Introduction
Taking on an assumed character/name or deception concerning one’s identity is known as imposture. George Psalmanazar, Victor Lustig, Ferdindand Demara (The Great Impostor), Cassie Chadwick, Tichborne Claimant, Frank Abagnale (Catch Me If You Can), and a host of others have catapulted the act of imposture into a unique subculture with folkloric overtones of its own. Amongst this legendary cadre is 16th-century French peasant, Martin Guerre whose masquerade story, resulting in a malicious outcome, is chronicled in the early modern European account, “The Return of Martin Guerre.” The story takes place in Artigat, a Pyrenean village in southwestern France. At age eleven, Martin enters into a pre-arranged marriage with Bertrande de Rols, a member of an influential family in the village. A nine-year marriage, characterized by abuse and neglect on the part of Martin, ends when he abruptly leaves sparked by the accusation of stealing from his father.
After an eight-year interval, Martin returns with a surprisingly new demeanor especially epitomized in he is love and cares toward Bertrande and their son instead of their past relationship. This miraculous and drastic change in his personality ignites curiosity and suspicions among family members, friends, and villagers. Accusations continue to flare leading many to believe that the man who has returned to the village is an impostor claiming to be Martin Guerre.
Despite these allegations/concerns, Bertrande insists that the man is her husband and not an alleged impostor. She is sure that he is the man she married and has loved all along. The villagers, despite her convictions, demand a formal investigation via the court system with hopes of uncovering the truth. In the end, the so-called real Martin Guerre returns and the impostor is sentenced to death by hanging. This account was very popular in past times and continued so as evidenced in literature and film (The Two Dianas, The Wife of Martin Guierre-1947, Le Retour de Martin de Guerre-1982, and Summersby – 1993).
Arguments Presented by Historians Finlay and Davis
Most importantly, it has garnered the attention of many leading historians, among them Professor of European/World History Robert Finlay and Canadian/American Historian, Natalie Zemon Davis. Finlay received his doctorate from the University of Chicago in 1973. In 2007 he published “Weaving the Rainbow: Visions of Color in World History,” in the Journal of World History. In assessing the Guerre tale, Finlay remarks in his expose “The Refashioning of Martin Guerre” (The American Historical Review, June 1988), “It is the consensus, then, that The Return of Martin Guerre is a genuine rarity, a work of sophisticated scholarship with general appeal, a study that remains faithful to academic standards while conveying all the color and drama of a famous tale (Finlay, p.554).
A graduate of the University of Michigan ((1948), Davis has taught at Brown University, the University of Toronto, the University of California at Berkeley as well as Princeton. At one time the focus of writings, among them, Trickster Travels (2006), she has broadened her academic horizon to include other parts of Europe, North America, as well as the Caribbean. Entitled “On the Lame” (The American Historical Review, June 1988), Davis provides her synopsis of the Guerre account, describing it as imbued with “surprises and mysteries (Davis, p. 572).”
Finlay and Davis agree that the character Arnaud du Tilh is impersonated (Martin Guerre). Most importantly, they agree that the court’s involvement was surreptitiously cajoled based on mere speculations and not facts. Upon close examination of their respective arguments, however, their differences surface regarding their perspectives on how the story unfolded in terms of Guerre’s true identity and in particular the role of Bertrande.
Finlay disagrees with Davis’s analysis of “The Return of Martin Guerre” which elucidates that Bertrande was an accomplice in the crime with the supposed Martin Guerre. Finlay exposes impossibilities in Davis’ argument by advocating the traditional point of view which asserts Bertrand was the victim of a fraud. He believes she was swindled and therefore had no knowledge that the man she emotionally and sexually had become attached to for three years was not her husband. Davis contends that there were a plethora of visible signs which Bertrande should have comprehended to reveal Arnaud de Tilh as an impostor.
Among these visible allegations, Davis alludes to the fact that there were distinct facial and physical features/characteristics her husband had that the impostor did not. This reason alone should have caused her to be concerned and apprehensive (Davis, p. 578). She also argues that within the normal context of marital relations, it would be virtually impossible for a woman to mistake or forget the touch of her husband even if there had been an intermission from sexual relations.
As previously mentioned, Finlay’s portrayal claims that Bertrande was not cognisant of the impostor’s lies, and thus not a culprit. He suggests that Davis’ argument is embedded in mere conjectures and is not solid in comparison to the tale rendered by Jean de Coras.
Finlay further argues that intimacy in early modern Europe was quite different from that of contemporary society. He points out that in early modern Europe, husbands and wives slept with not just each other but family members and their livestock are as well. They were not granted privacy, thus opportunity eluded them to thoroughly explore the intricate details of their bodies. Finlay feels this key factor renders Davis’ claim null and void. Both Finlay and Davis offer outstanding commentaries and arguments on this tale considering that they were both working from the printed text and their imaginations/ perspectives.
When comparing the interpretations, however, Davis’ rendition is more plausible for a plethora of reasons. Finlay’s writing is well researched and exemplifies his ability to both evaluate and explain historical records. He does not, however, handle the materials in the same manner as Davis. An overwhelming percentage of Finlay’s arguments seem to only simply echo that of Jean de Coras, the French jurist who participated in the Guerre trial.
De Coras wrote his account entitled Arrest Memorable du Parlement de Tolose (1560). Finlay does do not present any new perspectives or provide evidence to substantiate the claim that Bertrande was the victim of a fraud. “In Coras’s eyes, she was a dupe, who, ‘given the weakness of her sex, [was] easily deceived by the cunning and craftiness of men.’ He considered her ignorant of Arnaud’s true identity, hence innocent of wrongdoing (Davis, p. 557). Most importantly, his stance or lack thereof only helps to support the notion that the so-called new Martin Guerre could indeed be an impostor. Finlay makes a case but does not prove his argument.
Davis’ approach is more convincing in terms of her handling of this ancient tale. Her reconstruction of this historical event results from the “recent innovations” that have taken place in anthropology, ethnography, as well as in literary criticisms (Finlay, p. 554). Inclusive in her argument is a new perception as it relates to marriage – “the invented marriage” founded on a false identity. She states “the invented marriage-the relationship that began with a false identity but was sustained by collaboration-in some kind of cultural understanding available to sixteenth-century peasants (Davis, p. 590).
For this reason, her argument is more persuasive. She does not solely depend on de Coras’s critique/testimony who in reality happens to be a man commenting on the behavior of women in the 16th century. She diligently takes into consideration a litany of factors such as historical context, gender roles, religion, and others, to bolster her arguments. After analyzing the original report, Davis concludes that Bertrande should have recognized the difference in body size, skin complexion, shoe size, and other physical characteristics of the impostor (Finlay, p. 558).
Finlay, in his rebuttal to this specific criticism, fails to offer a convincing explanation. Finlay argues that it took nine years for Martin and Bertrande’s marriage to be consummated and that he left her soon afterward. She had no way of being certain that the man who ‘returned’ to the village eight years later was not her husband.
Finlay argues that if the impostor had performed new sexual techniques (which Davis suggests that she should have noticed), Bertrande would have attributed these new techniques with this protracted “sexual absence”. On the surface, Finlay’s argument may seem plausible. A more detailed look, however, renders holes within it and does not address a key question. How it is possible for a woman to be married to a man for nine years as opposed to being with someone for three years, and not notice salient recognizable physical features/differences? Finlay’s criticism is in support of the impostor being mainly responsible where Davis attests that both the impostor and Bertrande are the culprits of a great fraud. While both, one more so than the other proves their arguments, other variant interpretations can be proposed as well.
The authentic Martin Guerre is traditionally portrayed as a moral character, a man who has been betrayed both by possible his friend, as well as by his wife. It is quite possible; therefore, that Martin Guerre could have been responsible for furtively orchestrating this bizarre and tragic situation. It can be reasonably argued that Martin was not really in love with Bertrande as their relationship was not initiated by their own choice but rather based on the decisions of those around him.
To bring an end to this relationship, it is inferred that he promises the impostor wealth and land as compensation for participating in a scheme that freed him from an unwanted marriage. If these suppositions hold, then it could also be argued that the time of sexual abstinence during their relationship was not caused by some unknown phenomena but rather he simply was not emotionally or physically attracted to Bertrande and thus desiring the right moment to bring closure to this forced union. This could explain why the real Martin Guerre did not manifest himself at the embryonic stages of the trial but waited until the final moments.
In doing so, it enables him to successfully argue that his wife was unfaithful, and as a result, legally grant him the right to divorce or put her aside. He is fully aware that within the male-dominated society in which he lives, his wife would be reprimanded and be seen as an adulterer by the courts. This immoral and surreptitious plan does not work out in Guerre’s favor. The courts do not find her guilty of compliance and thereby her reputation remains intact. Guerre’s ploy is tragically indicative of a stringent society in which prearranged marriage was common and divorce was looked upon unfavorable.
Conclusion
“The Story of Martin Guerre” contains an array of themes (imposture, marriage, gender roles, happiness/unhappiness, etc.) that are reflective even today. Truth, doubt, self-fashioning, lying, and deception/self-deception come to the forefront. Deception is the ability to convince most people that a lie is the truth and/or that the truth is a lie- thus the lie becomes institutionalized. Its effects/ramifications above all are far-reaching and can evolve from an individual tragedy to a societal one. Most importantly, imposture encompasses self-deception which is even more detrimental. Suffice to say, “The Story of Martin Guerre” and others of its kind only reveal that no one benefits and all suffer from this infringement on the human experience.
Reference List
Davis, Natalie Zemon. “On the Lame.” The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 3. (1988), pp. 572-603.
Finlay, Robert. The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 3. (1988), pp. 553-571.