The novel explores some mysteries about the Bayeux Tapestry. Do you think it matters whether we find definitive answers to those questions, such as who created it and why?
I think it would be nice to know, but it is not necessary in order for us to appreciate the art as it is. How many answers would we be able to certify were we to pursue that information. I would venture to guess not too many answers, just more questions..
I don’t think definitive answers associated with the tapestry would help us solve the world problems we face such as global warming, tariffs, etc. However, being a history buff, knowing more about this artifact could be very interesting.
I think the back story of the tapestry certainly adds to the mystique of the artifact. But knowing all about the details is not necessary for appreciating the tapestry itself.
Art can be appreciated on its own merits, even if the viewer has no knowledge of its origins.
Yes, it would be lovely to learn all the details about the tapestry and resolve all ambiguity about its origins.
However, history rarely affords us the luxury of knowing every detail and eliminating all speculation and conjecture about an event, an era, or a historical figure for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is interpretation.
So . . . no, it doesn’t really matter that definitive answers will likely always evade historians.