| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
 |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Guerre
| Martin Guerre, a French peasant of the 16th century, was at the center of a famous case of imposture. Several years after he had left his family, a man claiming to be Guerre took his name and lived with Guerre's wife and son for three years. After a trial, during which the real Martin Guerre returned, the impostor Arnaud du Tilh was discovered and executed. The case continues to be studied and dramatized to this day. |
The real Martin leaves his wife, and then a fake Martin comes on the scene after 8 years. (Historians debate whether the fake Martin actually fooled his wife).
People started to suspect that the fake Martin was fake and the affair went to trial.
| But then dramatically the true Martin Guerre appeared during the very trial, with a wooden leg. When asked about their past, the new Martin was able to answer some questions better than the "old" one, who had forgotten several details. But when the two were presented to the Guerre family, the case was closed: Pierre, Bertrande, and Martin's four sisters all agreed that the old one was the true one. The impostor, who maintained his innocence, was convicted and sentenced to death for adultery and fraud. |
Here is what the real Martin was doing during his absence:
| During the absence from his family, the real Martin Guerre had moved to Spain, served for a cardinal, and then later in the army of Pedro de Mendoza. As part of the Spanish army, he was eventually sent to Flanders and participated in the Spanish attack on St. Quentin on August 10, 1557. There he was wounded and his leg had to be amputated. He then lived in a monastery before returning to his wife. The reason for his returning at the very time of the trial remains unknown. Initially, he rejected his wife's apologies, maintaining that she should have known better than to take another man. |
A Princeton history professor wrote a book about this case. Why haven't they figured out that discussion about this case belongs in the Romance Novel department, not the History department?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| A Princeton history professor wrote a book about this case. Why haven't they figured out that discussion about this case belongs in the Romance Novel department, not the History department? |
It smacks of fantasy but doesn't it reflect a real-life situation, the Returning Soldier syndrome? A bit like fairy-tales which have all kinds of socio-economic undercurrents, the story reveals the sense of strangeness between people who've become strangers to their wives and communities perhaps. It happened in the aftermath of WWI and II too. It's the imposter bit that's different in the Martin Guerre saga but presumably it was the only way to get round the problem of bigamy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
It didn't happen Hatty.
It might be "truthy" but it ain't true.
I have four essential rules for detecting hoaxes in history (I have outlined these elsewhere) but augmenting them is a fifth principle: If the story is compelling, it's fiction.
All the most popular periods in History -- the ones that get made repeatedly into films -- are (most likely) made-up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
The question that I really want to get answered is how and when the plot of a romance novel made its way into the historical record. What is the primary source for the story? When was that source "discovered"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | It smacks of fantasy but doesn't it reflect a real-life situation, the Returning Soldier syndrome...the story reveals the sense of strangeness between people who've become strangers to their wives and communities perhaps. It happened in the aftermath of WWI and II too. |
Interesting. But doesn't this support the fact that the story is a fable or allegory. His birth name was Martin Daguerre (Martin of War?) and then it was later changed to Martin Guerre. Maybe the story is meant to be a way of explaining shell-shock (Post Stress Traumatic Syndrome).
I wonder when shell-shock was first recognized? Wikipedia says WWI. But I wonder if it was before then. (Of course, it would have had another name.)
Did any Shakespeare characters have shell-shock?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| But doesn't this support the fact that the story is a fable or allegory. |
Yes, that's what I was thinking. Not so much shell-shock as the problem of reintegration after a prolonged absence, the crusader wouldn't necessarily find his slippers warming by the fire. He might indeed have returned 'a changed man' metaphorically speaking.
| Did any Shakespeare characters have shell-shock? |
Interesting thought. Shakespeare certainly humanised the common-or-garden soldier but I doubt 'shell-shock' would've been part of the fighting man's experience, he participated in seasonal campaigns rather than several years' worth of unrelenting bombardment so the question of identity wouldn't be relevant either. Falstaff epitomises battle-weariness and the understandable desire to stay alive ("discretion is the better part of valour" and all that), a far cry from the ethos of the housecarls and Beowulf .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| If the story is compelling, it's fiction. |
This is in fact rather close to an Applied Epistemology precept: academic versions are always more interesting than true ones. The reason is that The Academy has a higher purpose than The Truth which is to fill lecture-time, sell books etc.
This is not to be understood in any cynical way, it's just the way humans are. We prefer the interesting to the banal and history in which not much happens will not get many takers.
AE insists on various truthfulness-aids such as Occam's Razor and What Is is What Was etc. But mainly we just go through the orthodox version with a blue pencil looking for purple prose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
