The Bayeux Tapestry and the Vitae of Edward the Confessor in Dialogue
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Peregrinations: Journal of Medieval Art and Architecture Volume 2 Issue 4 166-182 2009 The Bayeux Tapestry and the Vitae of Edward the Confessor in Dialogue Jennifer N. Brown Fordham University Follow this and additional works at: https://digital.kenyon.edu/perejournal Part of the Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque Art and Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Brown, Jennifer N.. "The Bayeux Tapestry and the Vitae of Edward the Confessor in Dialogue." Peregrinations: Journal of Medieval Art and Architecture 2, 4 (2009): 166-182. https://digital.kenyon.edu/ perejournal/vol2/iss4/7 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Art History at Digital Kenyon: Research, Scholarship, and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Peregrinations: Journal of Medieval Art and Architecture by an authorized editor of Digital Kenyon: Research, Scholarship, and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Brown The Bayeux Tapestry and the Vitae of Edward the Confessor in Dialogue By Jennifer N. Brown, Fordham University One of the mysteries of The Bayeux Tapestry is its bias: was this depiction of the events of 1066 meant to be from the point of view of the conqueror or the conquered? Seen from one angle, it seems profoundly Norman, vilifying Harold with his hunched supplicant stance in front of William when in Normandy, his scowl when enthroned as the king, and his ignoble end with an arrow through his eye. On the other hand, scholars have long pointed to Edward’s death scene as showing a tendency towards the Anglo-Saxon; here, Edward and William touch hands in seeming mutual understanding about what is to happen next, despite Edward’s earlier promise to William of the kingdom, and possibly represents Edward’s sanctioning Harold’s reign. The power the tapestry has held over scholars and visitors over the past several centuries is partly due to this ambiguity. This, of course, has led to one of the other great debates surrounding the tapestry: which side of the channel was in charge of its production? More than one scholar has concluded that the Tapestry leads the viewer to see one version of events, usually the Norman 1 one, while another is encoded more surreptitiously throughout the images. 1 See, for example, Gail Ivy Berlin’s article “The Fables of the Bayeux Tapestry: An Anglo-Saxon Perspective,” in Unlocking the Wordhord: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Memory of Edward B. Irving, Jr., eds. Katherine O’Brien O’Keefe and Mark Amodio (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 191-216. Berlin argues that the use of fable imagery in the Tapestry serve “as a counterpoint to the images of the main narrative, and in doing so they produced a covert Anglo-Saxon commentary upon the events leading to their subjugation” (191). Similarly, Andrew Bridgeford’s “Who’s Tapestry is it Anyway?” argues in History Today 24, no. 4 (2004): 5-7, that the Tapestry “subtly undermines Norman propaganda at almost every turn” (5). 166 Published by Digital Kenyon: Research, Scholarship, and Creative Exchange, 2009 Peregrinations: Journal of Medieval Art and Architecture, Vol. 2, Iss. 4 [2009] I am sorry to say that I am not writing to resolve any of these grand questions. However, I do want to explore some of the ways in which medieval English viewers – both soon after the conquest (when the Tapestry was made) to centuries later – may have “read” the Tapestry. Held against the many widely-disseminated vitae of Edward the Confessor, the chameleon-like nature of the Bayeux Tapestry’s bias is even more starkly felt. The vitae – which run temporally from mid-eleventh century to the late Middle Ages and linguistically from Latin to Anglo-Norman to English – can be interpreted as a kind of mirror to the changing public view of the events of 1066. In dialogue with the Tapestry, they can show how neither the events themselves or their meanings were ever fixed, on paper or by thread. In this essay, I explore how readers of the vitae may have read the tapestry, and how what is depicted there would have molded to each bias and perspective presented in the vitae. This is most easily exemplified in the images of Edward’s death and burial in the Tapestry and how these events are interpreted and altered in the various vitae. The first vita of Edward was written under the instruction of Queen Edith, and most of it was written while he was still alive and is attributed to an anonymous monk of Saint-Bertin, Vita Ædwardi Regis qui apud Westmonasterium requiescit.2 This vita is in two parts – the first extolling the virtues of Edith and her family more than anything else, and the second part a re- formulation of Edward’s life into that of a saint. The next vita was an officially sanctioned one 3 by Osbert of Clare from 1138, Vita beati Eadwardi Regis. Osbert wrote in an attempt to get 2 Frank Barlow, ed. and trans., The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster (1962; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). Barlow’s edition is a facing-page translation of the Latin and Modern English. The Latin vita can also be found in the earlier Henry Richards Luard, ed., Lives of Edward the Confessor: I. La Estoire de Seint Aedward le Rei. II. Vita Beati Edvardi Regis et Confessoris. III. Vita Æduuardi Regis qui Apud Westmonasterium Requiescit. (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and Roberts, 1858). 3 Marc Bloch, ed., “La Vie de S. Edouard le Confesseur par Osbert de Clare,” Annelecta Bollandiana 41 (1923): 5- 131. 167 https://digital.kenyon.edu/perejournal/vol2/iss4/7 Brown Edward canonized, unsuccessfully, but as a result Edward is truly re-written as saintly as well as the patron of Westminster Abbey. In 1163, two years after Edward was canonized, Aelred of Rievalux wrote the commissioned Vita S. Edwardi Regis et Confessoris,4 for the translation of Edward’s relics. Later, two Anglo-Norman vitae are written: the first by an anonymous nun of Barking Abbey dated somewhere between 1163 and 1189, La Vie d’Edouard le Confesseur5 and the second by Matthew Paris, dated to around 1230, La Estoire de Seint Aedward le Rei.6 There are also a few Middle English versions spanning from 1300 to the first half of the fifteenth century, both in prose and verse.7 The medieval tradition of Edward’s life culminates in a 1483 version printed by Caxton in his Golden Legend.8 In this paper, I am focusing primarily on what I consider the two pivotal vitae of Edward: that by Anonymous (upon which Osbert is largely based, and Aelred to a lesser extent), and Aelred’s (the basis for all of the vitae which follow). 4 Aelredus Rievallensis, “Vita S. Edward Regis,” in Patrologia Latina Database. There are two Modern English translations of this vita: Jerome Bertram, FSA, trans., Life of St. Edward the Confessor by St. Aelred of Rievaulx (Southampton: Saint Austin Press, 1990) and Jane Patricia Freeland, trans., “The Life of Saint Edward, King and Confessor,” in Aelred of Rievaulx: The Historical Works, ed. Marsha L. Dutton (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2005), 123-243. 5 Östen Södergård, La Vie d’Edouard le Confesseur: Poème Anglo-Norman du XIIe siècle (Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 1948). William MacBain argues that the vie must have been written before 1170, the date of Thomas à Becket’s murder because Becket’s sister is the abbess of Barking and the life is apparently dedicated to Henry II. Dominica Legge in Anglo-Norman Literature and Its Background (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963) places the life at 1163, which is the date of Aelred’s composition – the basis for the nun’s translation (246-247). Jocelyn Wogan- Browne extends the late date that MacBain proposes to 1189 (the death of Henry II) in “Clerc u Lai” 83 n. 39, and writes in Saints’ Lives & Women’s Literary Culture c. 1150-1300: Virginity and its Authorizations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) that the date may be after Becket’s murder because that may be “exactly when a reworking of the Aelred vita would be most wanted by the king” (251 n.84). See also Emily Mitchell. “Patrons and Politics at Twelfth Century Barking Abbey,” Revue Bénédictine 113 (2003): 347-64, who argues that the life was written after 1177. 6 Kathryn Young Wallace, ed, La Estoire de Seint Aedward le Rei: attributed to Matthew Paris. (London: Anglo- Norman Text Society, 1983). The earlier edition is accompanied by an English translation: Henry Richards Luard, ed, Lives of Edward the Confessor. 7 Grace Edna Moore, ed, The Middle English Verse Life of Edward the Confessor (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1942). 8 Richard Hamer and Vida Russell, eds., Supplementary Lives in Some Manuscripts of the Gilte Legende, Early English Text Society, Original Series 315 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 168 Published by Digital Kenyon: Research, Scholarship, and Creative Exchange, 2009 Peregrinations: Journal of Medieval Art and Architecture, Vol. 2, Iss. 4 [2009] Finally, I will look at the two Anglo-Norman versions of the vita and see how the citizens of a thoroughly Anglo-Norman society reconstruct the events of 1066. Most scholars who have looked at the Bayeux Tapestry in conjunction with any of the vitae of Edward have focused, understandably, on its earliest incarnation. Indeed, many have argued that the artist of the tapestry must have had the Anonymous life as one of the source texts for the depiction of Edward’s death scene because the two mirror each other so exactly. Even the odd chronology of Edward’s burial followed by the deathbed scene (left to right in the tapestry) is somewhat confirmed by the vita itself.