In “The Return of Martin Guerre,” Natalie Zemon Davis portrays Jean de Coras as a knowledgeable, impartial judge, fully capable of recognizing female intelligence and of looking beyond the status quo in his pursuit of truth. Like any judge, Coras has the discretion to select or omit certain pieces of evidence, the power to shape the official and accepted version of the truth; however, Michel de Montaigne would argue that Coras has a high probability of reaching a distorted verdict. Montaigne’s “Essays” claims that knowledge is acquired through the process of self-questioning, but this self-questioning presumes that knowledge begins with ones own perspectives and not with disciplines (such as a medicine and law), which are bound to theoretical suppositions and logical formal systems. Montaigne's real concern is not with Coras’s disciplinary knowledge, but the relationship between different human beings and the conventions by which their experience is defined and identity contained.
Throughout “Essays,” Montaigne sprinkles implicative and digressive examples to claim that knowledge can only be found in a composite human being—made of independent thoughts and experiences. EXPLATORY
Of Cannibals
Montagines’s “Of Cannibals” investigates not cannibalism nor the noble savages, but rather the nature, methodology, and power of reason. It is in this context that Montaigne examines the use of reason in making judgments. This is exemplified when Monatagine states, “we are to judge by the eye of reason, and not from common report “ (Cannibals, 1). How one should judge and deduce reasonable conclusions is illustrated by Montagine’s own methodology of judging the native savages. Montagine studied the native savages because the exotic and ...
... middle of paper ...
...nary case of adultery. The case of Martin Guerre was a bold attempt to challenge the social institution of marriage, an institution enforced by laws, customs, and rituals. However, for Coras, Arnaud du Tilh’s quick wit and spectacular memory led a fine peasant into a “tragicomedy” of imposture. This is exemplified when Coras states, “It was truly a tragedy for this fine peasant…all the more because the outcome was wretched, indeed fatal for him." (Guerre, 111). As Davis illustrates, Coras admired Tilh’s deceptive abilities and the true tragedy lies in the unmasking of Tilh, “a kind of hero, a more real Martin Guerre” (Guerre, 110) than the unsympathetic husband of Beltrade de Rols. Ultimately, Coras found Arnaud du Tilh more clever than his accusers, a man who seemed to know more about the life of Martin Guerre than the real Martin Guerre.
"I think you're rotten," says Yvette at the end of The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, "I wish you were dead" (Richler 318). This sentiment is echoed throughout a substantial amount of the criticism of Mordecai Richler's tale. At best, we question whether Duddy has learned anything during his apprenticeship; at worst, we accuse him of taking a tremendous step backwards, of becoming an utterly contemptible human being. When Duddy steals money from his friend and admirer, Virgil, to pay for the final parcel of land around Lac St. Pierre, it may seem that he has sunk to a low from which he may never recover; but careful consideration of the events leading up to the theft, the turn of events after it, and finally, Duddy's emotional reaction to both Yvette's anger and Simcha's disappointment indicates that Duddy is not the monster that he is frequently made out to be.
The Return of Martin Guerre, written by Natalie Zemon Davis, is the tale of a court case that takes place in sixteenth century France. Martin Guerre is a peasant who deserted his wife and family for many years. While Martin Guerre is gone, a man named Arnaud du Tilh arrives at Martin’s village and claims to be Martin Guerre. Bertrande, who is Guerre’s wife, Guerre’s sisters, and many of the villagers, accepts the imposter. After almost three years of being happily married, Bertrande takes the fraud to court under pressure of Pierre Guerre, her stepfather and Guerre’s brother. Arnaud du Tilh is almost declared innocent, but the real Martin Guerre appears in the courthouse. Throughout this tale, many factors of the peasant life are highlighted. The author gives a very effective and detailed insight to a peasant’s life during the time of Martin Guerre. Davis does a successful job of portraying the peasant lifestyle in sixteenth century France by accentuating the social, cultural, and judicial factors of everyday peasant life.
The starting of the story kept me in suspense: the starting sentence, “No one can accuse Philippa and me of having married in haste” (Fox 1). This clearly brought up the theme of love and marriage. The selection of words by the narrator told that the speaker did not regret his marriage. The defensive tone of the narrator made me to think that perhaps people had criticized his marriage.
In relation to the text as a whole, it is a perfect explanation of what Montaigne declared earlier in the chapter as the cannibals’ motto: “ la vaillance contre les ennemis et l’amitié à leurs femmes”. The latter part may be contested from a feminist perspective, but both parts of the passage help the reader achieve a greater understanding of the text and of 16th century Brazilian culture, in regards to the ways in which they treat their enemies, and their
In 1552, De Coras became a member of the Toulouse parliament and participated in the famous trial of Martin Guerre. His document recorded the trial as a first hand witness, and participant of the case. The document Memorable Decision of the High Court of Toulouse was published October 7, 1571, in Romance of Real Life. De Coras’s document recounts the dissertation of Martin Guerre from his wife, Arnault du Tilh tricking his way into attaining Martin Guerre’s property, and wife Bertrande for four years before incidents would arise to cause doubt among the wife and family De Coras would go on to recount his observations of the uncle’s case against Tilh for being an imposter, and the verdict that would send Tilh to the
After years of abandonment, an absent man presumed to be Martin Guerre appeared in front of a woman who longed for a strong love and different husband. An “obstinate and honorable” woman could no...
Martineau clearly had a strong political agenda in writing this story, however in doing so, she addresses the fundamental difference she sees in the roles of responsibility in marriage. In her mind, the husband and the wife have clearly defined roles, not so much along lines of production, but rather in terms of the household. That which is in the household, whether it is the domestic duties or financial responsibility, falls to the wife while it is the husband who is responsible for the income stream.
Edgar Allen Poe’s tale of murder and revenge, “The Cask of Amontillado”, offers a unique perspective into the mind of a deranged murderer. The effectiveness of the story is largely due to its first person point of view, which allows the reader a deeper involvement into the thoughts and motivations of the protagonist, Montresor. The first person narration results in an unbalanced viewpoint on the central conflict of the story, man versus man, because the reader knows very little about the thoughts of the antagonist, Fortunato. The setting of “The Cask of Amontillado”, in the dark catacombs of Montresor’s wine cellar, contributes to the story’s theme that some people will go to great lengths to fanatically defend their honor.
The story begins with the Marquise de Merteuil corresponding with Vicomte de Valmont regarding a luscious new act of ‘revenge’, as she describes it, against the Comte de Gercourt. The young Cecile de Volanges has just come home from the convent and her marriage to Gercourt has been arranged. However, before he can wed the innocent child, Merteuil proposes Valmont ‘educate’ her, thus spoiling Gercourt’s fancy for untarnished convent girls. Valmont is uninterested in such an easy seduction and is far more aroused by the thought of lulling The Presidente’ de Tourvel, the very epitome of virtue, into submission. And so the tale unfolds.
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. Prominent, influential, relevant and most important of all as human as they come, Jean Jacques Rousseau was truthfully, brilliant. Rousseau was born in Geneva Switzerland to a watchmaker in 1712, lacking of a formal education his father taught him to read, exposed him to literature and he managed to educate himself while living with Madame Louise de Warens,in the kingdom of Sardinia, modern Italy. Jeans childhood was far from easy “His autobiographical Les Confessions (1783) offers a thorough account of his turbulent life in her household, where he spent eight years studying nature and music, and reading English, German, and French philosophers. He also pursued the study of mathematics and Latin and enjoyed the theater and opera” (Hager 1). After leaving de Warrens in 1744, Rousseau eventually made his way to Paris, where he befriended French philosopher Denis Diderot who actually invited him to contribute to the Encyclopedie a major work of the enlightenment period, which he did, Rousseau wrote articles on music and political theories. Then in 1750 he wrote A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts. Where he claimed Human beings were naturally good, he argued; it was only the corrupt institutions of civilization that led them to do evil. Rousseau continuously returned to that theme in his subsequent writings in fact he stated A new-born he thought was intrinsically perfect: all society could do was to limit his views and maim his mind. Hence, the more civilized, the worse. A savage was nearer perfection than a philosopher. Yet he was a philosopher but Rousseau's own view of philosophy and philosophers was firmly negati...
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a philosopher that helped develop concepts such as general will, and improved on the early norms on child-raising. Born in Geneva, he was a “citizen” of the city. “Citizens” were the two hundred members of the Grand Council of Geneva, which made most of the political decisions in state. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an important part of the Enlightenment. He led an interesting life, as told by his three memoirs, had a solid philosophy, did not believe in reason, and left a lasting legacy that still affects us today.
Throughout Montaigne’s and Descartes written work they used doubt as a method to attaining knowledge about the world and about themselves. Descartes believed that preconceived knowledge gained through learning and the senses must be set aside in order to discover certainties. Montaigne believed that there were no certainties because our knowledge was attained through our senses, and thus everyone’s knowledge would be different, because everyone senses things differently. Either way both men turned into themselves to find the knowledge they described in their philosophies. They both left us with one important bit of knowledge to carry with us throughout our lives, accept nothing, and question everything.
Typical Western thought directs people to examine the practices of cannibalism as savage and primitive. More often than not, this type of association exists because the people viewing the action are frightened and confused by that which they do not understand. In fact, some would even claim that, “cannibalism is merely a product of European imagination” (Barker, 2), thereby completely denying its existence. The belief that cannibalism goes against “human instinct”, as seen in many literary works including Tarzan, reduces those who practice it to being inhuman. (Barker, 1) However, scientific findings demonstrate that those who practice cannibalism are still human despite their difference in beliefs; therefore, not only can rationalization be extrapolated from those who practice the act of cannibalism, but also denying the fact of the participant’s very humanity has been undermined through scientific findings.
the argument could be made that historians most important tool in understanding the interactions through cannibalism is quite possibly Hans Staden. While this paper is not meant to dissect his claims nor is it solely about him, he is regarded as at least a semi-truthful primary source and is one of the very few, so his name will appear often.
...ll true knowledge is solely knowledge of the self, its existence, and relation to reality. René Descartes' approach to the theory of knowledge plays a prominent role in shaping the agenda of early modern philosophy. It continues to affect (some would say "infect") the way problems in epistemology are conceived today. Students of philosophy (in his own day, and in the history since) have found the distinctive features of his epistemology to be at once attractive and troubling; features such as the emphasis on method, the role of epistemic foundations, the conception of the doubtful as contrasting with the warranted, the skeptical arguments of the First Meditation, and the cogito ergo sum--to mention just a few that we shall consider. Depending on context, Descartes thinks that different standards of warrant are appropriate. The context for which he is most famous, and on which the present treatment will focus, is that of investigating First Philosophy. The first-ness of First Philosophy is (as Descartes conceives it) one of epistemic priority, referring to the matters one must "first" confront if one is to succeed in acquiring systematic and expansive knowledge.