Hello Romanticists,
When we first talked
about Ivanhoe last week, I said it
was a novel about Englishness and English identity. Another way to frame that is to say that the
novel seeks to define what constitutes the nation of England, or nations
generally.
The concept of nationalism,
as we know it today, originates in our period—the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries. The famous
theorist of nationalism, Benedict Anderson, defined nations as “imagined
communities.” Nations are “imaged” in
the sense that their members never meet most of their fellow countrymen or know
anything of them, but yet “in the minds of each lives the image of their
communion” (Imagined Communities, 49). And nations are “communities” because
“regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail, the
nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” (ibid., 50).
For your posts this week,
consider how Ivanhoe imagines
communities. What characterizes or
defines “Englishness”? Who is included
in that community and who is excluded?
Who do characters feel most connected to, and why? What forms of “inequality and exploitation”
exist within the community of Anglo-Saxon England and how well does the
imagined connection of nationhood recompense for or paper over these problems?
You might also think about the nation of England in 1819. To spark your thought process, have a gander at some commemorative depictions of the Peterloo Massacre.
Happy reading,
Prof. M.
Based on my reading of Ivanhoe, the sum total of Saxon nationalistic identity seems to be a sense of defiance toward their Norman invaders. I did not discern much of a cultural or ideological English “nationalism” other than that (nationalism is somewhat of an anachronism in medieval England, since this idea was only born later). To illustrate, the stalwartly Saxon Cedric seems to be solely motivated by his desire to oust the Normans and reinstate the Saxon line of kings. In him, patriotism seems to be a negative thing since he hates all Normans indiscriminately. Interestingly, the younger characters such as Rowena, Ivanhoe, and even King Richard seem to be more open to dialogue and compromise between the two parties, despite the fact that it is often youth that are fiercely nationalistic…
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting to note that Cedric and presumably other Saxon nationalists do not acknowledge that there were people in England before the Saxons, like the Celts. What makes the Saxons any different than any of a whole string of nations to conquer the area? And why can’t the Normans be next in that chain? Why do the Saxons feel they have an indisputable claim to the land?
Cedric is a staunch proponent of the Saxon cause, and yet he mistreats his Saxon serfs and views them as property. While we twenty-first century reader may jump to say this defies the premise of nationalism and community, we must recognize that at the time, this is what a nation consisted of: a rigid, hierarchical system of classes. The feudal structure of English society should be viewed as entirely separate and unrelated to Saxon nationalism, which neither recompensed nor papered over it.
When speaking of groups excluded from Saxon national identity, the first to come to mind, of course, is the Jews. They are shunned and disdained by Saxon and Norman alike; this persecution culminated in the expulsion edict of 1290.
In Ivanhoe, there's a sense of nationalistic connection that goes beyond social classes. There are quite a few instances when members of very different classes bond over their shared Saxon identity. For example, the rich and powerful Cedric assumes that the lowly outlaw bands in the woods won't rob him if they know he's a Saxon. I think part of this bond comes from the shared sense of Norman oppression. Even though they occupy places on opposite ends of the social spectrum, the highborn Saxons and the Saxon bandits are united by their perceived wrongs at the hands of their conquerors. If they didn't have the Norman "other" to rally against, I think it's likely that the English identity would have been much less cohesive.
ReplyDeleteAnother tie that binds the Saxons is their shared roots, genetic as well as cultural. They've all occupied the same country for generations, sharing many beliefs and traditions. This excludes groups like the Jews, who have a distinct history, gene pool and religion. To a lesser extent, the Normans have their own language and customs which set them apart from the Saxons. The Normans and the Saxons still have much more in common than either group and the Jews (specifically Christianity) and have no problem ganging up on the Jews, who are Other to both.
Scott's depiction of nationalism throughout Ivanhoe gives us a very unfavorable idea of the concept. All of Scott's thoroughly nationalistic characters are thoroughly unlikeable as well. Whether they be Norman or Saxon, anyone who is focus on their nation or descent is someone who is selfish, malicious, irrationally stubborn, and/or hypocritical. Prince John focuses only upon money and power, using his nationality and lineage to bolster his own status. His attendants use their own standing in the hierarchy to gain money and power as well. The Norman clergy-members are ridiculously hypocritical, using their position and claim to the Norman nation as both an excuse to twist the law/customs and as a reason to hold themselves as being more important that the conquered Saxons. The Saxons themselves – Cedric being our main example – are highly resentful toward the Normans. Cedric gets so caught up in his obsession with lineage that he forgets his own family (Ivanhoe), contradicting every raving word he spouts with his own actions. Other Saxons mentioned, such as Gurth, also feel the same hatred toward the Normans, though not being in a position of power, are smarter about what they say and to whom it is said.
ReplyDeleteOverall, despite anyone’s claims to loyalty and nationality, no one holds up to their own standards. Normans will defend fellow Normans from the Saxon’s insults to their honor, but those same Normans will turn against each other in a bid for power. Though the Saxons are not in much of a position to play these power games to that extent, they act similarly. The Saxons claim that they are better than the Normans, but they too turn against each other when power comes to play (ex: Gurth turning against Cedric and/or helping him depending on how powerful Cedric is at the moment).
As Chana pointed out, the younger characters such as Ivanhoe, Rowena, and Rebecca, all seem to let go a little of this feud. Possibly, they are young enough that it has not become ingrained in their personalities to hate one another. There may be bias, but it is logic and reason which wins out. In the majority of the adults’ cases, emotion and lifelong habits rule over reason. In Ivanhoe, it is the nobler characters of the new generation who are willing to put aside personal history in order to make way for a better future.
What I found most interesting about the nationalism depicted in Ivanhoe is how fake it was.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, Cedric constantly references his English/Saxon pride. He uses it to appeal to the guards shouting at them that they are all English and therefore he doesn’t understand how they can treat him this way. This isn’t the only time that the novel pits like against like. When Gurth walks with the money, he is confronted by thieves. One of them wants to take Gurth’s money despite how Saxon their captain is. When Gurth wins the fight, the thieves shout “Fair Play and Old England forever!” There is a certain feeling that Gurth would not have been allowed to get away if he had not been a representative of the Old England. There almost seems to be honor among thieves here (literally and figuratively). But they did not let him go without a fight; his Saxon connections were not enough to save him.
However, there is a difference between the older and younger generations in their attitudes towards nationalism. Cedric constantly swears oaths to the ancient Gods. He does not swear to Christian Gods but rather a callback to an older Saxon heritage that he highly values. The younger Saxons, like Rowena, never even mention these gods. They also represent a generation fighting the crusades. They are fighting in a different country for God first and England after. They have different concerns. When Ivanhoe talks about the best knights, he says they are English Knights and doesn’t specify Saxon KnightsPerhaps this is Scott’s explanation for division between the Normans and Saxons slowly becoming meaningless. Despite its importance with the older generation, the younger generation did not care as much. In fact, I think this is an excellent example of the difference between Patriotism- a healthy love for one’s country- and Nationalism- the divisive exceptionalism that was at the root of much destruction.
I agree with Chana that the definition of ‘Englishness’ in Ivanhoe seems to be ‘not like them.’ It’s almost defined in the negative. We hear that Saxons are warm blooded, less sophisticated in terms of table manners, courageous…but this does not hold true for all the Saxon characters (Rowena, Ivanhoe), and some of these hold true for non-Saxons (Rebecca is brave, de Bracy is warm blooded). It seems to be less about ‘we are x’ and more about ‘we are not Normans’ or ‘we are not Saracens’ or ‘we are not Jews’. Thus, we don’t get any real definitions about what it means to be any of these groups. All that we know is that they are in conflict with each other.
ReplyDeleteOne is tempted to assume that these connections, therefore, are essentially make-believe. In Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, he uses the term ‘Granfaloon,’ which means an imagined connection between people based on arbitrary, ridiculous things. (He probably got the idea from Benedict Anderson, but ‘Granfaloon’ is the term that I kept thinking of). But imagined or not, the consequences are real. Gurth, despite the way his master treats him, still feels compelled to save him. Locksley and the other yeomen as well decide to risk their lives for fellow Saxons, despite the lack of any other tie between them. The same is true on the Norman side – the three lords, despite their suspicious personalities, can maintain a modicum of trust because they’re all Norman. The imagined connections enable them to transcend real differences. By creating differences, ironically, it creates unity.
When the imagined boundaries are questioned, therefore, everything goes into flux. Ivanhoe is banished by his father for following a Norman, however noble, because by doing so he disregards this crucial distinction. His recognition that a Norman can be different, or good, throws away Cedric’s carefully constructed Granfaloon. Without the Granfaloon, no one is united – each man is out for himself. With Rebecca and the Templar, we see the dangers of losing this carefully constructed worldview. She calls on nationalism to stop him – she says, we are different, we cannot mix. But he says that he, as well as the other Templars, doesn’t really believe in their Granfaloon. And so he breaks the imagined boundaries, and wants to be with her, with very real consequences.