Historiography in The Return of Martin Guerre Albert Chen, 32046120

The essence of the controversy over The Return of Martin Guerre, as argued by Robert Finlay, is that Davis's rendition of Bertrande is based heavily on conjecture and shaky evidence from primary sources. While the book does possess a significant amount of speculation, Davis's approach to the book allowed her to explore the idea of a female with agency, not simply a "woman-easily-deceived".1 Davis's book argues that Bertrande was a willing participant in the deception. Necessarily, this required a significant amount of creative interpretation of the source material, which universally considered Bertrande an easily-fooled dupe. In Davis's version of events, Bertrande hides her complicity; this means that the judges never suggest otherwise, having been taken in by the deception. As Finlay notes, "no one [..] until Davis" suggested the idea that Bertrande was not deceived.2 Finlay argues that Davis goes too far with the assumptions and hypotheses she makes, noting that evidence, when provided, is weak or contradictory, and that at certain places Davis has little evidence to argue from at all. As compared to Davis's, Finlay's interpretation of the trial is less imaginative, but better supported by the primary sources. However, Davis's approach enables historians to consider viewpoints which require a certain degree of conjecture. Certainly, The Return provides a plausible interpretation of events, if not one strongly supported by the available accounts. While not without flaws, there is merit in the approach Davis uses in her recounting of the imposture of Martin Guerre.

1 2

The Return of Martin Guerre, 68. Robert Finlay, The Refashioning of Martin Guerre, 555.