"Scandal in the Bayeux Tapestry! Plus Naughty Bits!" Topic

link

Though honestly I doubt a deliberate attempt to undermine William's claim was intended by the makers of the tapestry; it's just too noticeable an incident— certainly Bishop Odo (Otto) would have scanned the piece and taken action to strip anything that would insult his brother, the reigning monarch!

As for the scandal itself, I'm not convinced that's a "caress"— I always thought that it's a slap, delivered in righteous anger, from the position of the body and the other arm, like he's leaning full-on to deliver a significant blow. But maybe it's indeed the other… which begs the question what the point of the scene is.

I have no comment on the Chippendale in the border or any "low hanging fruit" elsewhere.

The one photo in the article showing "naughty bits" is clearly a scabbard.

One has to consider the source, I mean the NY Post is well known for sensationalist, or in the current parlance, clickbait headlines!

I don't think that's a scabbard— the guy is armed with two clubs, neither of which require a scabbard. But it's difficult to say what it is, or why it's included, except that our ancestors were far earthier than we like to pretend.

And there is still the buck nekkid chap in the border below the scandalous woman. That ain't no scabbard!

I'm only here for the naughty bits….

I remember being scandalized when I learned Chaucer used the word cu nt. I thought fine literature was above such. Then I suddenly got all the dick jokes in Shakespeare…

9th grade English literature class in a Catholic high school.
Merchant of Venice.
"The black ram is tupping your white ewe!"
Or was it Othello? 🤔
One of them there Shakespearean things.

I recall the giddy reportage when the supposed new phallus was 'discovered.'

To my eyes, the caress appears more a gesture of oration, as if the two images were photoshopped together.

I enjoyed the look, but I will leave the interpretations to the scholars.

Doug

There is also another border scene in which a naked man, clearly very aroused, is pursuing a woman.
Those English nuns who embroidered the 'tapestry' had either had some memorable experiences before taking the veil or very vivid imaginations!

I always assumed that was Adam and Eve. But it might have been a not-all-that subtle commentary on William's parentage (as it's right below the scene of Harold and William meeting, long before either sought the kingship). Or maybe it's a commentary on Harold's ambition. Fairly earthy, whichever way you go.

One thing which discredits the idea that the embroidery is meant to shame William is the fact that it depicts Harold as swearing on a reliquary of holy relics that he will personally honor William's claim to the throne. This was a powerful image in the politics and faith of the era, and a major argument William made as to his rights— that Harold was an oath-breaker and usurper, condemned by Heaven (and the Pope). Note that the Papal banner is also prominently displayed as being flown by William in the battle, signaling that the Church was on his side and his cause was both just and holy. (At least, that's what the tapestry presents.)

I just read another article that claims Pope Alexander II supported William's claim because Harold and the English lords had been allied with the "Anti-pope" Honorius II (not to be confused with the later Pope Honorius II, despite claiming the same name and title). That dispute was still active at this time. But the tapestry doesn't depict any of that, so even if true, it wasn't significantly on the minds of the embroiders/esses, if it was even something they were aware of.

…if it was even something they were aware of.

To me, that is my go-to position when I see analyses many years after the fact. Methinks a graduate student is looking desperately for original (or not? 🤔) research topic. Or get drunk and make it up.
Apply that to art, tapestries, poetry, Shakespeare…