It seems as though in today’s society, suspicion lies in every corner. No one trusts anyone anymore, everyone lies, everyone steals, everyone pretends to be someone they are not. However true or false these statements might be, there is a need in today’s society to be able to explain everything, coming up with every possible lie or predicament within every story. Natalie Davis is from today’s society, and once again, she has found the need to investigate Bertrande Guerre’s role within The Return of Martin Guerre. The only pieces of evidence that are reliable come from Jean de Coras, the main judge in the trial. However, Davis seems to have ignored his findings, and founded her own. For most of her points, there is no written evidence to back her up. She simply read and interpreted the story, as many historians must do to come up with plausible reasons for things; however, she interpreted the evidence incorrectly. This impostor known as Arnaud du Tilh, who played a husband, father, friend, nephew and brother for three years, deceived an entire town. However, Davis has chosen Bertrande Guerre as a co-conspirator, with little grounds to base her conclusion upon. Therefore, I still have found that Bertrande Guerre truly believed that Arnaud du Tilh was her husband, making her an unknowing player in the entire charade.
Natalie Davis made the point that Bertrande must have known that the new Martin was an impostor due to their sexual relationship and the differences therein (110).
However, this point is hard to believe due to the fact that Bertrande and Martin were married for nine years without having intercourse, and when they finally did, it was in order to conceive their future son, Sanxi (Finlay, 558). Only a few months after Sanxi was born, Martin disappeared for over eight years, which is a long time for a woman to remember the specific details of a sexual relationship that couldn’t have lasted for more than a few months (Finlay, 558). Even if Bertrande had noticed a difference in the sexual relationship, she would have doubted her recollections, not having any kind of proof or true memories of those sexual experiences (Finlay, 558). This “new Martin” could have also become more sexually experienced while soldiering, explaining his newfound confidence (Finlay, 558).
The two men seemed to have com...
... middle of paper ...
...wn, Natalie Davis made up a tale of what happened, ignoring the actual story that had been recorded by one of the lead characters who was there at the time, Jean de Coras. While her points had good merit, there was little evidence besides her opinion and suspicion that backed her up. Bertrande de Rols was deceived by this man, just as everyone else was. Whether she enjoyed her time spent with Arnaud is not important, it is whether or not she was fooled. While there were many who were suspicious, and many who were uncertain of Bertrande’s innocence, there was not a majority that truly believed she was a co-conspirator. She was not proven guilty by Jean de Coras nor was no proven guilty by the townspeople. The townspeople had fallen for Arnaud’s acting, and it is certain that Bertrande had fallen for it as well. And as each of these people would say, Arnaud was a wonderful actor, who was educated in Martin’s life and the people within it. Stories such as these are reminders as to why history is not always objective, and that historians have the right to interpret it in any way that they choose. However, a good historian will always have his critic.
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.
Arnaud du Tilh, a rogue and an impostor, deserved punishment for his crimes, and that is what he received. Arnaud, a man once thought by people to be unmistakably Martin Guerre, was sentenced to death. Perhaps in this day an age, a punishment such as this would be excessively severe, however in Arnaud's time it was considered just. A question can be asked whether Martin Guerre deserves such a punishment as well, because of his actions. Martin Guerre never broke any laws like that of Arnaud du Tilh, however in a moral sense, Martin's actions were down at Arnaud's level, perhaps even lower.
Edna and Robert are at the beach enjoying each others company at first. They quickly return to the cottage where Leonce is and he talks to them. They have had a good time down by the water and Leonce, being the proper business like man that he is does not understand why Robert would rather spend his time chatting with his wife than attending to other things. It is obvious to the reader that Edna and Robert have a connection and are amused with what the other has to say. Leonce shrugs this off as nothing and leaves for the hotel where many of the men chat and drink in the evenings. Edna and Robert talk some more and eventually part. These are the first signs of something special between them.
The “beautiful young woman” began to show her stubborn ways early. According to the reading, Bertrande was concerned more about putting aside her wifely duties than to ruin her reputation and independence (27-28). When Martin abandoned Bertrande, she was left without a defined position in the village social structure. Being the honest women that Coras said she was, Bertrande would not separate from Martin, and under Catholic law she could not remarry unless there was strong proof of death. The values that Bertrande grew up with showed that she never saw herself leaving village customs (32). Though the devastating experience of Martin leaving left her weak and yearning for a husband, she lived “virtuously and honorably” through her “stiff-necked sense of herself and her reputation” (34).
The bringing together of Sophie and Martine does not improve the lives of either one of them. Their discomfort with each other is foreshadowed by the nightmares Sophie has of her mother before going to live with her in New York. In the nightmares Martine has "arms like two long hooks" (Danticat, p. 28, ch. 4) and is chasing her, trying to catch her. Sophie's nightmares of her mother resemble her mother's nightmares of her father. Despite their differences, they are bound together by the sa...
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.
If any of the events that happen, would take place somewhere else, the plot would fall apart. For example Meursault kills the Arab in the beach. If this situation would have had occurred somewhere Meursault wouldn’t have killed the Arab. Because first of all the environment, Meursault says clearly in Part 2 “ the sun made me do it” Since Meursault has a weakness against a bright light, he feels sleepy and gazes off. This cause him to the shoot the arb. If Meursault was in a darker room, he wouldn’t have shot the Arab. We see how Camus order this turning point event to take place here for a particular reason. Another event that must be kept in this particular order, is the where prosecutor suggest that Meursault be killed. This has to happen in court for a particular reason. Camus has gather the majority of the characters in the story in this court room. So the prosecutor telling that Meursault be executed, not only effect Meursault but the characters around him. Such as Marie she emotionally broken. But what if this didn’t happen in the court room? None of the other characters would have known which affects characterization and tension. It affects tension because of all Meursault friends are there and they hope he doesn’t get executed which builds up to him getting the death
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.
The trial portrays the absurdist ideal that absolute truth does not exist. This ideal destroys the very purpose of the trial, which seeks to place a rational explanation on Meursault’s senseless killing of the Arab. However, because there is no rational explanation for Meursault’s murder, the defense and prosecution merely end up constructing their own explanations. They each declare their statements to be the truth, but are all based on false assumptions. The prosecution itself is viewed as absurd. The prosecutor tries to persuade the jury that Meursault has no feelings or morals by asking Perez if “he had at least seen [Meursault] cry” (91). The prosecutor then continues to turn the crowd against Meursault when he asks him about his “liaison” with Marie right after his mother’s death. Though Meursault’s relationship with Marie and his lack of emotions at his mother’s funeral may seem unrelated to his murder, the prosecutor still manages to convince the crowd that they are connected to one another. The jury ends up convicting Meursault not because he killed a man, but because he didn't show the proper emotions after his mother ...
The reasons behind this are despite the lack of technological advances that are in place today and how the human species has intellectually grown, people during that time period cannot have been that senseless that they failed to recognize who their true husband was, no matter what time had passed since they had last seen each other. This is someone Bertrande has been with since she was twelve, someone she has slept with, had a child to, and worked with for many years. It is highly unlikely that she would not notice a difference between the two men. “Beyond a young womanhood with only a brief period of sexuality, beyond a marriage in which her husband understood her little, may have feared her, and surely abandoned her, Bertrande dreamed of a husband who would come back and be different.” This points to how she did not have a happy marriage to begin with, she was with someone who she did not particularly enjoy, someone who left her, and she needed someone to care for her and to support her; Arnaud de Tilh was perfect for
While on trial Meursault forms relationships with both the magistrate and his lawyer. The prosecutor can’t understand why Meursault showed no emotion toward the death of Maman and how he was able to keep on living his daily life. The fact that even after all the testimonies Meursault is still seen as an emotionless man very capable of murder says a lot.
"It was when the face and figure of a great tragedian began to haunt her imagination and stir her senses. The persistence of the infatuation lent it an aspect of genuineness. The hopelessness of it colored it with the lofty tones of a great passion:" (Chopin 17) a passion that eventually lost its newness and was relegated to the shelf that held vague, yet comfortably delightful remembrances. The tragedian keeps company with a visiting cavalry officer and an engaged gentleman. Though, in reality, the gentleman is probably no longer engaged, he will remain so in the mind of Edna Pontellier: one of the images of the infatuations of a "little miss." (Chopin 17) With regard to her marriage to Leonce Pontellier, Edna is taken, not with the man himself, but with the notion he represents. “By leaving Mississippi on Leonce's arm, she defies her family's wish that she marry a non-Catholic. Add to that equation a healthy dose of flattery from her intended and their union is as good as cemented” (Martin 118). This is how Edna comes to be ensconced in the inescapable institution of marriage. One would suppose that the speaking of the vows would put an end to youthful enchantment, but that is not the case. Both the holy bounds of wedlock and the remonstrations of society fail to constrict her. Edna Pontellier experiences one last, great infatuation. However, this beat upon her soul reverberates into a feeling that far surpasses what she had previously thought to be "the climax of her fate." (Chopin 17) The single-tiered fantasies of her youth are replaced with a sentiment that matures in nature as her awakening proceeds.
If one was to say that the family name was most important in Artigues, the personal, first name would be the most important in Toulouse. In Toulouse, differences in people are appreciated as well as argued over; one reads of the toleration between Protestants and Catholics by a hostess, as well as the talk of potential rebellion (83). Citizens of Toulouse are identified by the various causes or loyalties they have, not to families but rather to ideas. These citizens claim themselves to be modern, sophisticated people in contrary to the simple mountain folk that visit for the court case. It is important to note the terminology Lewis uses to describe the main characters; the Guerre family name is replaced with more generic terms of mountaineer and peasant (84, 87). Further, this is compounded by the feeling of being lost expressed by both Bertrande and Pierre; Bertrand asks, “what am I doing here?” and Pierre states, “we are lost” (84, 87). These characters no longer have the identity associated with their family name; they are alone in the city, not used to being individuals but rather used to being a part of a whole
The play Doubt is a powerful play that pins two religious forces against one another for the sake of a child innocence in the 1960’s. Father Flynn is accused by Sister Aloysius for taking sexual advantage of a young African American boy Donald Muller. There is no strong evidence of any foul play between Father Flynn and Donald Muller but there is not strong evidence of Father Flynn’s innocence either. That is what this play does so well, it leaves an almost impossible answer to the question and this leaves the reader in doubt. It leaves the outcome up to the reader to choose whether or not if Father Flynn is guilty of these terrible acts.Father Flynn throughout the play is never shown doing anything wrong in play but just things that raise suspicion of him and that is why you can
In The Awakening, Kate Chopin demonstrates that enhancing an individual’s knowledge can also increase their grief and unhappiness. Edna Pontellier spends most of her summer at Grande Isle with Robert. Robert awakens the “symptoms of infatuation” that she had when she was a young woman. Edna states that her husband seemed “like a person whom she had married without love as an excuse." The quote demonstrates that Edna recognizes that she does not love her husband and has come to the realization that their relationship is completely devoid of passion. Dissatisfied with her marriage, Edna dreams of being with Robert. The realization of her love for Robert causes Edna much grief because she understands that she can never act on her feelings for Robert because of her marriage to Leonce. Edna also realizes that she is discontent with her role in society. Society expects Edna to act like a loving mother and devoted wife. The typical “mother-woman” was expected to “idolize their children and worship their husbands.” Edna was not a typical “mother-woman”. When her kids fell while playing they would not come to her like most “mother-tots.” They would simply pick themselves back up, wipe the sand out of their mouths, and continue playing. Society also expects Edna to devote all of her time to her children. Edna states that...