Advertisement

The Bayeux Tapestry and Romanesque Art in Western France

  • George Beech
Part of the The New Middle Ages book series (TNMA)

Abstract

Until now I have focused my inquiry on the people who may have been involved in the production of the Bayeux Tapestry and have based it on written sources. Now is the time to turn to the tapestry itself and see whether it offers any evidence supporting this hypothesis. The fact that it presents no obvious clues as to the name of the artist or the place and date of its production, and that there is no information to this effect in independent sources, has forced scholars to look for artistic resemblances in order to answer those questions. At the present time most point to stylistic similarities and “visual parallels” between the tapestry and illuminations in early-eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon manuscripts as the grounds for favoring England, most likely Saint-Augustine’s Canterbury, as the place of origin.1 The principle proponent of a Norman origin (Bayeux) ,W Grape, cites both manuscript illuminations and mural paintings in churches in support of his thesis.2

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 5.
    Christian Davy, La peinture murale romane dans les pays de la Loire. L’indicible et le ruban plissé (Laval: Société d’archéologie et d’histoire de la Mayenne, 1999).Google Scholar
  2. 6.
    M. Durliat, L’art roman (Paris: Éditions Citadelle, 1994), 195–98, 213–15.Google Scholar
  3. 12.
    Fr. Lebrun, Paroisses et communes de France. Dictionnaire d’histoire administrative et démographique. Maine-et-Loire (Paris: École pratique des hautes etudes, 1974), 342.Google Scholar
  4. 17.
    M.-Th. Camus, “la période romane,” in Les Peintures murales de Poitou-Charente, ed. B. Brochard and Y.-J. Rioux (Saint-Savin: Centre Internationale d’art mural, 1993), 56–61.Google Scholar
  5. 21.
    J. J. G. Alexander, Norman Illumination at Mont Saint-Michel 966–1100, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970); M. Dosdat, L’enluminure romane du Mont Saint-Michel (Rennes: Éditions Ouest France, 1991).Google Scholar
  6. 30.
    A.Tcherikover, High Romanesque Sculpture in the Duchy of Aquitaine (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 21 and plate 42. Lelong, Toumine romane, 62, plate 5.Google Scholar
  7. 31.
    G. Zarnecki, English Romanesque Sculpture (London: A. Tiranti, 1951), plate 12; P. M. Johnstone, “Ecclesiastical Architecture,” in Victoria History of the Counties of England. Sussex (London: Eyre and Spottiswode, 1907), II, 327–79 at 331, 332, 340, 349;T. P. Hudson, “Bramber Rape: Steyning Hundred,” in Victoria History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980),VI, 213–14.I have been unable to locate a photo of this capital and the poor quality of the one printed in Zarnecki precludes its use here.Google Scholar
  8. 40.
    D. Gaborit Chopin, “Les dessins d’Adémar de Chabannes,” Bulletin archéologique du comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques nouvelle série, 3 (1967), 163–224 at 178–86.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© George Beech 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Beech

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations