Carola HicksReseñas

Generally an excellent work, but could have been better if structured more effectively. (It strikes me as unfair to criticise the book's final form as the author passed away before finalising it.) There is more focus on the painting's 'afterlife' (such as a fascinating detour into the Peninsular War) where more background about Flanders, the van Eyck brothers and technique might have been expected.½

This is an eminently readable book in spite of its 358 pages - in fact the section on the German threat to the Tapestry during World War II was gripping. I was interested to read of General Choltitz who effectively saved the Tapestry from being removed from the Louvre. His role as military governor of Paris is now the subject of a film entitled 'Diplomacy'.

Having access to a copy of the Tapestry, albeit a small one on paper bought many years ago, really helped to bring the subject matter of the embroidery alive as I read the book.

The author's research seemed to be so comprehensive - is there anything else to be written? I was impressed that she had found cartoon by Minhinnick in the New Zealand Herald which used the Tapestry as a basis, and also included a picture of Michael Linton's steel mosaic which is in Geraldine, New Zealand.

Excellent biograpy on the Bayeux embroidery. My favorite chapter is Mysteries and Histories. In the Norman Newsreel I missed the parody on the embroidery from The Simpsons: the Couch gag from the tenth episode of The Simpsons' nineteenth season, called E Pluribus Wiggum ('The Bart-eux Tapestry') - images to be found via Google.

Good introduction to the stained glass windows in King's College Chapel at Cambridge. A separate guide with images of all the windows would be very helpful when reading this book.

Those of you who read my comments on the first few chapters of Carola Hicks's awkwardly-titled The Bayeux Tapestry: The Life Story of a Masterpiece, are probably wondering whether I was ever able to get over my yearning for a close reading of the Tapestry, and enjoy this book for what it is: a "biographical" account following the artifact through the thousand years since its composition, and all of the social and ideological battles that have been fought over and around it during that time. And the answer would be, more or less, yes. I'm still interested in reading something geared more toward artistic analysis of the Tapestry—something that "fondles its details," as Nabokov might say—but Hicks's approach proved quite juicy as well, and brought up some interesting points of consideration.

She has plenty of material to work with. The Bayeux Tapestry has simply been around longer than most non-classical works of art in the Western canon, and when you combine that with the fact that by its very nature it exists on the boundary between two nations—depicting as it does the invasion of England by the Normans, a people from what is now the northwest corner of France—it's not surprising that the work has become the site of a number of nationalistic and ideological struggles throughout the years. As "antiquarianism" (the 17th and 18th-century precursor to anthropology) gained ground, for example, the Tapestry was the subject of a hilarious series of sniping pamphlets between Frenchmen and Englishmen, who argued bitterly about whether the thing was a "French" or an "English" artifact. The fact that the modern "English" have long incorporated Norman heritage into their identities; that "Normans" were not exactly French to begin with; and that the Tapestry's own narrative is remarkably sympathetic to those on both sides of the Conquest; did not stop pamphleteering gentlemen of leisure from interpreting the embroidery in the most jingoistic terms, such as in this nuanced reading from 1742:

We see the faithless, inconstant and perfidious disposition of the French and their behavior towards us. We see, then as now, the genius of the English, brave, generous, honest and true. We may learn hence never to trust the bonne foy of that nation, but expect they will still be the same, as from the beginning.

The question addressed in my previous posts, about who did the actual embroidering on the Tapestry, was actually a topic of hot debate during this time. The French contingent attempted to emphasize the work's Frenchness by claiming that it was embroidered by the French queen Mathilde (wife of William the Conqueror), whereas the English contingent tried to emphasize the opposite by claiming that it was embroidered by English monks or nuns, on English soil. As far as I can tell, this debate is still very much alive, with no one definitive interpretation emerging—although the theory that it was commissioned by Odo, designed by a monk and executed in England seems to be the most popular.

For their side, the French used the Tapestry when convenient to serve as a model for current events. Napoleon, for example, had his arts-and-culture man Denon arrange an exhibition of the Tapestry in the newly-converted Louvre, in order to drum up popular support for the idea of a Napoleon-led invasion of England. He even went so far as to plant pieces of information in the press (which he controlled) to the effect that a comet had recently been seen in the skies—just like the one in the Tapestry that heralds the downfall of Harold and the arrival of William the Conqueror. Clearly, whatever Napoleon wanted to do must be sanctioned by divine right.

In a similar but slightly stranger vein, Heinrich Himmler and the Nazi party were extremely interested in the Tapestry during the Second World War. As far as the Nazis were concerned, the Anglo-Saxon heritage of the pre-Conquest English made them more or less Vikings, which meant that they were more or less German. (I'm betting they did not ask a Norwegian's opinion on this.) Which, in turn, meant that the Bayeux Tapestry could be "reclaimed" as an example of "pure Aryan" art, and removed back to Germany to serve the cause of Nazi propaganda. It was only through the resistance of a few individuals (both German and French), and a series of lucky breaks, that the artwork survived the War and remained in France. This Nazi angle is one of the stories that Hicks is very interested in telling: she opens the book with an anecdote about Himmler ordering the Tapestry removed to Berlin in the last days of the War, and her chapters on WWII are longer and more detailed than most others. Personally, I found that they dragged a bit, but I must admit to being a little "Nazi-ed out" in my reading, so others may feel differently. Not, of course, that Nazis and the Holocaust should not be written and talked about, but I've read a LOT about them and at this point am more interested in other historical periods.

One of the aspects of the book I did find reliably fascinating was Hicks's examination of the social debates taking place around the tapestry: in particular, its relationship to feminism and art theory. In the early Victorian era, when the first rumblings of an organized feminism were afoot, attitudes to embroidery within that nascent movement were very conflicted. For some early feminists, like Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Lamb, embroidery was pointless, infantilizing busy-work, taught to upper- and middle-class women in order to signify that they had nothing important to do and so could afford to waste their time on trifles. These women agitated for a female education closer to that received by boys, emphasizing physical and mental activity over sedentary domestic arts. A different contingent of early feminists, however, looked to the Bayeux Tapestry and other works of needle art as a uniquely female sphere of artistic endeavor—one often unfairly dismissed, yet in truth equal to the male-dominated mediums of painting and sculpture, and in need of rehabilitation in the public eye. Both of these arguments are fascinating, and remarkably similar to debates still raging among feminists in the fiber arts world today. Neither side presents a case I can wholeheartedly agree with, but both provide food for thought, particularly as they intersect with issues of class. (And just to add spice to the mix, still other Victorian critics claimed that the naked figures in the margins of the Tapestry proved it COULDN'T have been embroidered by women, as their native delicacy would never have permitted such lewd subject matter.)

The other unexpectedly thought-provoking thread in Hicks's book was her tracing of aesthetic reactions to the Tapestry through time. In the 18th and 19th centuries, for example, most people were extremely put off by details that I would not even think to criticize: for example, that the colors in the Tapestry are not "true to life," or that a single horse is often portrayed using different colors. See here, for example; the inner side of a horse's back leg is often embroidered in a different color, giving a sense of depth without Renaissance-style perspective.

Similarly, 18th and 19th-century viewers were alienated by the lack of classicism in the style of the Tapestry. They equated "good art" with the ideals of Greek and Roman statuary and the painting that imitated it—illusionistic perspective, clothes that drape "realistically" over a muscled body, and so on—and there simply was no other yardstick by which to measure a piece of art. Accordingly, when people started attempting to revive the reputation of the Bayeux Tapestry, they made obsessive parallels to classical art; the only way they could think to elevate public opinion of the Tapestry was to uncover previously-unnoticed similarities to the Greek and Roman style. Only the most sensitive art critics of these times, among them John Ruskin, were able to evaluate the Tapestry on its own merits rather than attempting to imagine it into being as the Roman frieze it so plainly is not. It's fascinating to think that modern viewers, long accustomed to the playful abandonment of perspective pioneered by Van Gogh and others, and the anti-realistic use of color in everything from Picasso paintings to TV commercials, can more easily appreciate the artwork of the Tapestry than people for several centuries before us.

So, despite the occasional slow section, Hicks's Bayeux Tapestry was more than worth my time. I have another, lavishly illustrated book of academic papers on the Tapestry, so hopefully I'll get my fill of both its biographical and textual details.

This volume is one of the most comprehensive studies of the ecclesiastical heritage of an English county ever published. It contains 24 chapters, each discussing a period or aspect of Cambridgeshire's 300 or so churches. It begins with a series of essays tracing the development of the county's churches from Anglo-Saxon times to the present (also including material on non- conformist chapels); this is followed by detailed essays on specific aspects such as woodwork, bells, dedications, Anglo-Saxon and Romanesque sculpture, monuments, brasses, archaeology and stained glass.

England was conquered twice in the eleventh century, first by the Danes (Sweyn and Cnut) and then by William the Conqueror in 1066. These events brought widespread and revolutionary changes to the country which are tackled by the 20 essays included here: topics include the nature of royal authority and its conduct in war and peace; Domesday lawsuits (by Patrick Wormald); the reforming zeal of figures such as Wulfstan and Aelfric and their effect on contemporary religious life; and the relationship between art and life. The editor Carola Hicks examines the extraordinary images in the borders of the Bayeux Tapestry in her own contribution. Finally, three essays discuss the development of the English language. This particular volume has been extensively cited by other historians working in Anglo-Norman studies.

I have read one other book concerning the Bayeux Tapestry:A Needle in the Right Hand of God: The Norman Conquest of 1066 and the Making and Meaning of the Bayeux Tapestry, by Harold Bloch. The book by Bloch presented portion of the Tapestry and discussed it in some detail. Carola Hicks approach was quite different; as the title indicates, she presents the life story of the Tapestry.

The book is broadly separated into six sections, each presenting the results of considerable research.
1. The embroidering history, including a discussion of the "plot", the patronage, and the execution.
2. A gap in its history.
3&4. The survival through the French Revolution and various schemes to copy it via embroidery photography and othewise.
5. Its travels during WWII.
6. References to it in literature, the cinema, marketing, and its presence today. The author describes how the tapestry anticipated many cinematic techniques.

The author writes well, but It is sometimes difficult to read if there are any distractions as there are innumerable personalities involved. The book includes and number of interesting photographs and brings in an number of interesting references to historical events (since the Norman conquest) .½

A fascinating look at the history of this amazingly long-lived artifact, which has come near to destruction or loss on several occasion at the hands of French Calvinists, revolutionaries, Napoleon and the SS. The book also explores the many attempts at reproductions of the work, or other works in different media inspired by the original. It explores the origins of the work and is inconclusive on who commissioned it, though the author makes a good case for Edith, widow of Edward the Confessor. Will interest those into Medieval history and art history alike.

This book is a series of engaging chronological tableaux that paint the picture of this interesting piece of physical history. Not only is it important because of the moments in history that it documents, but the tapestry has physically overcome many obstacles in its 900-ish years of mysterious existence. This book easily portrays that importance, and the role the tapestry played in the development of "antiquarian" studies. This book is a fairly quick read, I think largely due to its format. I highly recommend it.

Can women's handiwork count as a historical record? Is it art? https://wanderlustandwords.substack.com/p/the-bayeux-tapestry-the-life-story