was solemnly conferring the throne to Harold. (This scene also confirms the arrangements identified in the Vita Ædwardi, which may well have been written at Canterbury around the same time that the Tapestry was being undertaken. The Tapestry most likely having been produced at St. Augustine's, Canterbury). 4) There are key differences between the events as depicted in the Tapestry and in Norman sources. The Tapestry is, however, consistent with Anglo-Saxon sources such as the Vita Ædwardi and Eadmer.

Given this, does anyone have reasonable objection to a change in the article that identifies the artist as English (or most likely English)? Valiant Son 13:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be kind of dubious to assert one way or the other. I recall at least one place where William's name is (presumably mistakenly) rendered with the French spelling, and I wouldn't think an Englishman would make that mistake. Also, my understanding of the swearing on holy relics was to demonstrate that Harold violated that oath and paid for it with his crown and his life. That might just be the Norman interpretation, of course... but it was supposedly the reason that this tapestry hung in a Norman church for a long time: to teach a moral lesson. Wahkeenah 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't really suggested an assertion that the artist was English. Instead I have presented a reasoned and substantiated precis of evidence that strongly suggests that he was. (Hence the 'most likely).

There is every reason to presume that an English artist would use a derivation from the French for William's name as this was the name by which William was principally known in England and was that used by him in documents. (The place you are thinking of is in Plate 13 "Here a messenger has come to Duke William" and Plates 15-16 "William, Duke of the Normans" "Here Duke William with Harold"). Also it should be remembered that there have been siginificant 'repairs' to the tapestry and some were much less sympathetic than others. Irrespective of this, the linguistic evidence is greater for an English author and is a point that is accepted by many historians.

The swearing of an oath was spread as part of the Norman propaganda. However, this is not the issue that I was specifically concerned with here. Rather I was discussing the symbolism of the scene and the later scene of Harold's return to King Edward. Whether or not you accept that this was under duress is irrelevant here as we are looking at the artist behind the tapestry and not at the specifics of the succession. The suggestion that it hung as morality lesson is pure conjecture. It is much more probable that it was to legitimise the invasion. William did not receive wholesale approval for his actions. There was concern from many of the neighbouring French dukes about this increased power and the implication that William was prepared to usurp authority. (Indeed the French king was concerned about this). Also let's not forget that William had to do pennance for his actions throught the construction of Battle Abbey. This was all part of his campaign to be seen as a legitimate king. (It doesn't matter whether or not he was. He needed to be Italic textseenItalic text to be.

For a full and well respected account of the symbolism within the tapestry see the following (I only highlighted some key aspects to provide a grounding for my point)

N.P. Brooks and H.E. Walker, 'The authority and interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry', Italic textAnglo-Norman StudiesItalic text, 1 (1979), pp.1-34 Valiant Son 23:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment I think you offer a nice interpretative analysis here, but I do not think this or the article in general can make near definitive conclusions about the origin of the Tapestry. The point is that we simply do not know where it came from, France or England, or by whom. I am very skeptical that this article can make such definate conclusions without acknowledging THE HUGE debate on this issue. If I were to cite this article, and say the tapestry was made in England by Bishop Otto (or whoever), I would be WRONG. Additionally, what you provide here is criticism and assertions. This article needs to be heavily revised to encompass the debates and lack of consensus about this tapestry. What you write is convincing, but it is your own analysis based on a small selection of critical work. This article needs heavy revision. I, personally, do not have a grasp of the issues well enough to talk about them, but I know the factual assertions in this article have not meet an overwhelming consensus. With that in mind, even claims like "most likely" cannot be substantiated (by critical discussion and not original research) on this topic which is highly debated. --Malecasta 05:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting article

Based on comments above, I'm taking the bold step of reverting the article back to the version before the mass of new text was added by 67.191.224.15 on June 4th, back to the May 31 2005 version. 67.191.224.15 has not responded either to fix concerns listed above, or to provide more information on sources, and further problems have arisen with NPOV and factual concerns. This is a complicated topic, that has many theories, and only a single POV is being presented in a format that makes it very difficult if not impossible for other editors to edit. In addition much of the material is simply triva that has nothing to do with the tapestry and is not very Wikipedia-like. The current article still needs a lot of work. It would be good to have some structure such as "there are many theories who made it.. one is.." to set the precedent, so we can start listing theories. Stbalbach 07:21, 20 October 2005 (UT

This is absurd. The article did have some NPOV, but with some editing this could have been removed. Instead, you showed up, took a two second look and blew away 5 months of edits. Someone needs to revert this back. --JDooley 02:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I didnt just show up, see my comments above from June when the mass of new text was first put in. It's unfortanate 5 months have gone by since. In addition to the NPOV and non-Wikipedia like nature, I'm fairly certain the text added by 67.191.224.15 is a copyvio, although I have not found the source yet, it is too professional and polished, and reads like a National Geographic magazine from the 1960s (which is listed as of the sources). Questions about it have gone unanswered from 67.191.224.15. As I said, this is a bold step. Since you dont agree and have reverted it back, I expect you will take responsibility for fixing the problems? I await your reply on how to resolve this before reverting back. Stbalbach 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

JDooley appears to be a very casual user of Wikipedia lately, to move this along Im reverting until further discussion. I would ask JDooly and others to look at the article edit history pre- and post- June 4, and review the discussions above, to see the material in question. Thank You. Stbalbach 00:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone's in a rush to revert. It's a Battle of Hastiness. We need concensus. We need William the Concurrer. Wahkeenah 00:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

True. Well, the easiest thing is do nothing. Thats what happened 5 months ago. Im not sure 3 people is consensus though, its been hard enough to get the attention just of two other people on the talk page. Stbalbach 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

To follow up, I have just bought a 1966 National Geographic from eBay ($3). At worst it'll be an interesting article about the Norman Conquest (and possibly some B&W topless Africans), at best we will get to the bottom of the mystery of the source of the text. It will take 30 days or so to receive and verify. Stbalbach 00:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a copy, actually. The one topless African is in color. Page 165. The Norman Conquest article runs nearly 50 pages, so I can't transcribe it for you. Do you want me to check out anything in particular? Other than page 165? Wahkeenah 00:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh! The wonders of Wikipedia. Well I suspect the content added by 67.191.224.15 starting June 4th (see edit history) is lifted directly from the NatGeo article (not including page 165) thus copyright violation. Stbalbach 01:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a tough call. He seems to be paraphrasing much of it, although he is also citing the authors for various segments, on the theory that multiple plagiarism = "research". Some of it's pretty close. I haven't studied it in depth, but one of the first lines that jumped out me was as follows:

• NG article: "...the border, usually filled with mythological creatures, and scenes from fables."
• June 4 a-none: "The borders of the tapestry are filled with mythological figures, lions, dragons, and scenes from fables."

Wahkeenah 01:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok its probably not a strong enough case, paraphrasing seems to be accepted on Wikipedia so long as sources are cited. I'll restore the article. Unless you find anything else clearly word for word. Ill check too when my copy arrives. Stbalbach 02:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] France vs England

As Malecasta noted above in October, the article still needs a lot of work (the origins part). But at least the nature of the debate is more clearly outlined and not so muddled. We need (a lot) more detail on the specifics on both sides. As the article stands today, based on the material we started with, it leans heavily in the pro-Anglo-Saxon side of things which is probably not good. Stbalbach 07:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Past tense

The edits by anon user are correct, the article should be written in the past tense, it is either a policy, or at least MoS guidelines. Otherwise it reads like where the article is sourced from: a National Geographic author who spent a few months traveling around England/France and writing a journalistic report. --Stbalbach 02:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Whatever. The a-none was inconsistent in its approach, so I reverted. It should try again and do the whole article the same way. Or you could, if you've a mind to. Wahkeenah 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Tapestry's Origins

This article does little more than assert, So-and-so thinks X created the tapestry. Some other people think Y created the tapestry. X is probably right." If it instead presented the case for each side, cited precise attributions, and offered corresponding illustrations to demonstrate the case for each side - then it might have the makings of a featured article. Durova 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French vs English

I don't know if this is a good or constructive idea (depends on what sources the present article used and a couple other factors)... I admit to being no specialist on the question, and not having much in the way of creditable sources... But I thought it might be clever to check Wiki-French and try to see if that article is better than this one, and if necessary to fish the juicy bits and translate them here. Is this a tolerated procedure? Do you folk think it's a good idea in the first place? In case the motion should be approved, I, as a native French speaker, and having opened my big hole in the first place would volunteer to do it... and a bat bit of work it should be, as the two articles are organized differently, and comparing data will not be that clear cut. --Svartalf 01:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly amusing use of the tapestry in pop culture?

I didn't see anything about references to the tapestry in modern (pop) culture, though I presume there are many. One I came across recently was in a computer game, and I append a screenshot. The section of the tapestry shown here runs from Harold and William approaching Rouen to the departure of William for Mont St. Michel. In between is the famous Aelfgyva and the cleric scene. There is at least another section displayed in the game, featuring the scenes showing the construction of Westminster and the funeral of Edward.

Neale Monks 14:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey

I recall there was some minor controversey over the tapestry several years ago over what appeared to be a turkey on the border. This was held as proof of pre-coloumbian contact with the americas. I believe it was disproved but is it worth a mention on the article anyway?Amanoman 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayeux = YTMND fad

Bayeux tapestry is being made again by YTMND users as they include bayeux tapestry versions of various YTMND fads, from "Nigga stole my bike" to "Yonder moor coveted mine steed", The original "You're the man now dog" to "Thou art the man henseforth dog", or even "What is Love" to "What doth love be"

Post made by flashn00b

Is this why this article is listed under internet memes? Because there's nothing in the article to say why it's a 'net meme as far as I can see. I'm confused! Perhaps I'm missing something but I'm not sure why it is listed in this category. If anyone could clarify this? Thanks Redclaire 17:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, SomethingAwful parodied it before YTMND did --70.153.238.116 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin text

Hello. I wonder what can be said about the Latin text. Maybe there are some clues about who wrote it, to judge by the text itself. Maybe it is possible to comment on its literary quality as well. Finally it would be nice to identify the style of letters and how that fits with pen-written documents of the same age. 207.174.201.18 00:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What literary quality? There are hardly any structured sentences in it at all. Start from here and press the next image buttons. It shows literal translations of the Latin, which is more like annotations than a commentary. Jake95_(talk!) 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is some indication that the Tapestry is of Anglo-Saxon origin due to some forms of Latin which are used. Off the top of my head I cannot remember what they are. b_cubed 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L.Foaly ?

Who/what is "L.Foaly"? It is at the end of one of the sentences, but no where else in the article. Is this a footnote to a source, what source? -- Stbalbach

[edit] In Normandy

I changed the link in the first paragraph from Normandy to Basse-Normandie, the actual region Bayeux is in. Jake95_(talk!) 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)