In the opening chapter of Ivanhoe, Scott foreshadows the novel's central tension between Normans and Saxons. In so doing, he is preparing the reader for the many underlying conflicts of the novel’s social world. The narrator says:
This state of things I have thought it necessary to premise for the information of the general reader, who might be apt to forget, that, although no great historical events, such as war or insurrection, mark the existence of the Anglo-Saxons as a separate people subsequent to the reign of William the Second; yet the great national distinctions betwixt them and their conquerors [...] keep open the wounds which the Conquest had inflicted, and to maintain a line of separation betwixt the descendants of the victor Normans and the vanquished Saxons.
In this passage the narrator is directly addressing the reader, explaining the importance of remembering the deep-seated divisions between Normans and Saxons. This intervention serves two purposes: it’s exposition—laying out the context for the story clearly—but it also foreshadows many of the civil conflicts to come. It’s essentially a warning to keep in mind the historical context that fuels Ivanhoe’s plot. By reminding the reader that "great national distinctions" between Anglo-Saxons and Normans persist, Scott prepares them to keep those tensions in mind as the book progresses. The mention of "the wounds which the Conquest had inflicted" and the “line of separation" between the victor Normans and the vanquished Saxons are more references to this; in this story, there’s violence and discord around every corner.
This quotation from the novel’s first chapter employs foreshadowing and the rhetorical strategy of ethos, shaping the reader's perception of the characters and the political landscape of England. Through their portrayal of King Richard as a savior and Prince John as a usurper, the narrator establishes themselves as the moral authority on Richard’s benevolence and John’s bad intentions, and on the basis of that moral authority, tries to persuade the reader to agree:
The condition of the English nation was at this time sufficiently miserable. King Richard was absent a prisoner, and in the power of the perfidious and cruel Duke of Austria. Even the very place of his captivity was uncertain, and his fate but very imperfectly known to the generality of his subjects, who were, in the mean time, a prey to every species of subaltern oppression. Prince John [...] was using every species of influence with the Duke of Austria, to prolong the captivity of his brother Richard, to whom he stood indebted for so many favours.
The passage sets up a clear contrast between King Richard and Prince John to shape the reader's understanding of the political situation in England at the time. Here, the narrator portrays King Richard as the unquestioned, rightful king, currently held prisoner by the Duke of Austria. The narrator argues that the Duke is “perfidious and cruel” to imprison Richard, because his subjects suffer in his absence. Given this impact, the fact that Prince John tries to extend his brother's captivity for his own benefit makes him seem doubly villainous.
The narrative voice in the passage uses a tone of authority to paint Richard as a good and just ruler and John as the opposite, foreshadowing that conflicts will arise between the two "sides" as the novel progresses. While Richard is gone the Saxons are “a prey to every species of subaltern oppression,” meaning that the people of England are not given a voice or any power while he’s absent. This influences the reader to see Richard's rule as legitimate and John's actions as wrongful. Ivanhoe’s narrator tells readers that England is in a bad state because Richard is not there to protect his people from oppression. John's schemes to keep Richard away are highlighted to make the reader dislike him and feel that he is not fit to rule. Employing ethos in this way is meant to guide the reader to agree with the narrator that Richard should return, and that John is not only unsuitable for the role but also immoral.
As Scott describes Dame Urfried guarding the imprisoned Rebecca in the tower at Torquilstone, he employs allusion and foreshadowing to emphasize the stakes of the perilous position she is in. Rebecca's training to bear fear and master her temper become crucial here, as the narrator tells the reader:
Like Damocles at his celebrated banquet, Rebecca perpetually beheld, amid that gorgeous display, the sword which was suspended over the heads of her people by a single hair.
The allusion refers to the story of Damocles, a courtier who flattered his king by praising his power and influence. The king invited Damocles to sit on his throne for a day, but suspended a large sword above it by a single hair to symbolize the constant threats faced by those in power, thereby teaching the courtier a lesson. By comparing Rebecca to Damocles, Scott highlights the perpetual danger that Rebecca and Jewish people like her lived under. Jewish people in medieval Europe lived under constant threat of persecution and violence. The allusion also underscores Rebecca's awareness of her own vulnerability in Front-de-Boeuf's castle. Unlike Damocles, who was momentarily placed under threat as a lesson by Dionysius, Rebecca's entire life has a “sword” hanging over it. Dame Urfried has explained to her that when the Normans captured her she was beaten and raped: Rebecca knows that a similar fate could await her. However, her constant exposure to danger has taught her to manage fear and maintain composure, which is how she is able to keep a cool head even under these circumstances.
The foreshadowing in this segment anticipates Rebecca's composure in the face of her impending crisis. The reference to her lifelong preparation for dealing with fear suggests that these skills will be vital in her upcoming ordeals. Just as the story of Damocles highlights the ever-present danger that threatens those in positions of authority, Rebecca's response here suggests how her calm and collected nature will help her survive what's to come.
As he introduces the Grand Master of the Knights Templar Lucas de Beaumanoir in Volume 3, Scott employs visual imagery and foreshadowing to signal the man's inner qualities and set the stage for his actions later on:
The Grand Master was a man advanced in age, as was testified by his long grey beard, and the shaggy grey eyebrows over-hanging eyes, of which, however, years had been unable to quench the fire. A formidable warrior, his thin and severe features retained the soldier’s fierceness of expression; an ascetic bigot, they were no less marked by the emaciation of abstinence, and the spiritual pride of the self-satisfied devotee.
The visual language used to describe Lucas de Beaumanoir here immediately conveys the duality of his character. His outward appearance is “formidable” and alarming, while simultaneously conveying that he’s a highly self-denying (“ascetic”) and spiritual person. Like other members of the Order of Templars, however, his devotion is overlaid with a smugness and self-satisfaction that stops it from seeming genuine and altruistic. The detailed description of his “long grey beard” and “shaggy grey eyebrows” when combined with the unquenched “fire” in his eyes suggests to the reader that he’s relentlessly intense and zealous despite his age. His insides reflect his outsides: he is a person of unwavering fanaticism and rigid adherence to his beliefs.
Referring to Beaumanoir as an "ascetic bigot" who’s lined by "the emaciation of abstinence" and "spiritual pride" foreshadows the extent to which he views himself as a moral arbiter of the Templars. De Beaumanoir is a man who possesses a dangerous level of self-righteousness, viewing himself as above reproach and justified in his actions, regardless of their consequences. This introductory paragraph thus foreshadows the Grand Master's grim, “bigoted” adherence to doctrine and his religious fanaticism.
