Publication
Status
Description
The epitome of the chivalric novel, Ivanhoe sweeps readers into Medieval England and the lives of a memorable cast of characters. Ivanhoe, a trusted ally of Richard-the-Lion-Hearted, returns from the Crusades to reclaim the inheritance his father denied him. Rebecca, a vibrant, beautiful Jewish woman is defended by Ivanhoe against a charge of witchcraft -- but it is Lady Rowena who is Ivanhoe's true love. The wicked Prince John plots to usurp England's throne, but two of the most popular heroes in all of English literature, Richard-the-Lion-Hearted and the well-loved famous outlaw, Robin Hood, team up to defeat the Normans and reagain the castle. The success of this novel lies with Scott's skillful blend of historic reality, chivalric romance, and high adventure.… (more)
User reviews
Picking holes is easy. Scott rearranged historical events to match his story, and generally used whatever interesting ideas he could pick up from medieval and antiquarian texts, without worrying too much about which century they referred to. But that's hardly the point: it's a glorious romp through medieval England, and we're there to enjoy ourselves, not to be pedantic. Knights are bold, Normans nasty, priests devious, and Robin Hood and his men are prepared to take on all comers if there's the chance of a good fight followed by a feast under the trysting tree. Volume one has a tournament as its climax; in volume two the evil baron's castle is besieged; and in volume three there is a trial by combat. What more could you want from a story?
Scott's technique is rather Shakespearean - the "important" characters come on with a flourish of trumpets and do their stuff, but it's only in their dialogues with minor characters that we really get to know them. Ivanhoe himself is rather elusive as a hero - we only meet him rather briefly at the beginning and end of the book, and he's unconscious for just about the whole of volume two. The swineherd Gurth, the jester Wamba, and the superb Friar Tuck are the really interesting, memorable characters, who help us to work through the moral dilemmas of the plot.
What's surprising about the book, if we remember it as just an adventure story, is that there are real moral dilemmas confronting the characters. Even in the trial scene, where the reader might expect little more than a show trial, Scott gives free rein to his inner lawyer, and we work systematically through the legal basis for the trial, the motivations of accuser and accused, and the testimonies of the witnesses. Even though we know the result has been pre-cooked, all the characters involved are reminded that they have a moral choice to make.
This also comes out strikingly in the relations between the two women and their abductors. Neither de Bracy nor de Bois-Guilbert is quite sure what to do next when the maiden he has captured puts up a spirited resistance: we get to see the situation from the villains' point of view for a little bit and even feel sorry for them when they try to repent their crimes and win the hearts of their victims.
An underlying theme of the whole book is the "Norman Yoke" idea: England in the 12th century still feels like an occupied country. The language divide is foregrounded to draw our attention to this. In the opening sequence, Wamba reminds us that Saxon pigs, sheep and cows become Norman pork, mutton and beef when they end up on someone else's plate. Scott probably wasn't aware that these distinctions only became firmly established in the 18th century, but it's an effective and memorable image. Cedric, the crusty Saxon thane who refuses to speak French or even move more than three steps from his table to greet a Norman guest, is a dignified but faintly ridiculous symbol of the old ways - Scott was surely thinking of the Scottish chieftains he depicts in his earlier Jacobite novels, refusing to acknowledge the Hannoverians and drinking to the king "over the water".
Uncomfortable for the modern reader is Scott's treatment of the Jewish characters, Isaac and Rebecca. Rebecca is great, a feisty heroine who gains independence and self-sufficiency from her exclusion from English society (apart from herself, the Jewish community in Ivanhoe consists exclusively of old men). Isaac, however, comes over as someone who has stepped straight out of The merchant of Venice. Scott goes to some lengths to present them as human beings with normal human motives and emotions ("Hath not a Jew eyes...?"), and to show us that the prejudices of the time against Jews are either unfounded or self-fulfilling (e.g. Jews that are seen as miserly because the only profession we allow them to follow is banking). However, he clearly doesn't like Jews himself, and reinforces the stereotypes in between undermining them.
As Thackeray, and many others since, have said, we feel at the end of the book that Ivanhoe married the wrong girl. Rebecca was probably well out of it - it's nice to imagine that she will meet someone more interesting and intelligent than the Silent Knight in the livelier atmosphere of Moorish Spain. Thackeray, of course, kills off Rowena in his sequel, and has Rebecca convert to Christianity so that she can marry Ivanhoe.
The story is well known: Ivanhoe, a young Saxon knight, has been disinherited by his father Cedric for daring to love his ward Rowena, whom Cedric desires to marry Athelstane, descendant of the last Saxon kings in England. In his brother Richard's absence in the Holy Land, Prince John is scheming to take the throne. Three of his strongest supporters, Bois-Guilbert, De Bracy, and Front-de-Boeuf, become involved in a kidnapping scheme to carry off Rowena as well as a young and beautiful Jewess, Rebecca, whose father Isaac of York is John's moneylender.
My favorite character is Rebecca, hands down. She is supposed to be secondary to the lovely and regal Rowena, but even Scott admits that Rebecca is more interesting. Poor Rowena... she has a great moment in her defiance of De Bracy, so imperious and dignified and unbending. I was even thinking of using that passage to argue for her not being such a wimp as she is usually colored, but then Scott completely undermines her courage by saying that she only exercises it because she is so used to getting her own way in Cedric's household and couldn't imagine anyone not giving way to her wishes. When De Bracy proves a firmer man than her guardian, Rowena takes refuge in her only remaining defense: a flood of tears that routs him from the room, if not from his purpose. After that collapse, Scott mercifully does not allow her to be further tested... because she might just crumple under the pressure — !
But not so with Rebecca. She is made of sterner stuff, and the scenes of her defiance toward Bois-Guilbert are thrilling to read. Who can read of her courage and not root for her, even while wishing she would bend just a little so she could survive? But then she wouldn't be Rebecca, would she?
I thought the minor character of Ulrica was fascinating... a sort of precursor to the mad Bertha of Jane Eyre. There are several striking likenesses: a woman used for her beauty, insane, who sets fire to the castle of her imprisonment for revenge and perishes the night of the conflagration. Although, Ulrica wasn't locked in the attic and she is perhaps a shade more complex than the simply insane Bertha, because of her willing compliance in her degradation. In any case, it's masterful what Scott is able to do with even the minor characters.
Speaking of whom, how about Wamba? Is he not the best fool ever? I don't understand why people think classic novels are dry. Scott evinces quite a wit and sense of humor with the humble jester of Cedric's household. Athelstane is another character who amuses me, with his stolid passion for food and drink while Cedric is trying to urge him to think on higher things. Haha!
Ivanhoe himself is not much characterized in the story. He is very honorable and mighty in battle, faithful to a fault but not entirely free of the prejudices of his time and rank. He shows mercy to the despised Jew Isaac of York, but there is contempt mixed with his care. And I didn't much like how after his marriage to Rowena, his thoughts wandered to Rebecca "more frequently than the fair descendant of Alfred might altogether have approved." I guess that's fairly realistic though.
And the villains... they don't make them like this nowadays! They are mighty men, competent, strong, honorable according to their code, and not easily thrown off. There is almost something admirable about them... and that's what makes them such splendid villains. Selfish, proud, and wrongheaded as he is, Brian Bois-Guilbert nevertheless retains a vestige of attraction and fascination. He does nothing halfheartedly. Maurice De Bracy is another villain I couldn't quite hate; he's foolish, but there is something warm and pleasant about him. At least he escaped the heavier fate of his two partners in crime, Bois-Guilbert and Front-de-Boeuf.
Overall, Ivanhoe is a thrilling read, for all its intricate language and sentence structure. The characters, the romance, the humor... it's the complete package. Literary fun in the world of chivalry doesn't get much better. Recommended!
King John holds a tournament at Ashby-de-la-Zouch Castle, at which a disguised Ivanhoe bests the Norman champion and Templar knight, Brian de Bois-Guilbert, and where Robin of Locksley splits a willow reed with his arrow as well as his competitor’s arrow, a scene that first entered the Robin Hood legend in this novel. A Black Knight also performs admirably, but departs when besieged during the melee. A major subplot focuses on the place of Isaac of York and his daughter, Rebecca, as Jews in Norman-conquered England. Scott describes how Isaac’s wealth allows him to interact with Norman society, though, as a non-Christian, the Normans hold him in the same contempt with which they view the conquered Saxons. Rebecca’s intelligence and beauty, however, attract would-be Norman suitors.
After the tournament, Bois-Guilbert and Reginald Front-de-Bœuf, a fellow Norman Templar, capture Cedric and his party along with Isaac and Rebecca. In his fortress Torquilstone, Front-de-Bœuf demands an impossible ransom from Isaac in exchange for his daughter. Meanwhile, the Black Knight meets the Holy Clerk of Copmanhurst, Friar Tuck, and joins in the siege of Torquilstone with Locksley’s men. Front-de-Bœuf dies during the siege along with Athelstane, though Bois-Guilbert escapes with Rebecca as a prisoner. The Black Knight rescues Ivanhoe from the burning castle and reveals himself to be King Richard.
While Locksley hosts Richard Cœur-de-Lion, Bois-Guilbert’s Templar master, the zealot Lucas de Beaumanoir, believes that Rebecca has ensorcelled his knight and plans to execute her as a witch. She demands trial by combat and a call is sent for a champion. At Coningsburgh, while Cedric plans Athelstane’s funeral, the Saxon lord is discovered to have survived his wounds. Though Cedric still hopes to wed Athelstane to Rowena, Athelstane demurs and frees her to marry Ivanhoe. Rebecca’s message arrives, and Ivanhoe, Richard, and Cedric depart for the Templar Preceptory. There, Ivanhoe fights Bois-Guilbert, who dies of natural causes in the saddle. Rebecca, now free, makes plans for she and her father to leave England for Al-Andalus (Muslim Spain), where she believes they will be free from persecution. Before departing, Rebecca visits Rowena and gives her a gift on her wedding day to Ivanhoe.
Scott wrote a fictionalized history, though he sought to give it verisimilitude with references to historical sources, including those he invented such as the Norman Wardour Manuscript, which first appeared in Scott’s 1816 novel, The Antiquary. Though Robin Hood is not the main character of Ivanhoe, Scott’s portrayal of the outlaw left a lasting mark on the character’s history. Future retellings of Robin Hood included the arrow-splitting and transposed elements of Ivanhoe’s narrative on to Robin. According to Hector Hugh Munro, Scott misspelled “Cerdic,” creating the name Cedric in the English language. Further, Scott helped popularize Robin Hood as Robin of Locksley. In addition to this, while Scott’s portrayal of Jewish characters was likely progressive and sympathetic for 1820 (much like Shakespeare’s portrayal of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice was for its time), his focus on Isaac’s avaricious nature resembles the worst stereotyping of the twentieth century and has not aged particularly well. Rebecca fares better, but only in comparison to Isaac. That said, the work is a must-read for those studying English literature or who enjoy historical fiction or fantasy. This Heritage Press edition contains illustrations from Edward A. Wilson, who brilliantly captures the spirit of Scott’s text.
The history part of the historical fiction? Well, there are lots of ahistorical and anachronistic touches. By the time of King Richard I, I doubt the Anglo Saxons still kept a distinctive culture or dreamed of ever ousting the Normans, or even thought of the Plantagenets as a foreign dynasty. (Even if Richard the Lionheart didn't speak English or spend much of his reign in England.) And Robin Hood is legend, not history. I'd also say that the main characters we're supposed to be most enamored with--Ivanhoe and Rowena--seem rather bland to me. But ah, then there's Rebecca! Although one could see some anti-Semitic stereotypes in her father Isaac, if for nothing else, Scott should be given credit for creating such a strong, appealing Jewish heroine at a time when Anti-semitism was still rampant in English fiction. And I love the villain, Brian Bois-Guilbert, who isn't painted completely black but has, shall we say, some interesting qualities. And well, it's simply fun to read this--not in my opinion dry at all. It's a fun romp through history--as long as you don't ask it to be too historical.
All of that said, this book also reminded me of Shakespeare in that I got used to all of those quirks that bothered me originally. Even at the beginning it was possible to follow the archaic language and appreciate the author’s use of word-play in jests (also reminiscent of Shakespeare). In fact, as time passed and I became involved in the story, I liked the atmosphere of the archaic language. It almost felt like a bard could be reciting this story of epic chivalry and adventure. I loved how excessively honorable the good guys were and how excessively unscrupulous the bad guys were. I’m not sure how to describe it better than by referring you to any experience you have with the story of Robin Hood, because Ivanhoe is clearly the inspiration for that light-hearted approach to an adventure story. So, while this was neither the most historically accurate nor the best written historical fiction I’ve ever read, it was definitely some of the most fun.
Scott’s used Ivanhoe to make a not-so-subtle criticism of the medieval church. Bois-Guilbert, aTemplar Knight, kidnaps
Since I had not read many classic novels for a while, it took me a while to get into the pace of the writing, with the extraordinary (by today's standards) level
--J.
Like listening to a man with Tourette's (who nevertheless knows only pleasant words) as he relates a half-remembered dull secondhand story.
The Stephen King of (a)historical romances. By that I mean that there is a real story somewhere beneath this great mountain of
Scott was, in fact, an icon of classic entertainment, an author whose works were among the staples of childhood and young adult reading, with their jousting knights in armor, their chivalrous deeds and dark intrigues, their acts of high valor and foul treachery, their political allegiances and divided loyalties, their spirited damsels and their swashbuckling heroes.
In ninth grade, when my classmates and I were assigned to read Ivanhoe, I met Scott like an old family friend. The affectionate greeting, however, was not returned with equal warmth. In fact, the language and substance of this novel were both so alien to me that I honestly don't know how I managed to read it at all.
In those days, meaning the end of the Eisenhower administration, Ivanhoe was required reading in public schools across the U.S. I can't imagine why. I didn't hate it--I never hated anything we read in school. I was a straight-A English student throughout my scholastic career and later made language the basis of my profession. But the necessary knowledge of British history and traditional social structure, command of an archaic vocabulary, and ability to parse the convoluted style and grammar of the early nineteenth century in another culture all seem like formidable obstacles to comprehension for young teenagers, even without the adult themes and conflicts, the violence, and the very disturbing vein of institutionalized antisemitism that prevail throughout the novel.
How many 14-year-olds could have been expected to get much of anything out of this? All else aside, how much knowledge of medieval England and its politics was any American highschooler expected to have? I'm amazed that there weren't dozens of more recent, more generally readable, and more culturally apt choices that were considered to be essential to the education of American young people. I got through it somehow, along with the rest of my ninth-grade class, but I missed all the adventure in a sea of confusing language, lost context, and bewildering names. What a shame that curriculum requirements, both then and now, should serve to foster lifelong antipathy toward certain works and toward reading in general when, now more than ever, literacy is an essential skill and severely weakened cultural bonds could use reinforcement.
In intervening years I have read quantities of British literature and older literature and older British literature, and I feel very much at home with it. I'm comfortable with both a nineteenth-century prose style and a medieval setting. Archaic vocabulary does not trip me up, and I don't mind protracted descriptions, windy commentary, or so-called author intrusion. Still, it took me a long while to come back around to Scott.
A couple of years ago I enjoyed The Bride of Lammermoor, followed by The Heart of Midlothian. After that it seemed to be time to revisit Ivanhoe. I finished it a week ago.
From my present perspective, Ivanhoe is a relic, not so much of the historical period of its setting (with which Scott admitted to having taken considerable liberties) or even of the literary era in which it was written (early nineteenth century) as of a period in our European-American cultural and educational history in which youngsters read romances such as Ivanhoe voluntarily and for pleasure. Those same audiences these days would be viewing action movies for which you don't actually need a vocabulary at all.
Or maybe those aren't the kids avidly watching car chases and explosions and splattering pixels of gore in first-person-shooter video games. Maybe they're among the considerably smaller number who play chess and Magic: The Gathering and Sodoku: a relatively privileged, nerdy set (privileged if only with the motive, means, and opportunity to do those things) who don't gravitate toward the lowest common denominator. In any event, their path to imaginative excitement and adventure is not via such printed words as these:
=====(Excerpt begins)
"I am indeed bound to vengeance," murmured Cedric; "Saint Withold knows my heart."
Front-de-Boeuf, in the meanwhile, led the way to a postern, where, passing the moat on a single plank, they reached a small barbican, or exterior defence, which communicated with the open field by a well-fortified sallyport.
"Begone, then; and if thou wilt do mine errand, and if thou return hither when it is done, thou shalt see Saxon flesh cheap as ever was hog's in the shambles of Sheffield. And, hark thee, thou seemest to be a jolly confessor---come hither after the onslaught, and thou shalt have as much Malvoisie as would drench thy whole convent."
"Assuredly we shall meet again," answered Cedric.
"Something in hand the whilst," continued the Norman; and, as they parted at the postern door, he thrust into Cedric's reluctant hand a gold byzant, adding, "Remember, I will flay off both cowl and skin, if thou failest in thy purpose."
"And full leave will I give thee to do both," answered Cedric, leaving the postern, and striding forth over the free field with a joyful step, "if, when we meet next, I deserve not better at thine hand."---Turning then back towards the castle, he threw the piece of gold towards the donor, exclaiming at the same time, "False Norman, thy money perish with thee!"
Front-de-Boeuf heard the words imperfectly, but the action was suspicious---"Archers," he called to the warders on the outward battlements, "send me an arrow through yon monk's frock!---yet stay," he said, as his retainers were bending their bows, "it avails not--we must thus far trust him since we have no better shift. I think he dares not betray me---at the worst I can but treat with these Saxon dogs whom I have safe in kennel. Ho! Giles gaoler, let them bring Cedric of Rotherwood before me, and the other churl, his companion---him I mean of Coningsburgh ---Athelstane there, or what call they him? Their very names are an encumbrance to a Norman knight's mouth, and have, as it were, a flavour of bacon. Give me a stoup of wine, as jolly Prince John said, that I may wash away the relish---place it in the armoury, and thither lead the prisoners."
His commands were obeyed; and, upon entering that Gothic apartment, hung with many spoils won by his own valour and that of his father, he found a flagon of wine on the massive oaken table, and the two Saxon captives under the guard of four of his dependents. Front-de-Boeuf took a long drought of wine, and then addressed his prisoners---for the manner in which Wamba drew the cap over his face, the change of dress, the gloomy and broken light, and the Baron's imperfect acquaintance with the features of Cedric (who avoided his Norman neighbours, and seldom stirred beyond his own domains) prevented him from discovering that the most important of his captives had made his escape.
=====(Excerpt ends)
That lengthy and randomly chosen passage depicting a tense, suspenseful escape is adequately representative of the flavor of the whole. I would be willing to wager that no reader in 2013, no matter how widely read and how well versed in older literature, would have difficulty understanding how daunting four hundred pages of the same would be to today's young reader.
Did I enjoy the book? I did. I was sorry when it ended. And naturally it is no fault of the author and no criticism of his literary tradition to anticipate that the present generation of readers will have little appetite for this work. Whether that should be so is irrelevant; the truth is that it is.
I wonder how much longer there will be readers outside of academe who can read it at all.
I enjoyed this book. It was written to please and it does. Some complaints include the characters are stereotyped. Isaac the Jew is characterized as money hungry, tight fisted individual but Rebecca his daughter is the ideal woman. She is full of courage and virtue. She stays true to her faith. Christianity is not depicted in a favorable light. The Jewish characters are kinder and more charitable than any Christian in the book. Christians did not read the scriptures at this time and still behaved like that pagans they had been. I liked this quote from the book, “I envy thee not they faith, which is ever in thy mouth, but never in thy heart nor in thy practice”. Scott wanted to show he could write about something outside of Scotland and he did. He wanted to please the reader and he does. He wanted to describe what it would take for a united England to occur. It wasn’t meant to be a historical book but a work of fiction based on history. Some say that Rebecca would not have been burned as a witch at this time but the Grand Master could do as he wanted regardless of the law of the land. This is a good book to read for those that like happy endings.
Perhaps because it dealt with attitudes so prevalent in the world today, I found the book at times painful to read, even though I suspected correctly that all would end (relatively) well. Dense with description and a narrative voice at times intrusive to contemporary readers, the book still deserves to be read.
Ivanhoe is a stupendous work of historical fiction, mixing the best romantic chivalrous pursuits of knights, fair maidens, and swashbuckling peasants and outlaws with double-crosses and villainy straight out of an Errol Flynn movie (until you realize that Hollywood in all likelihood stole their greatest plot devices from Scott and the rest of the canon). It's a love story full of virtue, love, friendship, trust in combat, ambition, and, most unsettling, anti-semitism. In fact, it was very hard for me to get past the rampant anti-semitism in the writing and dialogue, even between the good guys (Richard the Lion-hearted, Robin Hood, and Ivanhoe).
The story gets a little weak towards the conclusion — the fate of Athelstane comes to mind, as does the unsatisfying end to Brian de Bois-Guilbert, the Knight Templar — but that's okay. It's a page-turner of a classic, full of funny-named helpers (Gurth, Wamba), knights in disguise, and virtuous women.
Recommended.