|
"1066: The Hidden History of the Bayeux Tapestry" by Andrew Bridgeford. |
||
A
new controversy is emerging. Critics have been reviewing the latest book about the Bayeux Tapestry, written by Andrew Bridgeford. The following is an extract from The Week (10 April 2004, p.21). |
||
| "The Bayeux Tapestry has long been acknowledged
as an extraordinary work of art. But little attention has been paid to
its political significance. On the surface it just looks like Norman gloating, with the highlight being the English king getting an arrow in his eye. But look at it carefully, argues Andrew Bridgeford, and you realise the Tapestry is not Norman propaganda at all: it was commissioned by the French Count Eustace II of Boulogne, William the Conqueror's rival, in order to secure his place in history. As the story of 1066 narrated on the tapestry unfolds, William's claim to the throne is shown to be, at best, questionable, while Count Eustace emerges as a figure of almost equal weight to the Conqueror. Bridgeford convincingly suggests that the tapestry identifies Eustace as Harold's killer, and that the point of the tapestry is to glorify the French, not the Normans, as the instrument of God's will." |
|
|
| Critics
say that Bridgeford's theory is well argued, and that the book is stimulating
and highly readable.
|
||
