The Bayeux Tapestry is coming home. Except that sentence is already wrong in almost every interesting way.
It has spent most of its known existence in Bayeux, but was probably made in England. The British Museum thinks it was likely commissioned by a Norman patron and worked by English embroiderers, perhaps using designs connected to Canterbury.
It tells the story of the Norman conquest of England, but does so in Latin. France has preserved it; Britain now welcomes it back. From September 2026 until July next year, this seventy-metre account of England’s defeat will be displayed in London for the first time since it was made nearly a thousand years ago.
Coming home, then. Like the football.
But whose home?
That is the problem.
The Tapestry is usually treated as an object explaining 1066 to English schoolchildren. Harold. William. An arrow, perhaps, in an eye. Horses. Ships. Men with extremely uncomfortable-looking armour. The moment England was successfully invaded for the last time.
But it might be more interesting to treat the Tapestry not as an account of something that happened to England but as an object made inside the confusion through which England became England.
It is English and Norman. French and not French. Propaganda and observation. The work of the conquered, perhaps, telling the story of the conqueror.
England looks at the Tapestry and sees its defeat. France sends it across the Channel and England sees itself.
The mirror never simply tells us what we are. It offers an image in which we recognise ourselves by getting ourselves slightly wrong.
And France has performed this function for England for an extraordinarily long time.
England knows that it is not France. This is among the most reliable facts in English culture.
They have cafés. We have pubs. They have sauces. We have gravy. They have sex. We have embarrassment.
These distinctions are absurd, obviously, which is why they have survived so well.
Except France is already inside.
For centuries after 1066 it was not even obvious where England ended and France began. Kings of England owned large parts of France. The ruling classes crossed the Channel as casually as their descendants now cross it for lunch.
And French remains inside English.
One often-cited survey of dictionary headwords puts the vocabulary at roughly 28% French, 28% Latin, 25% Germanic and 5% Greek. That badly exaggerates the Romance element in ordinary conversation, because the words we actually use most remain overwhelmingly Germanic.
House. Wife. Child. Eat. Drink. Sleep. Love. Hate.
Then comes the upstairs vocabulary.
Ask and question.
Freedom and liberty.
Work and labour.
Rise, mount, ascend.
The class system is hiding in the thesaurus.
Even cow becomes beef when somebody richer sits down to eat it.
The history is never quite that neat, but the joke survives because something about it is recognisable. English can move from the kitchen to the courtroom by changing vocabulary.
There is a downstairs language and an upstairs language.
Neither side won.
They became intimate.
Which makes the English fantasy of linguistic purity rather difficult.
Even sovereignty – that ancient substance supposedly stolen by Brussels – came into English through Anglo-French.
And Take Back Control is practically a history of invasion.
Take is Scandinavian.
Back is Old English.
Control comes through Anglo-French.
The slogan demanding England back is Norse, Saxon and French.
Perfect.
But France first had to become foreign.
Robert and Isabelle Tombs call the relationship That Sweet Enemy, which catches it better than almost anything else: centuries of war conducted alongside centuries of admiration, imitation, envy and irritation. By the eighteenth century the rivalry had become global. Britain and France were fighting not merely over Europe but North America, India, trade, colonies and competing ideas of how a modern state should work.
Each looked across the Channel and saw an alternative version of the future.
This is where the mirror needs turning around.
Because France was looking at England too.
And for a while it was impressed.
Voltaire arrived in England in the 1720s and discovered what looked like another intellectual universe.
France had Descartes.
England had Newton.
France had systems.
England had experiments.
Newton would describe what gravity did without inventing an elegant metaphysical mechanism to explain what gravity ultimately was. Voltaire loved this. Newton’s refusal to pretend to know more than the evidence allowed became part of the intellectual package he carried back to France. Locke came with him: experience before innate ideas, observation before certainty.
Voltaire’s England contained Newton, Locke, religious sects, commerce, Parliament and the Royal Society.
He had gone across the Channel and found somewhere he could, as he put it, learn to think. He even fantasised about becoming an English writer.
This complicates the usual English joke about French intellectuals.
For part of the eighteenth century, the French thought the island was crawling with philosophers.
Newton.
Locke.
Later Hume – Scottish, admittedly.
Hume arrived in Paris in 1763 and became a celebrity. D’Alembert, Diderot and the salons adored le bon David. His scepticism, his political writing and his refusal to offer metaphysical certainty were not signs of English philistinism. They were intellectually fashionable.
So perhaps there were two Enlightenments staring at one another.
One begins with a system and asks what follows from it.
The other begins with something happening and asks what on earth it is.
Deduction and induction.
Descartes and Hume.
Theory and experiment.
Certainty and doubt.
The whole and the fragment.
France imagines a structure.
Britain discovers an arrangement.
France writes a constitution.
Britain eventually admits that various documents, precedents, habits and people shouting at one another across a chamber probably amount to one.
Montesquieu looked at this peculiar machinery and saw political liberty. Immediately before his famous discussion of the English constitution, he writes that if its principles are sound, liberty should appear there “as in a mirror.”
There is that bloody mirror again.
But then France encountered Shakespeare.
And suddenly English incompleteness was less charming.
Voltaire could admire Newton precisely because Newton refused unnecessary speculation.
He found Shakespeare’s refusal of order rather harder to take.
To French classical taste, Shakespeare was a magnificent vandal.
No proper respect for the unities of time, place and action. Kings next to gravediggers. Murder, jokes, ghosts, fools, storms, sex, philosophy and men digging up skulls, sometimes within minutes of one another.
Voltaire acknowledged the genius and then more or less asked why nobody had tidied him up.
French critics called Shakespeare wild, extravagant, monstrous, barbarous: sublime perhaps, but apparently unaware that theatre had rules. French classical tragedy had Racine. Structure. Measure. Alexandrines. Dignity.
England had a ghost wandering around Elsinore while two labourers made jokes about decomposing corpses.
And this is where the distinction becomes interesting.
The thing France admired in British science was almost the thing it disliked in British art.
Incompleteness.
Newton: I can tell you what happens. I will not invent what I cannot establish.
Hume: causation? Well, steady on.
Shakespeare: here is a king, a fool, a corpse, a joke and a storm. Work it out.
The knowledge is provisional.
The world leaks.
There is always something left over.
This may be the deeper Anglo-French argument.
Not empiricism versus rationalism in any simple textbook sense. French science was empirical; British thinkers constructed systems;.
But the national caricatures became intellectually useful.
The English could imagine themselves suspicious of theory.
The French could imagine the English incapable of it.
One side supposedly asks: What can we actually know?
The other: What must be true for the whole thing to make sense?
Much later this gets dressed up as Anglo-American versus Continental philosophy.
Analysis over here.
Theory over there.
Oxford asks whether the sentence makes sense.
Paris asks which system of power made you imagine there was a sentence in the first place.
Both find the other faintly ridiculous.
Both steal from the other constantly.
Which is basically the whole relationship.
Consider sport.
The English word sport came from Old French desport. England took it, spent several centuries inventing rules, clubs, referees and ways of being furious about offside, then sent sport back to France.
The French also imported club, jockey, turf, football and rugby.
France learned to play English.
Then became annoyingly good at it.
Food performs the same trick.
French boeuf entered English as beef.
The English produced beefsteak.
France imported it back as bifteck.
Alexandre Dumas even thought English beef was better.
And now France complains about Anglicisms while arranging le week-end, attending un meeting, finding le parking, discussing le management and watching le football.
England spent centuries denying France while speaking French.
France now resists England in English.
This is what borders are for.
By the 1960s, the mirror shifted again.
Paris had spent centuries exporting style.
Then London suddenly acquired youth.
The Beatles. The Stones. Mary Quant. Carnaby Street. Mini-skirts. Pop art. Hair.
France had Sartre. England had Mick Jagger.
And somewhere in the middle of all this come Churchill and de Gaulle, perhaps the purest comic expression of the relationship.
De Gaulle arrived in London in 1940 speaking little English.
Churchill spoke French enthusiastically.
These were not the same thing as speaking French well.
De Gaulle later joked that learning English had finally enabled him to understand Churchill’s French.
Two nations saved Europe while misunderstanding each other in the wrong language.
Sweet enemies.
Leave a Reply