Given that this novel is set much earlier than most of Scott's "Waverley" series and takes place in England instead of Scotland, a review of England's history post-Norman Conquest would be beneficial. Special attention should be given to the social and political climate, particularly to assess the claim that by the end of the twelfth century, the hostility between Normans and Saxons, a key element of the plot, was still intense. Additionally, an overview of the Crusades and King Richard's involvement in them, including his capture on his return from the Holy Land, would be insightful.

1. Between the two major events in the novel, the tournament at Ashby and the siege of Torquilstone, which one is depicted in a more thrilling and realistic manner?

2. Does the trial and subsequent combat resulting from Rebecca's condemnation hold up as an equally significant and well-executed scene?

3. Is it a clever narrative technique for the author to have Rebecca recount the siege of Torquilstone to the injured Ivanhoe, rather than narrating the event directly to the reader?

4. Setting aside the social, religious, and political implausibility, should Ivanhoe have married Rebecca instead of Rowena, as some readers suggest? Does Rebecca's allure seem strong enough for this outcome, if it were historically possible?

5. Is the final scene between Rowena and Rebecca, where Rowena invites Rebecca to stay and change her faith ("and I will be a sister to you"), a fitting conclusion to the novel? Is Rebecca's decision to leave with her father and remain faithful to her religion valid and believable, considering Rowena's generous offer and Rebecca's character and experiences?

6. Among the Norman characters (excluding Richard), who appears the least objectionable and most deserving of at least grudging admiration for their bravery and chivalry? Do any of them merit this respect?

7. Is Scott's portrayal of the knightly orders fair, or does he criticize them too harshly? Does the depiction of Lucas de Beaumanoir, the grand master of the Templar order, make this group of "soldiers" seem entirely unworthy of respect, even deserving outright condemnation?

8. Does King Richard's past and present behavior warrant the criticism from Ivanhoe and historians? Is he too focused on martial pursuits and adventure when he should be responsibly governing his kingdom? Given that Richard offers an explanation for his actions in Chapter 41 (of the one-volume editions), can the reader forgive his "dereliction of duty," or at least sympathize with it?

9. Do the occasional and sometimes lengthy poetic insertions, often found in the epigraphs at the beginning of each chapter, distract from the main text? Would it have been more prudent for Sir Walter to exclude these passages to maintain a brisker narrative pace?

Fred B. McEwen