Professor David Peimer
Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott: The Book and the Film with Elizabeth Taylor

Professor David Peimer - Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott: The Book and the Film with Elizabeth Taylor

- Okay, so it’s a couple of minutes just after five. And so big greetings to everyone everywhere from little Liverpool City. And it’s grey and cold and rainy and getting dark at the moment. So hope everybody is well and ready for a bit of a fun excursion, really into Sir Walter Scott’s novel, “Ivanhoe,” published in 1820. And when Trudy asked me to give a talk on “Ivanhoe,” on the bit on Scott, I wasn’t really sure what exactly she was thinking. But refreshing my mind, to go back to the movie, the 1952 film with the remarkable Elizabeth Taylor and Robert Taylor playing the two lead characters, and also the quality of Rebecca, the Jewish character, and Isaac, her father. And why Scott would’ve chosen to put in in 1820 when he wrote this novel about mediaeval England, essentially the conflict between the Saxons and the Normans, why he would’ve chosen to make two Jewish characters so central to the story. And what are the possible resonances for us today? And that’s really what interests me, to look at that quality of number one, what about this novel echoes today and what about Scott choosing to put a father, Jewish father and Jewish daughter into it, that I think resonates some things today. So Walter Scott is a very interesting character. And I mean, this novel quite amazingly has been taken up before Hollywood. It became hugely popular after he wrote it and published in 1820, and during the 1800s into the 1900s, especially the 1800s was hugely popular, which is a time of England really becoming empire, moving out to consolidate, to conquer new worlds all over the globe. The empire beginning really to take off.

I mean, everyone knows 1820 settlers in South Africa, but globally, British Empire moving within decades of its zenith almost, if you like. So this is the earlier stage where it’s heading out, and I think persons with foresight can see where it’s going. And I would put Walter Scott in that category. So it’s the portrayal of the Jews written in this novel in 1820 and this idea of looking at, historically, a mediaeval period of conflict between the Saxons and the Normans. But it’s all done in the great historical, romantic novel form, which is absolutely tailor-made for Hollywood. It’s set in the Middle Ages. You can count on lots of forests, Norman nobility who are oppressing the Saxon peasantry. There’s tournaments, there’s sieges, there’s battles, there’s chivalry, there are knights, not in shining white armour, but in shining armour. There’s Robin of Locksley, who becomes later known as Robin Hood. Although interestingly, the mediaeval myth or story of Robin Hood never mentions anything to do about the Saxon-Norman tension or conflict between the two. And Robin of Locksley, that Scott identifies as Robin Hood, becomes known as the original character for the Robin Hood fable. There’s a Robin Hood character there, Robin of Locksley. All of these things are guaranteed for a Hollywood bestseller and for a novel to be a bestseller. There’s the crusades, the backdrop of the crusades, the knights and their horses. There’s a trial about witchcraft. There’s a Jewish woman who is set up to be this mysterious, oriental healer, but also witch in terms of the perceptions of the time.

There’s the conflict between the Christians themselves, between Protestant and Catholic. There’s the conflict, the biggest conflict, of course, the Saxon and the Normans. The Normans conquer England in 1066 and this is set in the early 1200s. And the echoes of that invasion and conflict, when the Normans conquer England over the Saxons and they become the ruling elite. And the nobles and the Saxons are reduced, if you like, to peasantry and to ordinary people. So the other thing about this novel is that it has helped to shape the perception of the Middle Ages in England, in the English-speaking world and beyond in Europe as well. Quite extraordinary that a novel can shape, with chivalry and romance and castles and knights and forests and goodies like Robin Hood and others. A novel can shape the perception of a whole historical period. Quite an achievement for a novel. And in a while, some years ago, the BBBC, looking at the hundred most influential novels, put Scott’s Ivanhoe as part of that hundred, because it’s about shaping a perception of historical fact, which becomes possibly more powerful in the global imagination in the world, not only the English-speaking world in Europe and elsewhere of that era and what it can say for us today. So we have all the pageantry, we have religious conflict, we have nation conflict, we have ethnic conflict, we have love, romance, we have beauty, we have religion.

All of this stuff is going on in the novel. And what fascinates me is what is he saying about the stereotype of the Jew, and what is he saying about the endless conflict between two groups, one, in this case, the Normans who’ve come and invaded and have conquered the Saxons, who are the, if you like, the original inhabitants of that period anyway in England. Okay, so I want to look at this novel and we are going to look at a few clips from the film where you see the brilliance of Elizabeth Taylor actually, who far outshine all the other actors, in the role of the Jewish character, Rebecca. Okay, first, just briefly a little bit about Scott himself, ‘cause it is interesting to know and important. This is a painting of Sir Walter Scott. And he is from 1771 to 1832, so in our times, fairly young when he dies, 61. He’s Scottish, which I think is very important in this context because he is part of the beginning, really, of the British empire, or the beginning of the hugeness, if you like. Perhaps the greatness might be a debatable word, but the enormity of the British empire. And to a degree, the greatness. He’s an historical novelist, as he’s been termed by many thinkers or critics today. He’s a poet, he’s an historian. He is seen as one of the greats of European, English, and obviously Scottish literature. And in particular it’s Ivanhoe that is the one that stands at the top of his tree.

And of course, it’s Rob Roy and others. He was also a qualified advocate and worked as a judge and legal administrator in Scotland and in England. He was the ninth child in the family. Six children died in that family. Just to remind us of the amount of mortality, even in what was becoming a well-to-do merchant and upper-class family. The sixth first children died and he was the ninth. His childhood. That’s a picture of him there. And you get this image of him, this Scottish, this conqueror. He’s looking out at empire-building stuff. The hope for the glory of the United England, United Kingdom. The hope for the glory to spread the world of Christianity, the world of civilization, the world of morals, all of that out to the rest of the world. It’s looking out to the vastness of the open world, if you like, from the mountains of Scotland, but transcending almost nature in that image. Not by chance that’s the one that Scott also, one of the pictures he liked the most. This is a sketch done by another poet writer at the time of Scott, a younger Scott. And for me, interesting contrast. Much more just a reality for our times, perhaps, the reality of the guy compared to the sense of the nobility here, of the public image. Okay, this is part of the castle near where he grew up, and this would’ve been one of the castle towers. And he grew up almost in the foothills of this, full of Scottish folklore and legends and myths.

That’s the main point that I want… He was imbued with Scottish cultural mythology in that sense, and the poetry of the times. This is a picture of Scott and his family, his wife and two of his children, and the others are some relatives, dressed almost in farming clothing in Scotland at the time, set up specifically for the painting. This is a picture here of Scott. This is the statue of Walter Scott in Edinburgh, just to show how highly regarded he is in Scottish literature, not only British literature, for what he was trying to achieve, I think in terms of Scottish nationalism and the link with English nationalism, and of course partly Welsh and Irish. But how he saw, he tried to see Scottish and English trying to come together in his mind. This is a statue of him in Edinburgh. And this is a statue of him here in Glasgow. So we see the reverence which the Scottish people held the guy. There’s also a statue of him in Manhattan as well. So we see the reverence in Scottish literature and Scottish historical folklore of his achievements. Extremely popular poet and novelist of his time, and still read and performed a lot today, adapted anyway to TV series and films . This is also a picture of a much older Scott. And I want to show these differences because you get the public image and then we get the more private man, something of the reality of Scott himself.

A more thoughtful, considered, these are sketches done by friends of his, which bring us more of a sense of the reality of the individual compared to just the obvious image. Okay, so just to know a little bit about his life first. He suffered from polio when he was a kid, and it left him with a pretty severe limp and forever aware of his own mortality and his own, if you like, the infirmities of the body, his body and the body. He studied the classics at the University of Edinburgh. And when he was 15, he met the great, great Scottish poet, Robbie Burns. Burns didn’t remember him, of course, but for Scott it was a moment of euphoria, of epiphany, if you like. So he’s connected through the University of Edinburgh and he studies, he’s connected to the elite of Scotland and the elite of England at the time. He completed his law studies, 'cause he was studying law, mainly in the University of Edinburgh. And he took up the practise of law, became a judge, et cetera, and an advocate. He met his wife and after three weeks of courtship, proposed and they married and stayed together. He was regarded as by far the most popular poet in Britain, not only in Scotland, until Byron comes along. And Byron is then, at the time, they have all these academics writing, who’s the most popular, who’s the best, who’s the… And all of that still goes on, but in particular this time. Beginnings of imperialism, or really, of the enormous power of the Imperial British empire.

The great lines, and I’m sure many people know so well and love to quote endlessly, come from one of his poems and also about one of his themes. “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.” Beautiful lines and beautiful rhythm in those lines of poetry. “When first we practise to deceive, a tangled web…” What is the human society, human nature, how do they rub up against each other. The eternal conflicts of human nature within the individual peoples and cultures. Mr. Coleridge wrote to his friend Wordsworth a pretty damning letter or mocking letter about Scott’s poetry. 'Cause of course, all these guys are competing. “The movement of this poem is somewhat between a sleeping cantor and a market woman’s trot.” Okay. This is Coleridge writing to Wordsworth. I mean, it’s fun to read these things and their language, which is full of this pompousness and, if you like, this assumed superiority. But it’s also fun to look at it, I think, with a sense of rivalry amongst them all. So coming back to Scott’s historical romance, what I think distinguishes Scott from quite a few of the other writers of his time, remember, this is only published in 1820, is that he’s fascinated by seeing how do societies evolve and what happens to individuals who are part of the so-called margins, if you like, of that society, and cultures that are marginal.

Because he’s seen for centuries the conflict, obviously of the Scottish and the English, and then as the Welsh and the Irish and so on, going on and on. And as England is moving out, conquering more and more, and people from the colonies are coming in, people from all over the world are making contact more and more, not only through the army and the military, but the missionaries and culture is spreading. So he’s trying to look at what can happen in the home country, in Britain, between the English and the Scottish primarily. Are they really going to come together? Will the religions really hold? And what happens to all the marginal cultures? And that to me is one of the main themes inside “Ivanhoe,” the novel, and why he’s writing it almost as a warning or, if you like, as an attempt to imagine what is going to become of the Scotland that he loves so much and the Britain, that he feels similarly for. Different societies changing. As he put it in the first chapter of another one of his books called “Waverly,” “There are passions common to all men in all stages of society, and which have alike continually agitate the human heart when they rub up against human culture.” This is 1800s way of writing, but it has a resonance, I think, for us all today. So it’s fascinating, these are moments of transition in society, which we’re obviously going through, not only in the west, but globally. In the 1820s, he also became a baron. He was appointed or anointed a baron by the British aristocracy and becomes Sir Walter Scott. So it’s the same time as “Ivanhoe” is published.

In 1825 there’s a huge banking crisis, which results in the collapse of the Valentine printing business. And Scott was the major, almost the sole shareholder. So later in his life, big financial crash. And it actually, ironically, whether it’s because of that or other reasons, he publishes an enormous amount. He publishes more novels, short stories, plays, poems, huge amount, and is bought and read, making a hell of a lot of money and also reaching a huge audience, hugely popular audience for stuff. He also writes not only historical novels which are fiction, although they have a thread to historical reality of the times, but he writes history books. He wrote a book on the life of Napoleon, the history of Scotland, et cetera. When he died, in his library there were over 9,000 books. That’s a hell of a lot. 9,000 books in one guy’s library. It’s an extraordinary amount. That he and his family would’ve accumulated just in his adult lifetime. Extremely popular. Then comes after his death, his reputation during the 1800s as we go into the 1850s, 1880s, 90s, et cetera. Throughout the 19th century, his reputation diminishes, dwindles, and the so-called serious writers turn from romanticism and romantic historical books to a kind of gritty realism, if you like. So they reject Scott. And of course his position today. Is it purely for Hollywood? Is it purely for consumption for fun and entertainment? Is there anything which we can still gain pleasure and insightful thought when looking at his work? And I think that’s the question which Walter Scott provokes to us in our time.

There’s no question that many other writers, from Dostoevsky to Flaubert to Tolstoy, all actually reference Scott as having an enormous influence on him, because he’s one of the originators of the so-called historical fiction genre. One of the first to give a sense of trying to imagine how people felt or thought or behaved in some other historical time. And of course, with a love story thrown in, historical romance. Not that these these writers try to ever copy, but they’re all acknowledged him as being an innovator and an originator in the novel, not necessarily the play, but in the novel of the historical and romantic adventure story. Is it fanciful depiction of England in the Middle Ages? Is it pure fantasy, no bearing to reality? Is it just another love story? Is it just to be romantic? Is it just an adventure, fun story, with all pageantry of the Mediaeval Ages, or is he actually trying to use all that as a metaphor for something else? It’s set in 12th century England, and of course you have the outlaws, as I said, the trials. But what he is obsessed with, I think, inside, the seduction of all the pageantry and the knights and the mediaeval, the chivalry, the romance, et cetera, is he is trying to understand what happens to the societies which are rooted in fundamental division. Fundamental division, which cannot be escaped, which is rooted in individual and community and ethnic psyches, and in the historical imagination of ethnic groups within an apparently larger nation. What are the divisions that are there the fault lines, if you like? And this to me is what resonates for us today globally, is that he understood. “I’ll paint all this pageantry for you, I’ll give you the romance, the adventure, all of that stuff. But inside it there is something else.

The divisions, the fault lines don’t go away. And what happens at various times in history when the fault lines crack open.” To adapt Leonard Cohen’s great line with my own little phrase, “There’s always a crack and sometimes the light might get in.” But I think his job he saw is that the crack is always there and how to realise to keep a society aware that it can resurface at any time. And that’s the monster lurking within. Those are the real demons or the boogie in the dark night, if you like. That’s the real demon lurking, which can resurface at any time. So the story of him is just to quickly remind us perhaps of a bit of the story before I’m going to show you one or two clips, is the story is really that Ivanhoe belongs to one of the remaining Saxon families at a time when the nobility, of course, is overwhelmingly Norman because of William the Conqueror in 1066, 150 years before this novel is set, having come into conquer England. So he is… Ivanhoe is a Saxon not a Norman, but he’s one of the few remaining Saxon aristocrats. He’s Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe. He’s out of favour with his own father, Cedric, because as a Saxon, he should pay allegiance to the lineage remaining of the aristocrats of the Saxons. But he pays lineage to Richard the Lionheart, who is a Norman king and responsible for the third crusade. And the story is set in 1194, when Richard the Lionheart goes out to the crusade, to the holy land on the third major crusade and all that.

So he sets it up that the son Ivanhoe has an allegiance… Who’s Saxon, an allegiance to the Norman king. And then comes back from the crusades and we meet the Robert of Locksley and other knights and Robin Hood figures in the forest, all of that stuff happens. But that’s an immediate conflict between himself and his own father. Then in addition, in a joust, as we all know, the great scene with Elizabeth Taylor and Robert Taylor, where in the tournament of chivalry and jousting, he’s injured badly. And the Jewish woman, Rebecca, who is the daughter of the Jewish money lender, Isaac, the adapted version of Shylock, and I’m going to come back to that in a short while. That Rebecca is the one to rescue Ivanhoe, look after him, help him heal from his wounds, as the Grand Wizard of the Knight Templars later says, well, that’s witchcraft. Because you people know about witchcraft. You Jews. You call it healing, but it’s witchcraft. You may have healed Ivanhoe, I’m paraphrasing, of course, but it’s actually witchcraft and we’re going to burn you at the stake for being a witch, you Jewess. Anyway, she heals him and there’s an apparent falling in love. But of course, and Ivanhoe does fall in love, but then he realises that she’s a Jew. And he cannot escape his ethnic and religious origin. He cannot bring himself to follow his love and go with Rebecca because she’s Jewish, and that he has to stick with being a Saxon, although he has homage to a Norman king. So he can break his nationality because he sticks with Richard and the crusades idea. But he cannot break, on an emotional level, his religion. And Scott is setting this up in 1820 to say, I think, to Britain of the times, “Okay, we may be going out and conquering everywhere. We may be setting up this enormous… The greatest empire, biggest empire ever.

But what’s happening in the home turf? What’s happening in our backyard? What about Jews? What about Protestants, Catholics? What about Black, white, et cetera, et cetera? What is going to happen to this melting pot called Britain? Because as sure as anything that’s happening already through empire and just through technological and other change in the society, but let’s not pretend that Britain is just the English, or even the English and then the Scottish number two. Really what’s going on is that it’s a melting pot and always has been. There never was such a thing as the purity, even of the Scots, a purity of the Welsh, the English, et cetera. There always was a melting pot, a polyglot of groups.” And the Saxons may have been the underclass at the time, and the Normans, obviously the ruling aristocratic class. And Ivanhoe cannot break that religious conflict in himself to go with his love, Rebecca, the Jewess, as she’s constantly called in the novel. It’s a novel in 1820. She’s called the Jewess all the time. And that he going to stick with Saxon, even he will marry a Norman woman. But he can’t stick… As I said, he can’t break it religiously. So I think Scott is really setting up a fault line and a division. And I think he’s partly using the Jewish group, but not only, I think he has a real empathy for the way Jews have been persecuted, treated over centuries. And there’s so many lines and phrases in the novel which refer directly to it. So these are the fault lines, if you like, that I see Scott inside the pageantry setting up for us. Okay, I want to, having said that, I want to show us, this is from the 1952 movie. Elizabeth Taylor plays Rebecca, Robert Taylor Ivanhoe. And you see, this is the trailer of the MGM film, filled with everything of Hollywood pageantry that we can have fun with in adventure stories.

CLIP BEGINS

• [Narrator] Ivanhoe brings to the screen a romance that has grown immortal, an epic of gallantry, intrigue, and adventure in the tumultuous days of England’s crusaders. Sir Walter Scott, the great storyteller, gathers his characters together at the tournament at Ashby. Here for the sports of chivalry come Rowena, Saxon queen on the arm of Cedric, and Isaac of York with his daughter, the beautiful Rebecca. Here too come Locksley and his forest outlaws, and the brave, preening Norman knight. It was a bitter day for strife-torn England until the groaning crowd beheld a mysterious black knight, black from boot to plume. There he was spurring into the lists to champion the innocent, to defend the right.

• This knight is no stranger, only one Saxon could ever fight like that.

• Sir Ivanhoe?

• Ivanhoe?

• Ivanhoe. Ivanhoe. I knew, I knew.

• You knew what, Rowena?

• That you were safe and that you were alive and that you love me still.

• [Cedric] Ivanhoe, here in England. You told me he was dead.

• And he should be and he shall be when he and I meet again.

• I love you and I must not feel it. And yet I love you, Ivanhoe.

• Hold, my lords. I Wilfred of Ivanhoe do challenge the judgement of this tribunal. In the name of the accused I demand that her guilt or innocence be determined in the eyes of God by wager of battle.

• On the third day hence, let the wager of battle be fought in the lists at Ashby, to the death.

• Rebecca, if I withdraw now, Ivanhoe win my default and you both will live, while I shall fall from grace, a degraded knight without fame and without honour. All this I would endure if you would say, “Bois-Guilbert, I turn from Ivanhoe to you.”

• [Narrator] Ivanhoe is the inspirational force and drive of truly great love, for is the meeting of two fierce ties of scheming, ambitious men. And against these, the valiant, who fight for kings and the ladies’ favour. One stately and stirring event follows another, holding you wrapped in thrills. But none quite so much has the storming of torques and castles. Norman, Saxon, each man dealing his thunderous blows with the strength of 10 ordinary warriors. Hand to hand and man to man.

CLIP ENDS

• Yes, we get the trailer, we get to Hollywood, the pageantry, the fun, the boys’ own story and the adventure, all of that stuff, and mediaeval times. Again, what’s amazing is that how this novel painted such a picture of this moment in this period in history, that it’s almost set the tone. Whenever anybody looks at remaking the Robin Hood story film or anything mediaeval, this movie and this novel have really almost captured that market. And it’s very hard to do anything set in this whole period which doesn’t have at least some of all this. Again, underneath everything, for me, are the fault lines that Scott sees and is warning the British of the time. You can cover it with empire, cover it with everything, but it’s always there. And unless it’s acknowledged, unless the marginal people and cultures are absorbed and accepted or at least minimally tolerated, you’ll end up with civil war, possibly, like Saxon and Norman, or at least divisive conflict. Okay, just I want to show this is another piece from the film, the 1952. You see the real amazing quality of Elizabeth Taylor’s acting. And here, I mean, she is set up as the oriental, mysterious, she’s called a witch, as I said, by the grand wizard of the Knight Templars. The leaders of the crusades coming back. And really horrible phrases about her. But she’s also this almost pure image of feminine beauty and mystery, and all these nights falling in love with a Jewish woman in the early 1200s.

So Scott is provoking his own English readers of the 1820s to say, “Well, I’m going to show you a romantic love story across these religious … The most persecuted group in England of the times, the Jews, and I’m going to make a Jewess fall in love with its great heroic, civil, chivalric, one who stands up for truth and honesty and all the values of his chivalry. And the utter hypocrisy of the Norman ruling elite and what they call chivalry, what they call honour, respect.” Because of course the attitude to the Jewish guy, Isaac of York, and his daughter are totally the opposite. And it goes to the Saxon because Ivanhoe, even although he is full of compassion as a character, cannot bring himself to end up going with his love, Rebecca. And she knows it. What I want to show you here, it’s a similar part of the pageantry, but you see the father-daughter relationship a little bit more between Isaac of York and Rebecca, the Elizabeth Taylor character, the daughter. And Isaac of York, and in the novel “Ivanhoe,” Walter Scott alludes to Shylock and he quotes the Shylock speech early on. “Now, if you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?” Et cetera. And he quotes it intentionally to show that speech showing, if you the human in as a human side of the stereotyped prejudice attitude of the avaricious, cunning, deceitful, lying Jew who’s hated and persecuted. But Scott chooses to put those lines from that great speech into the description of seeing Isaac of York. So Shylock here is quoted but changed into a wise elder, a wise elderly father who loves his daughter, always puts his daughter first.

She’s captured later, but he will not pay the ransom until she’s freed. Very different to Shylock. My daughter, my ducats, my ducats. Losing everything. She spent, what, 2000 ducats in a sitting and she’s run off for the Christian? Furious, the revengeful, angry, furious Shylock who fights the militancy of the system and even the Barabbas that I mentioned with “The Jew of Malta,” of Marlowe. Here, Isaac of York is a thoughtful, considered, compassionate, he forgives the Christians. They call him dog, as they do in “The Merchant of Venice.” They call him a spineless curb, as they do in “The Merchant of Venice.” He forgives them. He has compassion. Nice guy, elderly and loving towards his daughter and Christians. So, I mean, is it a complete naive, romantic picture of the Jewish guy? Because he’s still a usurer and he’s a Jew. So the society condemns him and persecutes him endlessly. And he comes from York, which I’m sure many of you know, is the city in England which had the biggest massacre and murder of Jews over a centuries, predating when the 300 years when the Jews were expelled, from the early 1200s to the early 1600s. So it’s an enormous period and actually there aren’t Jews really living hardly in England at this time. I mean, very few, but they would’ve still been there as usurers. Because it’s set just before that massacre of York and the expelling of the Jews, set in the late 1100s, 1192, if I remember. So Scott would’ve known all of this history and he would’ve known it’s just before the Jews are expelled for 300 years. It’s known just before the Pope would’ve sent messages and edicts about how you treat the Jews and they’re just avaricious and cunning and nothing else and take your money and do whatever you want. He sets it intentionally and he chooses the Jewish characters, I think, not only because he has an empathy for the marginalised, persecuted Jews, which he does. ‘Cause it comes out in the writing.

I’m going to quote some passages shortly. But also as a warning to England. You can take this tiny persecuted minority. The only way of surviving is to is to become money lenders and make money, 'cause they’re obviously excluded from so many other jobs, other positions. And if you ignore and carry on persecuting even just a tiny minority like this and feel that at any time you can kick them out, take their money and run, do whatever you want with them because there’re always going to be little victims, beware. Beware of what it does not only to your sense of your own morality and hypocrisy, but what it might do to the future of your own nation when it turns in on itself. And I don’t think I’m imagining it here, but I think this is inside the novel because it’s inside a lot of his writing in it. Okay, this is a clip from where we see Isaac of York in this figure, if you like. We may call it a caricature, ridiculous stereotype. And with his daughter Rebecca at the joust, at one of the main duels of the knights. Sorry, it’s this one I wanted to do here. Isaac of York and Rebecca.

CLIP BEGINS

• I was wrong to let you coax me here, Rebecca. Only grief can come of it.

• What’s this? Another challenger? I thought we’d pick them clean.

• Your name, sir knight, or your degree?

• My name I withhold. My allegiance is to Richard King of England.

• Are you Norman or Saxon?

• I am Saxon.

• Choose your adversary. A stroke of lance upon his shield.

• Black from hoof plume, .

• Black with blood, your highness.

• The madman. He defies on five. Bash him quickly, Malvoisin.

• By all that’s wonderful. I almost see myself grown young again, Rowena. He reminds me much of a certain pupil of mine.

• I’ll bring Malvoisin who is knees for this, the empty idiot jay. Holy Saint Dunstan, our champion pays homage to the Jews.

• No, my Lord, his homage was to beauty, not to faith, I fear.

• I think I know that knight, Rebecca. But how do you?

• But did you not bring him to our house?

• How did he get his armour and his horse?

• My mother’s jewels were mine to give. Did I do wrong?

• Yeah, I approve, but only of the gift.

• Ay, hide that face from every man safely.

CLIP ENDS

• Okay, I wanted to show this because I think through this we get a sense of this kind of 1820s vision, if you like, of Scott’s, in particular of a reaction to the Shylock image of the Jew. He’s setting it up intentionally. And the daughter and the relationship between the two. There’s a guy called Norton Kirk, who was a literary critic at the time. He wrote, “Myriads of readers were unfamiliar with Jewish history, perhaps except for the Bible. In Ivanhoe, Scott not only introduces us to the suffering of Jews in mediaeval England, but by enlisting sympathy for Jews, he may even have served to ameliorate the view of many readers about contemporary British Jewry.” So is he looking to, in a way, elicit sympathy amongst British people for Jewry, for Jews in England? I I think he’s using it partly as a metaphor and as a genuine empathy. But it’s a way of putting it to understand… They’re trying to understand in 1820, 30, and 40, why on earth did this guy make the Jewish characters? And especially the Rebecca, she’s the central focus of the romantic story. All the knights vie for her. She’s in love with Ivanhoe and he’s in love with her. And all the other Norman knights, the ruling Norman knights, want her as well, et cetera. Why the Jewish character? And one of the first British novels to get Jewish character, the heroin who’s full of the goodness and beauty, but also accused of witchcraft and other evils. So what is he trying to say about the position of the Jew in a Christian society? About the minority?

There’s Anglicans, there’s Presbyterians, there’s Catholics, there’s Baptists, and many others. But he chooses the Jewish character. And I think he’s very aware, Scott, because he studied Scottish mythology and he’s aware not only of the law, but cultural mythology and cultures. He talked about different races, ethnicities, and that for Britain to survive and prosper, we’ll have to find a way to at least tolerate other people who are not of the dominant ruling group. A way of living together. But he wants what he’s pushing for, what he writes about in a letter, a series of letters, which were written. He says, “For God’s sake, let us remain as nature made us, English, Irish, Scottish, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, et cetera, et cetera.” in his whole letter. He recognises human nature may not allow for ethnic or religious groups to rarely accept each other ultimately when the crunch comes. In good times, maybe, or better times. But when the crunch hits, maybe not so much. So he recognises there’s always going to be enmity and there’s always going to be not only cultural difference, but conflict. And and being a judge, I think understands at minimum, have at least tolerance without killing each other or really hating each other. And at the same time, a society cannot prosper unless it accepts these internal divisions. Whether religious or ethnic or racial, whatever, all of that stuff to at least tolerate so they can then get on and work together and prosper. Can they fall in love and have romance and other things? Which is the span in the works that he throws in in the novel. I think he leaves open to the question. He also really understands the cruel persecution he talks about of the Jews. He talks about their enforced exclusion in history.

The prejudice, the setting up of the Jews as full of, I’m quoting him here, “Is full of avarice, being cunning, false obsequiousness, timidity, and fear.” He understands, from “The Merchant of Venice,” the Shakespearean perspective of how the society is seeing the Jew of his own times, I think, in 1820. Not only obviously in these early, these mediaeval times. Rebecca, with all her beauty and grace, intelligence and talents and compassion, she not only respects her own faith, but the faith of others. Is she a completely ridiculous character of idealistic and romantic proportions, which is absurd? I mean, it’s absurd In the 1200s. And of course a Jewess and a Saxon knight, let alone Norman knights, actually meeting each other would never have happened. Never mind falling in love. There’s no way they could, I think anyway, met each other. And the old Isaac of York, the father, that he’s there and that a Saxon knight, King John is there, who’s the brother of Richard. 'Cause Richard’s off on the crusades. And John’s trying to usurp the throne, And he’s the baddie king. Richard’s the goodie king, gone off of the crusades, coming back. So Isaac of York is there, and a Saxon knight points out his daughter, the Jewess, as the King John says, in 1192 when this is set, would never have happened. So obviously Scott is trying to show, take the most persecuted group in your own culture, in your own largest nation and ensure there’s a space of tolerance. I think that’s what he’s ultimately pleading for in the novel about folk lines.

In the end, in the end, although they do love each other, Ivanhoe and Rebecca, in the end, he’s got to choose in not only his Saxon heritage and go for Rowena, he’s got to choose his religious allegiance as opposed to her. And at the time and after he wrote the novels, and even many decades after, Scott was attacked because, again, so many readers, why couldn’t Ivanhoe and Rebecca ride off into the sunset in love in the romantic adventure story way? Why did he have to choose to take Ivanhoe away from true love, Rebecca, and all the rest of it? Why couldn’t they transcend their religious and ethnic difference? And Scott wrote a long piece at the time where he said that, I’m paraphrasing here, that there’s no way that historically Ivanhoe would ever have met a Jewish, a Jewess, or that the society or their parents. Ivanhoe’s father who’s Cedric, who is one of the remaining powerful Saxon noblemen, or Rebecca’s father, Isaac of York, the Jewish father, would ever have allowed the two to get together. And certainly not the society’s prejudice would ever have allowed the two to get together. So Scott had to defend himself against many readers and critics who said, “Well, it’s not really an historical romance because the lovers don’t go off into the sunset together.” I think he understands why. Now what’s also interesting is that he has Rebecca’s say. And she’s brought into trial and the grand wizard of the Templars, et cetera. But Ivanhoe helps to rescue.

I don’t want to get into all the story of it, 'cause it’s basically an adventure, fun story as part of it. So he helped save her life. But then Isaac of York and his daughter, Rebecca, they decide… They see what’s coming, the expulsion of the Jews, taking all the property, the money, everything, and just leaving them with their life as long as they get out of it. So Isaac being the wise elderly father, sees what’s coming and decides they better get out of England. And they’re about to go off to Portugal, where they feel they will be accepted to live before the English expel them. And Scott writes this, he has Rebecca say, “The people of England are a fierce race, quarrelling ever with their neighbours, and worse, quarrelling and fighting amongst themselves. They’re ready to plunge the sword into the bowels of each other. There is no safer boat for the children of my people of Israel, not in a land of war and blood, like these Normans and these Saxons, surrounded by hostile neighbours, distracted by internal, endless factions, internal endless division. Israel cannot hope to rest during her eternal wonderings.” This is Scott putting these words into the mouth of Rebecca. And I think it’s Scott’s words coming through the Elizabeth Taylor character here, pleading for England, as I say, to accept, at least tolerate, the most marginalised and most persecuted. He has Rebecca also say that, “Ivanhoe was too good of a Catholic to retain the same class of feelings towards the Jewess. I have foreseen this and for this very purpose, I mentioned my father’s name and my lineage to Ivanhoe.”

So Rebecca is also part of this sort of wise, elderly Jewish character like her father. She recognises and understands that the love can never happen. “It’s okay, I’m wise, I understand. I will be the victim. So with my father, we go to Portugal, we save ourselves, but we still have compassion for the Christian.” So by giving this excessive compassion, enormous amount, he’s trying to shift the stereotype perception of the eye for an eye, the Shylock image of the vengeful, revengeful, deceitful, cunning Jew, I think. But she also says, “Rebecca, Jews love folly. I will tear this love folly from my heart, though every fibre bleed as I rend it away.” She knows what’s coming down the line. He talks about… This is Scott on Isaac, the Jewish character. “He has the marks of a race, which during those many, many centuries of dark ages was detested by the prejudiced vulgar and persecuted by the greedy and rapacious nobility.” I think Scott is not only talking about the 1190s and the early 1200s, he’s talking about his own times. “That the race, the marks of the race, who in those dark ages was detested by the prejudiced vulgar and persecuted by the greedy and rapacious nobility.” He understands, he says, “Well, what option is there for the Jew but to either fight back or to do something, being subject to so much persecution.” He’s trying to understand in the way that I was trying to allude before with Barabbas in “The Jew of Malta,” the decision is to fight and revenge. And the same with Shylock, which is Shakespeare’s perspective, I think. And Scott writes, “There’s no race existing on the earth with the object of more relentless persecution as the Jew subject to relentless persecution, and at any moment, popular fury against them can arise.”

I mean, this is written in 1820. We feel the resonances, I think, today, his fault lines. But then he talks about the Jews and having accumulated money, and he argues in the book that of course they’ve accumulated money, 'cause what else they’re going to do to survive? They can’t do anything else. They can become doctors, but nothing else really. And that has made them be highly obstinate, what he calls them in the book. “The obstinacy and the avarice of the Jews must be measured and placed in opposition to the fanaticism and the tyranny of those under whom they live.” He’s really trying to understand this persecuted minority in, I think in 1820, not only in in in the late 1100s. How else could they have survived? Yes, Isaac of York is sent to the dungeon. And what does he say? This is Isaac talking. “Well, the whole appearance of the dungeon might have appalled a stouter heart… Might have appalled a heart less than Isaac the Jew.” Isaac the Jew, Isaac of York, was composed in the face of the imminent pressure of danger in that dungeon. Sorry, this is the narrator. Scott as the narrator in the book writing. So there’s the obstinacy, there’s the composure, there’s the compassion, all these so-called Christian values, actually morals supposedly of the Norman nobility bringing in to England. All these Christian are actually given to the Jewish characters, which I think is the ironic twist in the novel, fascinatingly. How many Jews were there before 1066? Very few. William the Conqueror invited them in to help organise his money and his financial affairs, et cetera. We all know about the usury, we all know about the blood libel, the crucifixion, et cetera.

The accusation, which of course hovers in the background, but I think he’s trying to get beyond that in the book. I think he’s really trying to get to these qualities here. So is there too much wisdom? Is there too much naivety? Is there too much romanticising of the persecuted other, given by this writer? Is it ultimately just an adventure story? A sort of good Rob Roy boys’ own pageantry and wars and battles, et cetera. This is what Scott also writes in the novel. “The prejudices of the age rendered such a union impossible, a union between Rebecca and Ivanhoe.” Now he wrote that in subsequent editions that were published. It wasn’t in the original first edition. “The prejudice of the age rendered such a union impossible.” Because there was such a clamour from readers to have the two hero and heroin, even though she’s Jewish, go off together. Now that’s fascinating to me that in his times, so many letters were written to object to the unromantic ending, if you like. Because it’s meant to be an historical romance. So I think he’s very aware of these points I’m trying to make. And in the end, this is what Scott also wrote, and this is in one of his letters, talking about the clash between the Normans and the Saxons, any group that are divisive within their own culture, “Inevitably one group will dominate the other in any society. But the ruling group, beware.

Beware when you trample on the treasured traditions of the minor groups, not merely at their own peril, but at the peril of the nation you want to build as a whole.” “What a tangled web we weaved when first we practise to deceive.” And deceive the group that we claim is part of the nation we want to build as a whole. That’s what Scott wrote in one of his letters, quoting his own poem. So I share that with you and thank you very much, everybody, for what I think is possibly a slightly different reading of Scott’s novel, “Ivanhoe” and looking at this fun adventure story of Hollywood proportions in the Elizabeth Taylor film. If nothing else have watched it, she’s brilliant in the movie. Okay, thanks very much, everybody.

• [Shawnna] Hi, David. There’s a couple of questions, I don’t know if you want to look at them.

• Ah, yeah, thanks, Shawnna.

Q&A and Comments:

From Robin, “Looks like Scott is missing his left leg in the Glasgow statue.” Maybe it’s some soccer hooligans. Okay? Or the angle of the photo, as you say.

Q: Romaine. “How did his choice to be a lawyer affect his poetic thinking?”

A: Great question. Great. I think he was torn between his poetic, imaginative and romantic idealism, and the cold reality of the law. And I think he understands that conflict in society between the need for romance and the need for the reality of law, romance in human nature and the reality. And it’s a conflict. It’s a tension rather.

Okay. Jackie. “Carl Jaffe who plays the Austrian monk and Martin Benson who plays the Jewish are both Jewish.” Great. I didn’t know that, thank you.

Q: So is George Saunders also Jewish?

A: Yes. Thank you. I didn’t know. It just shows you.

Q: Art. “What about Scott’s take on Christian religion ?”

A: Well, I think exactly, Art, I think he’s saying he’s putting all these Christian values of forgiveness and mercy and compassion and care into Isaac and Rebecca, into the Jewish characters. Doesn’t exist amongst the Christian characters. Okay, Ivanhoe is caught between the two. Ivanhoe has these, he’s the hero, so he has those qualities as well. But none of the other Christian characters have it. Charmaine, thanks very much.

Q: Question for Lauren, “Which email do we use to request a link?”

A: Okay, that’s Charmaine. I think if you emailed Lauren or Shawnna or Judy. Anybody can help you.

Q: “Is he saying a good Christian show kindness to other groups such as Rebecca? I wonder why he uses beauty and kindness to illustrate his point versus anger. Great, lovely.”

A: I think he’s trying to invert and give all the Christian, the noble Christian values, if you like, idealistic or whatever, into the Jewish characters. And differentiate himself from “The Merchant of Venice” and Shakespeare and Marlowe. And I think that’s where he’s playing. ‘cause he knows, he’s quoting Shakespeare and the others. And I think he’s trying to do that inversion. Tony. At a joust the trumpeters of just two lines standard.

This is Norman. Richard introduced the third. Great. “Coming for you to carry me.” Tony, thanks very much. Appreciate. I didn’t know that. I’ve learned.

Q: Joseph. “Can you comment on Rebecca Grat’s comment?”

A: Okay. I’m not sure.

Q: Okay, Tony, “In which film which I saw on Prime as beforehand.”

A: Tony, thank you. Please. You should come and give the talk with me.

Jacob also makes a statement that his people are the only race without a homeland. Okay. Exactly. I mean Jacob is quoted and many other biblical references in the novel. I mean, it’s a pretty thick novel. There’s lots of biblical references to Old Testament, New Testament, et cetera. Yep. I mean, this guy was a very learned person on religion, on law, and on Scottish and English mythology and history, et cetera.

Mavis, thank you very much. Mara, thanks. Lorna, thank you. Sharon, Jackie. “In the movie, in 'The Merchant of Venice,’ Shylock is referred to as the Jew, not by his name.” Thank you, Jackie, for reminding me. Here he’s called the Jew or she’s called the Jewess by, if you like, the baddie Christians, the grand wizard of the Knights Templar and the others, King John and others. But the narrator and Ivanhoe call him Isaac of York and call her Rebecca. Absolutely. And only occasionally, and he does differentiate when it’s Jew and Jewess or when it’s even dog, and when it’s their name, Isaac. 1192 be called Isaac of York, not just the Jew? For his own readership, he’s very aware this would’ve surprised and struck them. What? Okay, Janet.

Lois, thank you. His attitude to… Oh yes. Well, I think de Bois, excuse my pronunciation, Gilbert, I think that he’s trying to show he’s in love with her, but then he goes for revenge. He’s the Christian Norman knight. So he’s setting that he’s in conflict between his Christianity, his love for Rebecca, his allegiance to the Normans, not the Saxons. So he’s the anti-hero set up against Ivanhoe, of course. But in the end, Ivanhoe doesn’t go against his religion or being a Saxon. He doesn’t go off and become a marginal character and outlaw and go off with Rebecca. So it’s more complicated, I think, what he does with Bois-Guilbert.

Barbara, thank you. Joseph, she was a model. Yeah, Jack. “Richard never made it back to England.” Yeah, I think that is correct. And also what’s interesting, in the novel, Scott criticises Richard the Lionheart for going off on the crusade, because he’s going off on the crusade, but that means he’s ignoring what the needs of the people are. And I think he’s giving a warning to England of 1820 saying, “Okay, go and conquer and create the empire and everything, but don’t ignore what’s happening on the home front and the people back at home as well. When one does go out and create empire and travel, fantastic, and accumulate and get wealthy, but also be aware, don’t ignore the home front.” I think that’s what the metaphor is trying to say, ‘cause he does criticise Richard. And Richard’s quite viciously attacked in the novel, Richard the Lionheart, for going out on the crusades. Glory and wonderful on the foreign policy front. What’s happening on the home front? In our contemporary language. And King John meanwhile is trying to usurp his own brother. He is trying to usp their throne from Richard.

Q: Okay, Ronnie. “Do we need to take into account that Scotland in 1820 had a higher literacy than England?”

A: Great point. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it still has, to be really… Maybe. I don’t know, I have no clue. But given the resurgent of Scottish nationalism and Brexit, independence and all the rest of it, what’s happening between the two is an enormous conflict. Never forget Scotland voted to stay in the EU, 67%, I think, whereas England voted to get out of the EU. So the tensions and the fault lines are way back.

Lynn. Thank you. Yeah, I read it so long ago as a teenager, many moons ago, same as you and saw the movie so long ago.

Jackie. “The Jews of York and Lincoln provided the ransom.” Yeah, exactly. For him to be free. Yeah, so similar to Barabbas in “The Jew of Malta,” we are going to use your money if you want to be free, if you want to survive, we’ll use your money. In Barabbas, in “The Jew of Malta,” we’re going to buy off the Turks and stop them invading us Christians in Malta. In England, the Jews of York and Lincoln are to provide the ransom for their own freedom and for others. So I think all of these things come together in this way, and I’m just trying to give one aspect radio, couple of aspects, 'cause I do think it’s a novel that can be mined for an enormous amount. I haven’t even begin to look at the adventure story really or portrayal of how fiction can work to really put into our imagination so powerfully literature, mythological ways of understanding history.

Okay, thanks very much, everybody. Take care. I hope you have a great rest of the weekend. Shawnna, thanks again.

• [Shawnna] Take care, everyone. See you again tomorrow same time. Bye-bye.

• [David] Okay. Ciao, ciao.