MovieChat Forums > Ivanhoe (1997) Discussion > Scott's big historical mistake

Scott's big historical mistake

posted 19 years ago by Colkitto
5 replies | jump to latest

I like this adaptation but there's a glaring error at the heart of Ivanhoe.

Witchcraft was not even formally criminalised until the 1250s. Death was not the usual punishment before the 15th century and even after that, in England, hanging was the usual form of execution, burning being reserved for those "witches" also accused of treason or murdering their husbands. The idea that somebody would be burnt alive for witchcraft in England in 1194 is nonsense.

Of course, the plot of Ivanhoe is a rip-off of Le Chevalier de la Charette. Rebecca is Guenevere, Ivanhoe is Lancelot, Bois-Guilbert is Meleagant. Scott just de-Arthurianised it and cut out the sex. And, in LCDLC, Guenevere is sentenced to burn for adultery.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Enlil-An 18 years ago

Scott is famous for making historical mistakes. His other famous crusade novel, The Talisman, contributed to a century and a half of misconceptions that have only recently been overturned by historians, but are still believed by the public at large.

[–] schweinhundt1967 18 years ago

There's an additional big historical mistake.There was no deep ethnic conflict between the Saxons and the Normans by the time this particular story takes place.They had all been integrated,as best they could,by the 100 years after the Conquest.
The actual conflict,which is sub textual at best,is invented by Scott.There was a movement to replace Gaelic as the official legal and cultural language in Scotland by the British Crown.This was going on at the time Scott was writing "Ivanhoe,"and was continuing some years after.So,for Saxons,read Scots,and for Normans,read English.And,the Gaelic WAS indeed replaced.

[–] Colkitto 17 years ago

Well, since ethnic differences were enshrined in law until the murdrum fine was abolished in the fourteenth century, and it had been possible as recently as the 1130s to speak of killing or driving out all the Normans, there was probably still some ill-feeling in the 1190s. What's inaccurate is that Scott depicts a separate Saxon aristocracy surviving alongside the incomers, when in fact all such families had long since either been dispossessed or become entirely Normanised. Somebody like Cedric would be anachronistic in 1094, never mind 1194.

There was a movement to replace Gaelic as the official legal and cultural language in Scotland by the British Crown

Nonsense. Lowland Scots, if one considers it a separate language from English rather than a dialect, had been the official language for centuries. That was being replaced by standard English but Gaelic had no legal standing, and had not been spoken in living memory south of the Highland Line. Scott was also strongly Unionist, and regarded Lowland Scotland as part of the Anglo-Saxon culture and superior to the Gaelic Highlands; however sentimental he may have got about it he regarded the Gaelic language and culture as having had their day.

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

[–] Hammerfanatic46 16 years ago

Gordon P. Clarkson

I think that it is fair to say that the Historicaly interesting thing about Ivanhoe (as opposed to it being a rattling good story !),is that it set the scene for the Victorians interest in Medievalism and Chivalry.One of the things I liked about about this adaptation is the way in which it shows Medieval life more as it would have been with lots of mud and freezing cold Castles,the characters are not all "glammed up " but instead are dressed in a rather thread-bare way as they would have been in reality at this time.