Return Of Martin Guerre Analysis

Despite the risks that one might have associated with his defense of a slave that had killed her master, regardless of the motives, Jameson appears to have made every effort to defend her to the best of his abilities. Even though Jameson appeared to be a good lawyer “according to those who knew him: as a lawyer [Jameson] was not profound” (McLaurin 85), so to aid Jameson in “labor and research” (McLaurin 85) Hall appointed two lawyers that were subordinate to Jameson. Now Jameson may not have been the best at trial research,but when it came to his courtroom skills “his contemporaries nevertheless admired him…” (McLaurin 85). Though not for his presentation, or his cross-examination skills, but for his “almost uncanny ability to read a jury” (McLaurin 85). Due to this skill of reading a jury many who knew him said he was “an excellent judge of men…” (McLaurin 85) which would have given him and advantage during Celia’s trial, unfortunately the prosecution in this case was (also/to) strong, led by Robert Prewitt, they virtually prevented Jameson from making any sort of case for the defense of Celia. Despite the fact that Jameson encountered some resistance from the “presiding judge whose consistent rulings to sustain the state’s objections revealed, if not his hostility toward the defendant, at least a desire for a perfunctory defense

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

The purpose of this paper is to introduce, discuss, and analyze the book "The Return of Martin Guerre" by Natalie Zamon Davis. Specifically, it will discuss the life of the peasant during the Middle Ages. This book is a fascinating account of a true case that happened during the 16th century in France. The book is also an excellent example of how the peasants lived in the Middle Ages, from what they ate, to how they traveled and what their family lives were like.

“His testimony was responsible for the execution of some 35 persons, but, as the frenzy subsided, inconsistencies were discovered in his story.”

Natalie Zemon-Davis’s 1983 book The Return of Martin Guerre provided both the public and academic world with a fresh and interesting take on a classic story. Presented like a mystery thriller, Davis weaves a tale of deception based on a solid framework of cultural history. Her narrative depends on grounding the characters of Bertrande de Rols, Martin Guerre, Arnaud du Tihl, and their associates within a web of social context. Davis draws heavily on the traditional Coras narrative, but also supplements the established story with the version presented in Le Sueur, a new source she discovered. Additionally, she incorporates unusual sources dealing with broader social context and infers specifics from a general study of period interactions. It is this latter approach that historian Robert Finlay disagrees with. He claims that Davis does not appropriately rely on the source material provided by the Coras narrative and thus gives an unnecessarily dramatic version of events. The AHR forum on the subject includes both Finlay’s review and Davis’s response, providing a model of scholarly debate that extends beyond the actual content of the book in question. In addition to being a rhetorical critique, Finlay is attacking the foundational methodology of modern social history that Davis is then compelled to defend.

Joan of Arc is a prominent figure in European history, however, most of the history surrounding the maid of Orleans "La Pucelle d'Orléans" (Lanhers and Vale, 2016), is generally focused on debunking her claims of being sent by God, and the possible reasons for her hearing voices. This essay will focus less on the legitimacy of her claims of being a prophet of God, and instead will focus on the effect they had, along with her abilities as a commander to achieving victory in the Loire campaign. It will focus on the importance of her first military victory, lifting the siege of Orleans before the start of the Loire campaign, and how its effect on the morale of

There are many ways to decide what makes a man guilty. In an ethical sense, there is more to guilt than just committing the crime. In Charles Brockden Browns’ Wieland, the reader is presented with a moral dilemma: is Theodore Wieland guilty of murdering his wife and children, even though he claims that the command came from God, or is Carwin guilty because of his history of using persuasive voices, even though his role in the Wieland family’s murder is questionable? To answer these questions, one must consider what determines guilt, such as responsibility, motives, consequences, and the act itself. No matter which view is taken on what determines a man’s guilt, it can be concluded that

The controversial story of Martin Guerre becomes intensified as historian Natalie Davis and Robert Finlay makes their persuasive argument. Davis presents the story in a humorous way, portraying Bertrande sympathetically and developing her as an “honorable” figure. In the sixteenth century France, honor is a central aspect of women's identity and reputation. To gain honor, the woman remained faithful to their husband and followed the strict rules of Canon law, married women were not allowed to remarry or make a relationship with other men without the proof of husband’s death (Davis, Martin 20). However, presenting Bertrande de Rols as a strong assertive woman Davis intentionally reveals that Bertrande is capable of doing more than the housework.

The main focus of the story is on Bertrande de Rols and her place in sixteenth century society, especially as a wife. At the age of nine, Bertrande was married to Martin Guerre who was a

War is a dangerous game, many people would likely agree to this, however, very few have ever seen a battlefront. The truth is that war, no matter how awful we can imagine it, is always exponentially worse. In Timothy Findley’s The Wars, Robert Ross, the protagonist,­ faces a situation that he finds difficult to come to terms with, and when faced with a similar situation later on in the novel, he must take drastic measures to reconcile the uncertainties of the past situation. Timothy Findley suggests, through the life of Robert Ross, that one’s need to reconcile the uncertainties of past experiences dominate our actions when such situations come up again in our lives. In the words of Hiram Johnson, a US Senator during the First World War,

The Return of Martin Guerre by Natalie Zemon Davis offers a detailed narrative of the famous story of Martin Guerre’s turbulent and unique life. At the center of this story lies Bertrande de Rols and her relationship with both her real husband Martin Guerre, and his crafty imposter Arnaud du Tilh (Pansette). Up until a certain point, Davis appears to be writing a straightforward retelling of the basic occurrences in Martin’s story (whilst citing various sources), devoid of any personal contentions. However, when Arnaud arrives under the guise of Martin Guerre, Davis begins to bring about an allegation of sorts. She casually begins to assert that after a certain point, Bertrande must have known that Pansette was certainly not Martin. While this

History is built on stories that were handed down from generation to generation. The beginning of humanity started the beginning of history. Humans started with telling stories orally and then they begin to write them down for others to read and interpret. There are two problems with the way stories are passed down. The first is that when passing down a story orally words can be switched around, omitted, or added, this could mean that a story could be changed easily. The second problem with stories is that when they are written, people read them, and a person can interpret the story anyway they like. Two people reading the same story could interpret it differently and both of their interpretations would be right. The Return of Martin Guerre

By 1898, the ubiquitous Dreyfus affair in France had developed into a situation in which French journalist Emile Zola felt that he needed to declare the truth of Dreyfus’s conviction. He published a letter addressed to the President of the French Republic, using the information he had. Emile Zola validly argues in “J’Accuse” that the court martial framed Captain Alfred Dreyfus of selling French military secrets to the Germans, and he uses the important arguments that the court martial conducted an unreasonable examination, unlawfully convicted him of treason, and wrongly protected and claimed Commander Esterhazy’s innocence. With this faulty conviction, Zola wrote, “France has this stain on her cheek” (1).

More than the simple absorbing of facts, the study of history relies heavily on the interpretation of said facts to reconstruct events as closely to the truth as possible. Historians go through evidences and interpret them, accepting some as crucial, dismissing others as unimportant or circumstantial at best. This means that no two historians are going to see an event in the exact same way or give equal weight to the same piece of evidence. The tragic demise of Anne Boleyn is one of those events in history that has been observed from any and all possible angle in order to understand what truly happened. And still, historians often disagree. This paper will attempt to show four historians’ perspective on the reason why Anne was accused of

The main topic of both the reading and the lecture is about the validity of the memoir written by Chevalier de Seingalt in the eighteenth century. The reading proposes three events in this memoir so as to question its accuracy. The lecture, however, repudiates the claims and provides three reasons to refute what is mentioned in the reading.