The Return Of Martin Guerre Sparknotes

The question of whether Arnaud du Tilh impersonated Martin Guerre in sixteenth-century France is no longer relevant to the study of history. However, the narratives that historians and popular history-makers create in their works is. In their attempts to contextualize the curious life story of Martin Guerre each history-maker further blurs the line between fiction and History; Davis seeks to implement a feminist understanding of the characters, Finlay over-simplifies character motivations, and Vigne manipulates the story’s timeline to suit a dramatic narrative fit for the silver-screen. While each history-maker has in some way obscured Martin Guerre’s life story: their individual contributions and analyses create a more rounded and holistic

understanding of the past, in composite.
As a cultural historian, whose research focuses on feminist studies, Prof.

Natalie Zemon Davis imbeds the themes of an oppressive patriarchal rule and Protestant theology in her book The Return of Martin Guerre. Davis’s creation of a mastermind like character found in Bertrande is largely unsubstantiated by the historical record of Coras. Prof. Robert Finlay notes this point in his hyper-critical rebuke of Davis’s work in The American Historical Review. For example, in her book The Return of Martin Guerre, Davis notes that the appearance of a soldier from Rochefort who questioned the identity of martin motivated the couple “to be prepared to counter his argument” [and create a testimony for Martin that] “must always match her testimony; there must be intimate details that no one could challenge.” This quote highlights the implementation of a feminist narrative adopted by Davis which manifests in the cunning portrait of Bertrande as an active participant in the deception of her family and community. Despite the historical depiction of Bertrande and her family being unaware and deceived by Arnaud. Davis’s understanding of the characters is questioned by Finlay. His essay, published in The American Historical Review, goes as far to suggest that her writing calls into question “What distinguishes the writing of history from that of fiction.” While Bertrande’s pragmatic and opportunistic disposition may have been silenced by Coras and the patriarchy, Davis’s dramatized

composition of the character is inherently flawed and academically irresponsible.
Legendary historical writer David McCullough asserts that “No harm’s done to history by making it something someone would want to read” or watch in the case of Daniel Vigne’s film The Return of Martin Guerre.

Vigne brings a story previously reserved to medieval European historians and academics to a larger audience. Presenting Martin through a digestible and interesting medium of a movie resulted in a more meaningful and accessible version of history for the viewing public. Vigne and his writers over-dramatized the trial of Arnaud by centering their film on the theatrical court cases comprised of caricatured judges, vocal witnesses, and suspenseful cinematic effects. The lack of screen-time spent on the previous three years of deceit within the Guerre family and tension between “Martin” and his uncle Pierre produces its own historiographical narrative. A narrative which neglects to contextualize why Arnaud sought to reinvent himself and completely misses Davis’s assertion that Arnaud and Bertrande corroborated. While imperfect, Vigne’s movie rendition garnered the attention of the masses and democratized the story of Martin Guerre: through distorting the historical timeline to emphasis tragedy and

stagecraft.
Prof. Finlay’s critique of Prof. Davis’s works provides a necessary injection of reality and cross-examination into the historical debate. In his essay in The American Historical Review, Finlay takes issue with Davis’s editorialized and sensationalized depiction of the ensemble of the Guerre story. He goes as far as to claim that Davis’s works provide “a reinterpretation that finally bears more resemblance to a historical romance” and ultimately states that Davis’s understanding of Bertrande “is not an interpretation based on the sources: it is, rather and opinion by a modern historian who apparently believes that unsubstantiated insight can itself be taken as evidence.” While this may be true, Finlay fails to understand the importance of narrative in the making of meaningful historical works. His oversimplified view of the Guerre story is best stated by Davis in her response to Finlay in The American Historical Review “Finlay sees things in clean, simple lines; he wants absolute truth.” Between the lines of the historiographical friction created by the two professors lays the creative no man’s land where readers can develop their own narrative and understanding of the text.
The points of contention between academic historians like Prof. Davis and Prof. Finlay coupled with the innovative stagecraft of Daniel Vigne create a composite image of Martin Guerre’s story that is well-informed and more meaningful than a “true account” could ever be. Using the catalysts of their individual biases Davis, Finlay, and Vigne contextualize Martin Guerre’s tale and provide meaning to an account that could have remained a relatively obscure story of a French peasant in the sixteenth century. The debate and tension amongst history-makers are what creates a holistic understanding of the past and provides insights to the present.