Previous
Pathos
Definition of Personification
Personification is a type of figurative language in which non-human things are described as having human attributes, as in the sentence, "The rain poured down on the wedding guests, indifferent... read full definition
Personification is a type of figurative language in which non-human things are described as having human attributes, as in the sentence, "The rain poured down... read full definition
Personification is a type of figurative language in which non-human things are described as having human attributes, as in the... read full definition
Volume 1, Chapter 1
Explanation and Analysis—My Gay Garments:
In this exchange from the beginning of the novel, Scott employs personification and verbal irony to humorously demonstrate Wamba’s reluctance to follow Gurth's instructions. When Gurth tells him to get up and fetch the pigs, the jester responds:
‘Truly,’ said Wamba, without stirring from the spot, ‘I have consulted my legs upon this matter, and they are altogether of opinion, that to carry my gay garments through these sloughs, would be an act of unfriendship to my sovereign person and royal wardrobe; wherefore, Gurth, I advise thee to call off Fangs, and leave the herd to their destiny [...]'
Wamba's legs take on a life of their own here, as he tells Gurth he has “consulted them” and they have suggested he not go and get the pigs. The idea of legs having their own opinion humorously highlights his reluctance to get wet and muddy trying to herd the swine. This creative use of personification serves to deflect any responsibility from Wamba for not doing the job, suggesting that he’s at the mercy of his legs’ opinion.
Scott also infuses the scene with some verbal irony in Wamba’s tongue-in-cheek justification for not doing his work. The jester says his “legs” are unwilling to take him pig-herding based on the unsuitability of his "gay garments" for the dirty, muddy work. Wamba cites the preservation of his "sovereign person and royal wardrobe" as being vitally important, and that getting his clothes dirty would be an act of “unfriendship.” This statement is ironic because Wamba doesn’t even have sovereignty over his own body; his actions are totally dictated by whatever Cedric the Saxon wishes, as he is Cedric's property.
There’s more, however. Wamba’s “royal wardrobe” of “gay garments” also plays a role in the verbal irony here. Wamba’s garments have only one purpose. He is wearing the clothes of a jester because he is a jester, but they are torn and muddied already; to suggest they would prevent him from doing that job is ridiculous. Gurth is asking Wamba to do his job (herding the swine), but instead of doing that Wamba performs his own job (telling jokes, as he does to entertain Cedric).
Related Themes:
Volume 1, Chapter 3
Explanation and Analysis—Fast Tongue:
As Cedric instructs Elgitha to fetch Rowena from her room, Scott employs personification to highlight the Saxon lord's frustration with the servant, reflecting societal attitudes towards women's speech:
Cedric darted at the forward damsel a glance of hasty resentment; but Rowena, and whatever belonged to her, were privileged and secure from his anger. He only replied, ‘Silence, maiden; thy tongue outruns thy discretion. Say my message to thy mistress, and let her do her pleasure. Here, at least, the descendant of Alfred still reigns a princess.’ Elgitha left the apartment.
Here, Scott lends a personality to Elgitha's tongue, which he describes as “outrunning her discretion.” It’s as if her tongue can act and think independently of her, acting in inappropriate or uncircumspect ways. This expression— which is only applied to women in Ivanhoe—is part of Scott’s depiction of a patriarchal society that chastised women for speaking out of turn. By personifying Elgitha’s tongue, Cedric’s words reflect broader medieval expectations for women to adhere to social and religious ideals of submission and silence.
This literary device reveals Cedric's views on appropriate female behavior, indicating discomfort with women who speak when not directly asked to do so. The admonition for silence and the claim that Elgitha's tongue has surpassed her discretion highlight his gendered expectations for how women should communicate.
Related Themes:
Volume 2, Chapter 10
Explanation and Analysis—Bow and Spear:
Scott uses personification and metaphor to illustrate the tension between Bois-Guilbert and Rebecca as the young woman refuses to leave Torquilstone with him. This unexpected refusal highlights the power dynamics at play between the Knight Templar and his intended victim:
The eyes of the Templar flashed fire at this reproof – ‘Hearken,’ he said, ‘Rebecca; I have hitherto spoke mildly to thee, but now my language shall be that of a conqueror. Thou art the captive of my bow and spear – subject to my will by the laws of all nations, nor will I abate an inch of my right, or abstain from taking by violence what thou refusest to entreaty or necessity.’
Scott’s personification of the bow and spear as Bois-Guilbert's allies in “capturing” Rebecca makes his threat of harming her feel realistic and immediate. By suggesting that Rebecca is not just being held hostage by Bois-Guilbert but by the weapons themselves, Scott turns them into active participants in her misery. Rebecca is suddenly being threatened by a group instead of a single aggressive figure. This personification underscores the extent to which Bois-Guilbert is willing to force Rebecca to do what he wants.
The metaphor of Bois-Guilbert's eyes “flashing fire” also speaks to his intense fury and loss of patience. He chastises Rebecca, saying that he’s finished speaking “mildly” to her and is now ready to harm her if she doesn’t obey him. He assumes that he’ll overpower her instantly, saying that he will now speak to her as a “conqueror” who will “take by violence” what she refuses to give. He’s so furious that even his eyes are “flashing fire” that could harm her. He is emitting threats of imminent harm from every possible source.
Related Themes:
