Re: More on the Bayeux Tapestry...

Paul J Gans wrote: 
Larry Swain <theswain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

In rambling around the net I noticed that a new
book on the Bayeux Tapestry has been published
by Boydell and Brewer.  The book is by
Lucien Musset and was translated by Richard Rex.

The Boydell web page contains an interesting tidbit about the tapestry at:

 http://www.boydell.co.uk/bayeuxhist.htm

that I'd love to reproduce here but can't cut
and past it.

The extract argues that the main point of the tapestry is Harold's swearing of oaths on
relics.

In other words, using the author's arguments,
one might make the case that the Tapestry is
itself just another Norman propaganda vehicle.

And one wonders why they were so insistent on
establishing that Harold was an oathbreaker?
One almost thinks that they protest too much.

Anyway, check it out.

I probably won't acquire the book until May,
so I know no more than is what is on the Boydell
site.

   ----- Paul J. Gans




It isn't the propaganda aspect of the Tapestry that's new, that's a long time reading of it. What is new is setting into a particular liturgical setting and changing the focus from William to the relics.


But Paul....come, what logic is this? They emphasize it frequently, threfore it must be false? So Clinton didn't have a blow job from Monica? Lord knows the Republicans harped on it enough....They stress Harold's oath because it was important to them. Nothing more can really be said.


Surely more can and will be said.

Ok, "can" is a bad choice of words. A lot of people have the capability of saying a whole lot, most of it nonsense. The Norman "stress" on Harold's oath has nothing to do with the truth value of the event and basing any sort of conclusion based on that stress, or even suggesting that it has something to do with the truth value of the event, is practicing bad history and lacks the use of solid historiographical methodology.


You've got one interpretation. Others are possible.

I didn't realize I had offered an interpretation. Whether the event really happened (or happened as recorded) if it can be determined must be determined on other grounds than whether or not the Normans "stressed" it or mentioned it frequently.


I can't comment on the book as I've not read it.  But
the author isn't a novice.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, Paul. I don't see anywhere in the blurb about the book, or in other blurbs about it, where Musset is saying anything about whether or not the event happened, much less Norman stress on it. In fact, I believe from past articles/books that Musset takes the event as historical.

On the other hand, you seemed to suggest that there is room for doubt about the historicity of it: "In other words, using the author's arguments,
>>>one might make the case that the Tapestry is
>>>itself just another Norman propaganda vehicle.
>>>
>>>And one wonders why they were so insistent on
>>>establishing that Harold was an oathbreaker?
>>>One almost thinks that they protest too much."

Did you not mean to suggest that perhaps this insistence, too much so in your view, may indicate that the event didn't happen, or didn't happen quite like they say it does? Did I misconstrue your intent there? If so I apologize.

As for the rest of what I said, I believe that to be true and can be born out by an overview of scholarship on the Tapestry in the last 50 years. That the tapestry is yet more "propaganda" is not a new view. What is new is Musset's book is the view that the tapestry has a largely religious point as its central focus and theme that belongs in a liturgical context rather than just a mere retelling of William's victory. And that is rather revolutionary in a small way but even at this (I haven't read it yet either) remove is a "why didn't we think of this before?" kind of thing.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More on the Bayeux Tapestry...
    ... >> book on the Bayeux Tapestry has been published ... >> by Boydell and Brewer. ... >> itself just another Norman propaganda vehicle. ... >setting and changing the focus from William to the relics. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: More on the Bayeux Tapestry...
    ... book on the Bayeux Tapestry has been published by Boydell and Brewer. ... itself just another Norman propaganda vehicle. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: More on the Bayeux Tapestry...
    ... book on the Bayeux Tapestry has been published by Boydell and Brewer. ... The extract argues that the main point of the tapestry is Harold's swearing of oaths on ... What is new is setting into a particular liturgical setting and changing the focus from William to the relics. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: More on the Bayeux Tapestry...
    ... > book on the Bayeux Tapestry has been published ... > by Boydell and Brewer. ... THE SECOND CRUCIAL QUESTION ABOUT THE OATH concerns the relics on which it ... at Bayeux in the mid-eleventh century, and even this was far from extensive. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: More on the Bayeux Tapestry...
    ... book on the Bayeux Tapestry has been published by Boydell and Brewer. ... Lucien Musset and was translated by Richard Rex. ... The Boydell web page contains an interesting ... The extract argues that the main point of the tapestry is Harold's swearing of oaths on ...
    (soc.history.medieval)