=2 Coloured Reproductions of English Silk Embroidery of the early 18th Century=, 1913. 1_s._ each plate. 15 × 12. [By post 1_s._ 2½_d._] FOOTNOTES: [1] Exhibited with the photographic copy of the Bayeux Tapestry in Gallery 79 are two plaster reproductions made by Charles Stothard to show the technique of the embroidery. One piece shows the head of Duke William, and is taken from Scene 17. The second shows the head of Harold at his coronation, and is taken from Scene 33. In the Mediæval Department of the British Museum is a third cast, of the head of a soldier, which has been copied from Scene 23. [2] The Tapestry is 230 feet 9⅓ inches long and 19⅔ inches broad. 1,512 objects of different kinds are shown in the course of the work, made up of 623 persons, 55 dogs, 202 horses or mules, 505 other animals, 87 buildings, 49 trees, and 41 ships and boats. The subject of each scene is given above in Latin. [3] For Miss Agnes Strickland’s theory that Turold was the designer of the Tapestry and Freeman’s comments thereon, _see_ Freeman’s _Norman Conquest_, Vol. III., Appendix A. (2nd Edition). [4] Conan II., Duke of Brittany, whose capital was Rennes. [5] Benoît de St. Maur, the 12th century writer, is supposed to have been a native of St. Maur. From his prefix, Maître, he may have been a student at a University. But it is not known if he took orders. He was attached to the Court of Henry II. He was a loyal “Englishman,” and always referred to the French as “they.” He wrote the “Chronique des Ducs de Normandie,” and also “Le Roman de Troie.” The date of the “Chronique” is probably 1172-1176. The “Roman d’Enéis” and the “Roman de Thèbe” have also been attributed to him, but this is not generally accepted, while some even deny that the same hand composed the “Roman de Troie “ and the “Chronique.” [6] One of these fragments of the Tapestry was sold to Mr. Bowyer Nicholls and was purchased from him by the South Kensington Museum in 1864. It was soon decided to return this fragment to Bayeux, which was done in 1872. Mrs. Stothard has usually been accused of abstracting these two pieces. She was, however, able to show that she was not married to Mr. Stothard till 1818, the third and last year in which he visited Bayeux, and that at this date these fragments were already in his possession. Prior to his marriage he had possessed these two pieces, and said that they were so ragged as to be incapable of restoration. But how he had acquired them was not divulged. [7] There is no inscription for these two scenes. [8] This portion of the plate also appears as the Frontispiece.