The narrative embroidery that tells of the Norman invasion of England refers to scenes and individuals but gives little more information than the images. Many wonder if the inscriptions were an afterthought- a theory that could well be supported by the awkward placement, careless squeezing and inconsistent abbreviations. Where space was needed, as in the height of the Battle of Hastings, the inscriptions were disposed of altogether. The soldiers, animals and weapons take up most of the space and actually break the register at times. Undoubtedly, the inscriptions would have been a source of surprising flattery for anyone who could identify himself on the tapestry, praising the elite pictured. The inscriptions may have served a greater function for foreigners who viewed the …show more content…
The inscriptions are obviously honorary more than informative, but who do they honor?. The captions fill vacant spaces between figures and for some, the captions span across several subjects. Was the patron's intention to preserve the record of events for all time? Did the patron have in mind subsequent generations who may forget the subjects and events on the tapestry? Most of the debate surrounding the inscriptions on the Bayeux Tapestry concern the redundancy in their inclusion since the pictures do such an exceptional job at describing the events, even to this day. Edward, for example, is always identified by inscriptions though his throne, crow and sceptre of state reveal his identity with sufficient efficacy. Hicks mentions some of the artistic conventions that allow for such complex imagery to be properly understood rendering written explanations dispensable. With Elkins’ text in mind, it would be interesting to consider if and when these conventions become more emblems than images that are “read” as much as they are “viewed”. It’s a far-fetched inquiry but one worth thinking