The Return Of Martin Guerre Analysis
The Truth of Knowing Throughout this semester of Paideia, I have read several books in which one or more of the characters know the truth about a certain matter and the others do not. The characters that know the truth then have to decide what to do with the truth. Do they keep it to themselves or share it with others? When both options have advantages and disadvantages, the person who has to make the choice is in a tough spot. This scenario has happened in two separate readings this semester: one in The Return of Martin Guerre and the other in The Allegory of the Cave. Using those two texts, I will be able to provide evidence that knowing the truth sometimes involves personal consequences or obligations. Natalie Zemon Davis’s book entitled The Return of Martin Guerre is a nuanced story of a man, Martin Guerre. Guerre disappeared from his family without leaving any notice. Eight years after his disappearance, he supposedly returned to his village. His family and friends were surprised at his arrival since he had been gone quiet some time. Bertrande, Guerre’s wife, gladly welcomed him home. The couple soon had a child after his return. After a few
…show more content…
years had past, Guerre got into a dispute with his uncle and eventually ended up in prison. During the trial for Guerre, the real Martin Guerre appeared in the courtroom (Sullivan 16). However, Bertrande knew all along that the new Martin was not her actual husband.
Bertrande knew at the point of the imposter’s arrival that he was not her husband, however she hid the truth because the new Martin was what she actually wanted in a husband. Since Bertrande was married at such a young age and her father arranged it, she was never in a happy relationship with the real Martin. So when the imposter came around she could not turn down “her dream come true, a man she could live with in peace and friendship and in passion (Davis 44). Bertrande’s love for the new Martin was also shown by how much she did for him. It is recorded that when he was released from prison later in the story, she gave him a white shirt, washed his feet and invited him back into her bed (Davis 44). She was passionate for the new Martin and made sure he was well taken care of. If she had reported the imposter right away, she would not have been able to have her “dream husband”. In order for Bertrande to justify her actions, she was obligated to change her religion. Bertrande was known for being an honorable woman and concerned about her reputation thus, since she was having sexual relations with a man other than her husband, she was breaking Catholic Law. Under Protestant Marriage Law, Bertrande would have been able to divorce her former husband (the real Martin) after a year wait and then marry the imposter: something she was unable to do under Catholic Law. Switching her religion was just one more way for Bertrande to justify knowing the truth about Martin. However, it did not take long for Bertrande’s family to speculate the validity of the new Martin. After the imposter got into an argument with Bertrande’s uncle, her mother and stepfather tried to stop her. Her parents threatened to kick her out of the house if she did not side with her uncle against the imposter. Bertrande decided to go against the imposter, knowing that if she won, the punishment placed upon the imposter, in which she loved, would be unpleasant. She understood that since she knew the truth about the imposter, it would be a personal consequence; she would obey her parents and possibly win the case against her lover or get kicked out of her parents house to stick with the imposter whom she knew would get caught eventually. Bertrande was enjoying her new life with the new Martin but she knew she would be back to reality soon. The consequence of not reporting the imposter was that she would eventually have to go back to her old life after having a “free trial” of the good life. A similar situation happened in Socrates’ The Allegory of the Cave.
Socrates describes a character that had been chained up facing a wall in a dark cave. On the opposite side of the wall there was a fire, and between the fire and the chained up man, there was a walkway. Since the man was never freed from the chains, the only thing he knew was the shadows shown on the wall from the objects walking across the walkway. Once the man was let free from the chains, he was able to see what was producing the images on the wall. From there, he was lead outside to see the sun and all the earth was made of. Compared to the men still chained up in the cave, he would know the truth. The man would learn that the sun creates the seasons and allows men to see. He would know that life in the cave is not all that there is in the
world. Now that the man knows the truth about what is outside of the cave, he has to decide what to do with his newfound knowledge. Does he share it with his fellow cave mates or keep it to himself? The consequence of sharing it with his cave mates is that they might not believe him. Socrates explains that if he had to compete once again with the prisoners in recognizing the shadows while his sight was still dim from coming in from the bright sunlight, it is possible that he would not be able to tell what the shadows were (210). Thus, if the man were to tell the prisoners about the outside world and then not be able to identify the objects once back in the cave, it would seem as if he was lying about knowing what was outside. Such situation would lead to the man feeling frustrated since he had just been enlightened by the outside. The other prisoners would shut down his optimism and likely cause the man to never go back into the world since the consequence of knowing the truth would lead to shaming by the other men. However, what if the man would have kept the truth to himself and not have descended back down into the cave. Maybe he could have ventured further out of the cave to obtain yet more knowledge about the world. In doing so, he would not have had to get ridiculed by the prisoners doubt about his new knowledge. On the other hand, if the man did not feel obligated to share his knowledge, it is possible that he would live in guilt. His guilt could come from not sharing with the other prisoners about what good there is outside of the cave. It is possible that since he never told the prisoners about the greater world, they would never come up to see it for themselves. He could also feel guilty by taking advantage of the knowledge he was given when he was freed from the cave. If it weren’t for the person who dragged the man up from the cave to see the outside world, he himself would have never been able to know the truth. In the end, the man who knew the truth about the world outside of the cave was put into a tough situation. He either had to suffer the consequences of going back into the cave to tell the other prisoners or living in the guilt of not sharing his knowledge. As I think about the two situations these characters were in, about how knowing the truth can lead to personal consequences or obligations, my own life comes into mind.
As a future nurse and educated college graduate, I feel it is very important to share my knowledge by teaching/enlightening others. By the end of my time here at Luther, I will not only be able to graduate with a degree in nursing but also with a broad knowledge and understanding of the world. As a nurse, I will be able to use my knowledge to heal God’s people and also teach patients how to care for and prevent further sickness. However I know there will be personal consequences/obligations as a nurse. Some examples are working on the weekends or holidays, having long shifts, possibly getting sick from my patients and having to work well over my scheduled shift. But as a person who is passionate about helping others, I do not see sharing my knowledge as a nurse as being a consequence of the above mentioned examples. I eventually want to attend graduate school to get my Masters in Nursing so I can share my knowledge of nursing with other future nurses.
As I think back on my first year at Luther, I am grateful for being able to learn and expand my knowledge by attending a liberal arts college. I thank Paideia for encouraging me to think on a deeper level and for opening up my mind to new ideas and ways to think.
years had past, Guerre got into a dispute with his uncle and eventually ended up in prison. During the trial for Guerre, the real Martin Guerre appeared in the courtroom (Sullivan 16). However, Bertrande knew all along that the new Martin was not her actual husband.
Bertrande knew at the point of the imposter’s arrival that he was not her husband, however she hid the truth because the new Martin was what she actually wanted in a husband. Since Bertrande was married at such a young age and her father arranged it, she was never in a happy relationship with the real Martin. So when the imposter came around she could not turn down “her dream come true, a man she could live with in peace and friendship and in passion (Davis 44). Bertrande’s love for the new Martin was also shown by how much she did for him. It is recorded that when he was released from prison later in the story, she gave him a white shirt, washed his feet and invited him back into her bed (Davis 44). She was passionate for the new Martin and made sure he was well taken care of. If she had reported the imposter right away, she would not have been able to have her “dream husband”. In order for Bertrande to justify her actions, she was obligated to change her religion. Bertrande was known for being an honorable woman and concerned about her reputation thus, since she was having sexual relations with a man other than her husband, she was breaking Catholic Law. Under Protestant Marriage Law, Bertrande would have been able to divorce her former husband (the real Martin) after a year wait and then marry the imposter: something she was unable to do under Catholic Law. Switching her religion was just one more way for Bertrande to justify knowing the truth about Martin. However, it did not take long for Bertrande’s family to speculate the validity of the new Martin. After the imposter got into an argument with Bertrande’s uncle, her mother and stepfather tried to stop her. Her parents threatened to kick her out of the house if she did not side with her uncle against the imposter. Bertrande decided to go against the imposter, knowing that if she won, the punishment placed upon the imposter, in which she loved, would be unpleasant. She understood that since she knew the truth about the imposter, it would be a personal consequence; she would obey her parents and possibly win the case against her lover or get kicked out of her parents house to stick with the imposter whom she knew would get caught eventually. Bertrande was enjoying her new life with the new Martin but she knew she would be back to reality soon. The consequence of not reporting the imposter was that she would eventually have to go back to her old life after having a “free trial” of the good life. A similar situation happened in Socrates’ The Allegory of the Cave.
Socrates describes a character that had been chained up facing a wall in a dark cave. On the opposite side of the wall there was a fire, and between the fire and the chained up man, there was a walkway. Since the man was never freed from the chains, the only thing he knew was the shadows shown on the wall from the objects walking across the walkway. Once the man was let free from the chains, he was able to see what was producing the images on the wall. From there, he was lead outside to see the sun and all the earth was made of. Compared to the men still chained up in the cave, he would know the truth. The man would learn that the sun creates the seasons and allows men to see. He would know that life in the cave is not all that there is in the
world. Now that the man knows the truth about what is outside of the cave, he has to decide what to do with his newfound knowledge. Does he share it with his fellow cave mates or keep it to himself? The consequence of sharing it with his cave mates is that they might not believe him. Socrates explains that if he had to compete once again with the prisoners in recognizing the shadows while his sight was still dim from coming in from the bright sunlight, it is possible that he would not be able to tell what the shadows were (210). Thus, if the man were to tell the prisoners about the outside world and then not be able to identify the objects once back in the cave, it would seem as if he was lying about knowing what was outside. Such situation would lead to the man feeling frustrated since he had just been enlightened by the outside. The other prisoners would shut down his optimism and likely cause the man to never go back into the world since the consequence of knowing the truth would lead to shaming by the other men. However, what if the man would have kept the truth to himself and not have descended back down into the cave. Maybe he could have ventured further out of the cave to obtain yet more knowledge about the world. In doing so, he would not have had to get ridiculed by the prisoners doubt about his new knowledge. On the other hand, if the man did not feel obligated to share his knowledge, it is possible that he would live in guilt. His guilt could come from not sharing with the other prisoners about what good there is outside of the cave. It is possible that since he never told the prisoners about the greater world, they would never come up to see it for themselves. He could also feel guilty by taking advantage of the knowledge he was given when he was freed from the cave. If it weren’t for the person who dragged the man up from the cave to see the outside world, he himself would have never been able to know the truth. In the end, the man who knew the truth about the world outside of the cave was put into a tough situation. He either had to suffer the consequences of going back into the cave to tell the other prisoners or living in the guilt of not sharing his knowledge. As I think about the two situations these characters were in, about how knowing the truth can lead to personal consequences or obligations, my own life comes into mind.
As a future nurse and educated college graduate, I feel it is very important to share my knowledge by teaching/enlightening others. By the end of my time here at Luther, I will not only be able to graduate with a degree in nursing but also with a broad knowledge and understanding of the world. As a nurse, I will be able to use my knowledge to heal God’s people and also teach patients how to care for and prevent further sickness. However I know there will be personal consequences/obligations as a nurse. Some examples are working on the weekends or holidays, having long shifts, possibly getting sick from my patients and having to work well over my scheduled shift. But as a person who is passionate about helping others, I do not see sharing my knowledge as a nurse as being a consequence of the above mentioned examples. I eventually want to attend graduate school to get my Masters in Nursing so I can share my knowledge of nursing with other future nurses.
As I think back on my first year at Luther, I am grateful for being able to learn and expand my knowledge by attending a liberal arts college. I thank Paideia for encouraging me to think on a deeper level and for opening up my mind to new ideas and ways to think.