DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.67419#0107
THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY.
85
stance or event cannot have taken place.” Hudson
Gurney, Charles A. Stothard, and Thos. Amyott,
Esqrs. have all published essays on the subject,*
which establish almost to certainty the fact of the
production of this tapestry at the earlier of the two
periods contended for, viz. from 1066 to 1068.
In this we rejoice, because this Herculean la-
bour has a halo of deep interest thrown round it,
from the circumstance of its being the proud tribute
of a fond and affectionate wife, glorying in her hus-
band’s glory, and proud of emblazoning his deeds.
As the work of the Empress Matilda it would still
be a magnificent production of industry and of skill;
as the work of “ Duke William’s” wife these qua-
lities merge in others of a more interesting cha-
racter. f
This excellent and amiable princess was a most
highly accomplished woman, and remarkable for her
learning; she was the affectionate mother of a large
family, the faithful wife of an enterprising monarch,
with whom she lived for thirty-three years so har-
moniously that her death had such an effect on her
husband as to cause him to relinquish, never again
to resume, his usual amusements. J
* Archaeol. vols. xviii., xix.
f One writer, Bolton Gorney, Esq., maintains that this work was
provided at the expense of the Chapter of Bayeux, under their super-
intendence, and from their designs. “ If it had not (says he) been
devised within the precincts of a church it could not have escaped
female influence: it could not have contained such indications of
celibatic superintendence. It is not without its domestic and festive
scenes; and comprises, exclusive of the borders, about 530 figures ;
but in this number there are only three females.”
I Henry III., 25.
85
stance or event cannot have taken place.” Hudson
Gurney, Charles A. Stothard, and Thos. Amyott,
Esqrs. have all published essays on the subject,*
which establish almost to certainty the fact of the
production of this tapestry at the earlier of the two
periods contended for, viz. from 1066 to 1068.
In this we rejoice, because this Herculean la-
bour has a halo of deep interest thrown round it,
from the circumstance of its being the proud tribute
of a fond and affectionate wife, glorying in her hus-
band’s glory, and proud of emblazoning his deeds.
As the work of the Empress Matilda it would still
be a magnificent production of industry and of skill;
as the work of “ Duke William’s” wife these qua-
lities merge in others of a more interesting cha-
racter. f
This excellent and amiable princess was a most
highly accomplished woman, and remarkable for her
learning; she was the affectionate mother of a large
family, the faithful wife of an enterprising monarch,
with whom she lived for thirty-three years so har-
moniously that her death had such an effect on her
husband as to cause him to relinquish, never again
to resume, his usual amusements. J
* Archaeol. vols. xviii., xix.
f One writer, Bolton Gorney, Esq., maintains that this work was
provided at the expense of the Chapter of Bayeux, under their super-
intendence, and from their designs. “ If it had not (says he) been
devised within the precincts of a church it could not have escaped
female influence: it could not have contained such indications of
celibatic superintendence. It is not without its domestic and festive
scenes; and comprises, exclusive of the borders, about 530 figures ;
but in this number there are only three females.”
I Henry III., 25.