The Medieval Monk

Blogum scribo

Picture
  • Welcome
  • What I do
  • Blog
  • Projects & Publications
  • Buy me a coffee
  • Contact Me

31/7/2014

Verdict on the Bayeux Tapestry Erection

2 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture
The Bayeux Tapestry: Public Domain. Wikimedia Commons. Image modified from original.
PictureMontfaucon's 1730 drawing. Photo by Christopher Monk.









































"The traces of the design only existing by means of the holes where the needle had passed.  On attentively examining the traces thus left, I found that in many places minute particles of the different coloured threads were still retained; a circumstance which suggested to me the possibility of making extensive restorations.  I accordingly commenced on a small portion, and found it attended with so much practicability as well as certainty, that I believed I should be fully justified in attempting to restore the whole."

Charles Stothard in his letter to Samuel Lysons.
"Such parts as I have left as traced by the needle, either afforded no vestiges of what the colours were, or such as were too vague in their situation to be depended on."

Stothard in his letter to Lysons.

Phew!  Looks like Adam's erection is original after all.  Well, sort of...

Just in case you didn’t read my previous blog post on this subject (and I am most disappointed in you for not doing so), last week I found myself in a terrible priapic predicament.
You see, anyone – except those with a defiant sense of prudery – can see that the Bayeux Tapestry's 'Adam' has a rather impressive erection (impressive, that is, if you’re one of those people persuaded by size).
But I wasn’t sure if it was originally part of the world’s most famous embroidery. (The Bayeux Tapestry isn’t actually a tapestry.)
As I explained, the problem is that a drawing of the Tapestry from the 1700s (left) has the whole of the lower body of Adam missing. The poor thing has more pressing concerns, it would seem, than erectile dysfunction. 
However, his legs and generous member magically return in an early nineteenth-century engraving by Charles Stothard (below). 
As I’m sure you can appreciate, all this penile uncertainty has been a terrible burden for me, especially as I’ve been writing a chapter on the Tapestry’s naked figures for a new book. 
I’ve been rather anxious that my discussion of Adam’s virility would be completely undermined if he hadn’t been created with his appendage in the first place.
No original erection?  Then my argument would wither like ... well, like you know what.
I thought I had better get to grips with this erection at once. 
So last Friday I scooted off to the John Rylands Library in my home town of Manchester, and availed myself of its wonderful special collections. 
I needed to see for myself just what Mr Stothard was seeing that his predecessor could not see. 
In a beautifully bound facsimile of his coloured engravings, I found the relevant plate.  Ta dah! 
The very nice librarian peeked over my shoulder: “Oh, that’s rather lovely, isn’t it,” she whispered. 
She was obviously charmed by the bright colours of the facsimile – who wouldn’t be? 
But... Oh no!  Adam’s erection was drawn with dotted lines!  What did that mean? 
The rest of his body was drawn with bold black lines – but not so the critical bit. 
My CDROM copy of the Stothard facsimile at home had let me down: it didn’t reveal this dot-to-dot penis!
I just had to find out what Stothard was up to with his dotty depiction. 
I located a letter of his, written to a member of the London Society of Antiquaries, which had commissioned him to make the drawings. 
Once I’d adjusted to Stothard's rather circumlocutory eighteenth-century prose (and you think I’m longwinded), I managed to join the dots. 
You see, amazingly, Stothard had realised that it was possible to recreate damaged areas of the Tapestry – including the bit of the border where our Adam was. 
On close inspection, he could see how the design of any missing part could be traced by observing needle holes, some of which actually still had vestiges of thread attached. 
Now it would appear that most of Adam’s lower body did indeed have vestigial threads, and so in line with his practice, Stothard fully ‘restored’ Adam’s backside and legs in his own copy. 
However, all that remained of Adam’s erection, it would seem, were the needle holes, and even these may have been a little vague.
Whatever the specifics (unsurprisingly, he doesn't in his letter dwell on our embattled penis), Stothard obviously decided to represent Adam's erection with dots. 
(He uses dots elsewhere, too, especially at the end of the Tapestry where there was a lot of damage.)
Now, you are thinking: How come then Adam’s thingy (your word not mine) is now stitched in place on the Tapestry?  Stothard may have restored it in his drawing, but surely he didn’t get his sewing kit out!  
Well, that’s true.  In fact, the Tapestry was extensively restored in the 1840s by French embroiderers, and so likely that was when Adam was given his needlework Viagra. 
And, according to Alex Makin – the embroidery expert I referred to in my previous post – the restorers did a pretty good job of sticking to the original needle holes in this scene. 
So where does that leave us?  Or, more precisely, how should we look at Adam's wotsit (OK, my word this time)? 
Well, you may well know that in the world of medieval reconstruction, it is not always possible to be 100% sure about matters. 
Nevertheless, I feel confident in this particularly sensitive matter that it is fair to say that Adam was created with his erection!
However, it temporarily dissipated sometime between the twelfth and eighteenth centuries... and then gradually revived, with a little bit of assistance, by the early Victorian period.
Works consulted:
Charles A. Stothard, ‘Some observations on the Bayeux Tapestry’, Archaeologia 19 (1821), 184-91.
Charles A. Stothard, ‘The Bayeux Tapestry’, Vetusta Monumenta, 6 (1885), plate 1.
Picture
Stothard's drawing of 'Adam' in the Bayeux Tapestry. Photo by Christopher Monk.

Share

2 Comments
Marguerite
3/8/2014 02:09:28 pm

Chris, I really enjoyed reading your blog and other entries about the Tapestry. I'm quite fond of sewing myself and one day I idly used up a little piece of cloth and found I had made a small man. This little homunculus (?) had all the equipment in red cotton. Perhaps sewing this kind of thing is a response to something deep and unbidden. Are we very different from the French embroiderers?

Reply
Chris (The Anglo-Saxon Monk)
4/8/2014 02:28:39 am

Thank you Marguerite for taking the time to leave a comment. And what a great comment! I feel I ought to dust off my Freud books. One of the things I find interesting about the naked figures of the Bayeux Tapestry borders is that they speak to the main narrative. They are not, as some scholars have argued, mere embellishments of bawdy wit, unrelated to the big story. There are (not counting the dead soldiers at the end) 9 naked people all together (one of them is not fully naked but has something dangling below his tunic!). I see naked male genitals (and those of the horses) as a visual shorthand for overt masculinity. As the Tapestry is about the battle for the English thrown, this is perhaps not surprising. So on one level I think you're probably right about the subconscious response of the embroiderers (I mean here the original embroiderers) but I would argue that the design of the borders is deliberate, that the naked characters including our Adam are purposely there as part of a concomitant narrative, a narrative that perhaps is subversive in the way it almost mocks the overbearing masculinity of war and kingship. I can't say much more because it will spoil my chapter in the book that is coming out with Man Uni Press.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

Details

    Author

    Welcome, blessed readers! This is the blog of the Medieval Monk, the alter ego of Dr Christopher Monk.

    Archives

    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    July 2022
    April 2022
    February 2022
    October 2021
    June 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    December 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

cookieassistant.com
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Welcome
  • What I do
  • Blog
  • Projects & Publications
  • Buy me a coffee
  • Contact Me