• Odo at Hastings •
According to the Norman historian Wace, Norman priests set up portable chapels amidst the soldiers and spent the whole night before the battle praying, fasting and giving penance. Odo and Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances, who was chief chaplain to the army, spent the time hearing confessions and giving blessings. This was in contrast to Wace’s account of the English army, who he recounted spent the night eating, drinking and dancing. He went on to explain that Odo, ‘who conducted himself very nobly’, and his brother (Robert) ‘brought a great force of knights and other men, being very rich in gold and silver’.
Three of Odo’s definite four appearances on the Bayeux Tapestry occur in the immediate run-up to and during the Battle of Hastings. After the Normans forage for food in the Sussex countryside, there is a feast, at which a bishop, believed to be Odo, is seated at the head of the table. This is followed by a scene in which William is seated with his two half-brothers, Odo and Robert, who are named, in a council of war. Odo is talking animatedly to an attentive duke, presumably laying out the battle plan. Finally, Odo is pictured at the height of the battle in a quasi-military role encouraging the flagging troops.
The bishop is shown carrying a mace-like implement, which has been variously interpreted as a club or a commander’s baton. No other contemporary source gives Odo such a prominent place in the proceedings and none records him actually participating in the fighting. There has been much dispute over the role of the Norman clerics at Hastings. As a priest, it was forbidden for him to spill blood, but the Tapestry shows Odo in the midst of the battle, and significantly a later papal enquiry into the slaughter at Hastings required the Norman clerics to give penance for shedding blood in the battle. William of Poitiers comes closest to claiming that Odo joined the fighting when he explains that Odo ‘helped in war by his most practical counsels as far as his religion allowed … and was most singularly and steadfastly loyal to [William], whom he cherished with so great a love that he would not be willingly separated from him even on the battlefield’. In the battle scene on the Tapestry, Odo is wearing a gambeson – a padded jacket – over his hauberk, which is short compared to the longer version worn by the fighting soldiers. It is argued, therefore, that as he was dressed defensively, he was a non-combatant (Legge, 84–5). It is true that Wace, writing a century after the events of 1066, records that, ‘The Bishop of Bayeux … conducted himself very nobly’ when hearing confessions and giving blessings before the Battle of Hastings. He also writes of an incident reminiscent of the one depicted on the Tapestry, where Odo urges the flagging soldiers back to fight and then goes back to the thick of battle where he makes the reluctant cavalrymen turn, stop and attack. Wace reported that Odo addressed these young noblemen, whose task it was to guard equipment, by saying, ‘Stand still, stand still! Calm down and do not move! Do not fear anything, for, please God, we will win the day.’ Wace continued:
23 Bishop Odo ‘encouraging the boys’ at the Battle of Hastings from the Bayeux Tapestry.
Odo went back to where the battle was at its fiercest; that day he had truly shown his worth … he sat on an all white horse and everyone recognised him. He held a club in his hand, made the knights head for where the need was greatest and brought them to a stop there. He often made them attack and often made them strike.
(Burgess, iii, 8121–8)
Although Wace was writing much later than Hastings, he was a canon of Bayeux and would have been familiar with the Tapestry and with the other principal sources. Therefore, his account cannot be totally discounted and perhaps the best way to describe Odo’s role at Hastings is ‘support and command’.
Odo’s actions at Hastings may have been the factual basis for Archbishop Turpin of Rheims in the Song of Roland, but it could also work the other way round and Odo’s story may have been influenced by the Song. ‘To some degree the Tapestry might seem a Song of Roland without its hero … There is no Roland but there is a Turpin. Archbishop Turpin … was … Roland’s companion at Roncesvalles, and it is in at least a comparable role that bishop Odo is depicted’ (Dodwell 1966).
• The Aftermath of Battle •
Deprived of their king and leader, the English troops had no reason to continue the fight and began to leave the battlefield, pursued by the victorious Normans. Although the Bayeux Tapestry ends at this point, writers such as William of Poitiers record the movement of William’s army along the south coast wreaking havoc on its way, sacking Rye and Romney, and making camp at Dover. This must have been an awkward journey as in Norman times there were a series of tidal inlets penetrating well inland, today represented by the Brede and Rother Levels. William’s army appears to have avoided these hazards by taking an inland route, as reflected in the line of waste and semi-waste manors depicted in Domesday Book. This move into Kent was significant as it was not only a highly important strategic region, but Canterbury was also the centre of the English Church. Movement was slow, hampered by sickness amongst the Norman troops; nevertheless, it gave time for the English to come to terms with the unpalatable truth that they had been soundly defeated and, what is more, they lacked a credible leader. One by one the Kentish regions surrendered to William and, more importantly, the city of Winchester to the west, held by Edward’s widow, Edith, and home to the English Treasury, submitted to the duke.
We do not know the movements of William’s senior lieutenants such as Odo during this period, when south-east England was being brought under Norman control. It is reasonable to assume that the king delegated the control of towns to men he could rely on as soon as possible and that individuals were being identified for specific tasks during the interregnum. Odo’s practical support for William’s campaign alone would have guaranteed that he would be richly rewarded in the event of victory and his main prize was to be made Earl of Kent. This was a prestigious appointment and with it went large swathes of the Kentish countryside; Odo became second only to the king in the extent of his English lands. According to the Ship List, William was going to give Kent to his wife, Matilda, in return for her gift of the Mora, the ship which brought the duke to England (Van Houts). Even if this had been William’s intention, it would clearly have been impractical for Matilda to have played an active role in ruling this critical corner of England. Although he was not formally named earl until 1067, it is likely that Odo was left in charge of Dover and Kent as the army moved on. He would have made profitable use of his time by laying claim to estates, beyond those of the defeated Godwines and others who had fought for the English at Hastings, whose land would automatically have been confiscated.
There may have been a late Saxon burh in the Iron Age fort at Dover. All the sources talk of a castrum here, which probably referred to the refortified prehistoric fort. The Roman lighthouse still sits within the enclosure, as does the late Saxon church of St Mary in Castro. William of Poitiers records that when William entered the castrum of Dover, he commanded that the English inside had to evacuate their houses. Apparently, William spent eight days constructing defences here, while many of his troops were suffering from dysentery. A ditch 8.2m wide and 5.5m deep cutting through a Saxon cemetery has been interpreted as part of William’s fortifications. In 1067 Dover was in Odo’s hands and it is quite probable that he remained here with a garrison while William moved towards London (Allen Brown 1985, 5–6).
There was a ten-week gap between the Battle of Hastings and William’s coronation in Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day 1066. During this period the Normans subdued and intimidated towns on their circuitous journey to London. The Normans would have seized the food they needed for men and animals as they progressed through the English countryside. Additionally, whenever William encountered opposition he pursued a ‘scorched earth’ policy, pillaging and burning communities indiscriminately. In the words of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ‘they [the Normans] harried everywhere they came’. Many of the settlements which were adversely affected by the passage of the Normans had still not recovered by 1086
. In addition to the damage caused by the movement of the main army, which itself was probably broken into contingents, there were also reinforcements from Normandy coming into the southern coastal ports. Additionally, there would have been many sorties by smaller groups of Normans to collect food and subdue strategic and political targets. The routes that all these groups took can be traced from those manors which are recorded still as ‘waste’ or ‘part waste’ in Domesday Book (c. 1086) (Darby 1971, 570–3).
William seems to have made use of Roman roads wherever possible and the Norman army then made its way to London, by way of Rochester, along the Roman Watling Street. Significant surviving Roman fortifications would also have been available to him and he adopted them for his use at Anderitum, Dover and possibly Richborough. There are no records of what happened to William’s fleet after the initial landing; some of the ships would have returned to Normandy to collect reinforcements and ordnance, while others would probably have moved along the coast keeping in close touch with the army. The fleet could have sailed around Kent into the Thames estuary, and may well have sailed as far as London or even further upstream to provide support. The fleet could also have been used to ferry troops, particularly on difficult sections of their route, for instance, around Romney Marsh (Rowley 1985).
24 The distribution of waste manors in the south-east of England at the time of the Domesday survey. The straight lines of waste estates marks the movement of Norman troops at the time of the Norman invasion and immediately afterwards.
When William reached the outskirts of London he stopped at Southwark on the south side of London Bridge. Here he met a force of English led by Edgar the Aetheling, who was effectively the English king at this point. The Normans drove the English back across the bridge, burning all the buildings south of the river, and in doing so ‘dealt a double blow on the pride of [William’s] stubborn foes’, giving Edgar ‘a bloody nose’. Despite such bluster from his hagiographers, William obviously did not feel strong enough to take London at this point and continued westwards along the Thames Valley, taking Windsor and Reading before crossing the Thames at Wallingford. From here he may have taken control of Abingdon Abbey and of the strategically important town of Oxford. While at Wallingford, the most important cleric in the land, Archbishop Stigand, travelled from London to transfer his allegiance to William.
From Wallingford William marched north-eastwards along the Icknield Way, the ancient track at the foot of the Chilterns which meets the Roman Akeman Street at Tring. The Normans then followed the Roman road through the Chilterns, along the Bulborne Valley, towards London and made camp at Berkhamsted. At this point William had subdued much of south-east England and effectively cut off the capital. Bowing to the inevitable, the English leaders met with William and offered him the throne. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gloomily reported that, ‘[William] was met by Archbishop Ealdred, and the Aetheling Edgar and Earl Edwin and Earl Morcar, and all the chief men of London, who submitted from force of circumstances, but only when the depredation was complete … They gave him hostages and swore oaths of fealty, and he promised to be a gracious liege lord.’ William now felt confident enough to enter London with little or no resistance and was crowned King of England in the newly consecrated Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day 1066.
25 The motte and bailey castle at Berkhamsted, thrown up soon after the Battle of Hastings. It was from here that William negotiated the final surrender of London. Berkhamsted was in the hands of Odo’s brother, Robert, soon after William’s coronation.
5
• Bishop Odo and
the Bayeux Tapestry •
The Bayeux Tapestry is the greatest surviving document of Anglo-Norman history. ‘As a large-scale picture of warfare at the close of the Dark Ages it stands alone,’ observed the doyen of Saxon historians Frank Stenton. ‘But its ultimate distinction lies … in the artist’s grasp of his theme, his skilful arrangement of contrasted scenes, his mastery of the technique of composition, and above all, the curious air of vitality … that runs throughout the whole long work’ (Stenton 1957, 23). It is an invaluable source of information not only about the Norman Conquest of England, but also about eleventh-century weaponry, clothing, buildings and ritual. The Tapestry provides a clear exposition of the justification for Norman rule, yet embodies recognition of the valour of King Harold and the English defenders. Some scholars have suggested recently that the Tapestry is not a piece of Norman propaganda, but if analysed closely presents a balanced representation of events, others have gone further and claim that it carries a subversive English message. In reality, the Tapestry is capable of being interpreted in many ways and most scenes are ambiguous in some aspect of their meaning. ‘Was it made so that Normans could impress the subjugated foe? Or so that the English could flatter, yet secretly insult the victors?’ (Hicks 2006, 32).
The hanging is not a tapestry at all, but embroidery of coloured wools on a linen background consisting of eight separate panels joined together. It is 50cm wide and just under 70m long and the final section, having been partly destroyed, is now much shorter than the others. The central section of the Tapestry depicts the main narrative of the Conquest; at the top and bottom are narrow borders which are basically decorative, but occasionally complement the main action in the central narrative. In scenes of heightened tension, the central story spreads out into the borders. The border decoration consists of birds, beasts and fish, some of them mythical in character, as well as scenes from fables and portraits of agriculture and hunting. There are also nude figures and others of a ribald nature that comment on events in the main story. Some features, such as moustaches for most of the English figures and shaven backs of heads for many of the Normans are probably based on authentic characteristics, but are exaggerated to provide a convenient visual grammar to aid reading the Tapestry.
The colours are not used naturalistically; thus, horses are blue or buff, with legs and hooves portrayed in different and arbitrary colours. The use of unnatural colouring gives an element of caricature which, together with lively outlines, is articulated with great skill. Despite such variety there is a remarkably uniform design throughout and because of this consistency it is believed to have been devised by a single artist working to the instructions of a patron, like Bishop Odo. The designer was familiar with illuminated manuscripts, sculpture, frescoes and oral sources. The visual flow of the narrative is controlled with devices such as trees and buildings used to separate scenes. No evidence of an outline drawing or cartoon which was transferred on to the linen base has been found, although one must have existed. According to the Life of St Dunstan, as a young cleric Dunstan was required to draw up designs for a young noblewoman to embroider. There are historical mistakes, which suggest that the artist/designer was not fully aware of the history, but was working with instructions, information and possibly some written phrases provided by his patron, which he formulated into the Tapestry design (Caple, 84).
There are fifty-eight captions above the main part of the Tapestry; these are brief notes pointing out the names of some people and places. The captions are in abbreviated Latin and may have been added after the pictorial narrative had been completed. Several words which appear on the Tapestry suggest an English origin, for example, Aedwardus rather than Edwardus, Ceastra rather than castra and Franci rather than Normani. In a world where literacy was restricted largely to the clergy, visual imagery was of great importance in the telling of stories and of history. The use of hands, facial expressions and body language are vital to the telling of the story and contribute to the appeal of the Tapestry in surviving as a much admired artefact over 900 years after it was produced.
Roman and Carolingian rulers recorded their victories as historical narratives in wall paintings and hangings, which decorated their halls and palaces. The use of long strips of illustration was popular in early medieval Scandinavia and Germany. Examples are to be found on the eighth-century Frankish casket and remains of a hanging found in the ninth c
entury Oseberg ship burial. There are references to tapestries in contemporary French epic poetry, for instance in the chanson of Girard of Roussillon the guest chamber of a count’s palace was ‘everywhere spread with tapestries and hangings’. Chroniclers also record that after William the Conqueror’s death dishonest servants carried off hangings from his palace in Rouen (Dodwell 1966, 49). Hangings had been authorised, even encouraged, by the Council of Arras (1025) as one of the means of edifying and informing the Christian faithful (Caple 2006, 80). The depiction of military scenes was not seen as unsuitable for places of worship, as demonstrated by a reference in the Liber Eliensis, compiled in the mid-twelfth century. Aelfleada, the wife of an English chieftain killed by Danes at the Battle of Maldon (AD 991), ‘at the time her husband was killed and buried, gave to this church [Ely] his demesne lands and a necklace of gold and a coloured woven wall-hanging showing his deeds, in memory of his greatness’. There would therefore have been no objection in showing the fighting at Hastings, which had been blessed by Pope Alexander II.
The Man Behind the Bayeux Tapestry Page 8