Elizabeth D.

Headrick

History vs. Hollywood: The Return of Martin Guerre

Spring 2015

It is a well-known fact that historical interpretation can vary wildly between what is

written in the pages of a book, and what is shown on a movie screen. In the normal course of

events, a book is written and then the movie rights are purchased, at which point a movie is made

that, more often than not, bears only a passing resemblance to its source material. It is a much

lamented process but largely standard for the industry. What is unusual is when a historian,

serving as an expert consultant for a movie, feels that the story is not being told as it should be,
 1

and decides to take matters into her own hands, which is exactly what Natalie Zemon Davis did,

when she released her non-fiction book, The Return of Martin Guerre 1 in 1983 in response to

the 1982 movie of the same name by French film director Daniel Vigne2. While Davis’ book was

largely well-received, some felt that she took too many unsubstantiated liberties, including

Italian Renaissance scholar Robert Finlay, who published a refutation of Davis’ version of events

in The American Historical Review in 19883. Davis admittedly delves into suppositions and

theories throughout her book however it is through these theories, and well-educated guesses that

the reader is provided with a more complete story of Martin Guerre and what may have truly

happened in the otherwise unremarkable sixteenth-century village of Artigat in southwestern

France.

By her own account, when Davis first encountered the source material regarding Martin

Guerre she immediately felt that it deserved cinematic treatment.4 She soon learned that there

was indeed a screenplay in the works and she began a collaboration with the director, Daniel

Vigne. It was only over the course of the filmmaking process that she began to sour on the idea.

The film departed from the historical record in many key ways, including the Guerre family’s

Basque heritage, which was important to an understanding of their later actions and decisions.

The filmmakers also removed all reference to the Protestant Reformation which was occurring at

this time, all over Europe and certainly in rural France. While one can understand why these

elements might be removed, given that most movies have only two, or possibly three hours to tell

their story, it does make for a much less rich experience. The deeper motivations of Martin

Guerre, the imposter Arnaud du Tilh, and Bertrande de Rols are left somewhat vague, with

1 Natalie Zemon Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre, (Cambridge, Mass. 1983).
2 The Return of Martin Guerre, film. Directed by Daniel Vigne, 1983.
3 Robert Finlay, “The Refashioning of Martin Guerre” AHR, 93 (June 1988)
4 Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre, viii.
 2

Bertrande appearing to be almost completely unaware of the imposter in her bed for three years.

While the movie provides an exciting and suspenseful story, as with most cinematic endeavors,

one must look to the source material for something closer to the truth.

As Davis watched the filmmaking process unfold, she realized that she wanted a more

accurate, and more fully fleshed-out portrayal of the Martin Guerre story, which is fascinating

enough in its own right. Through a thorough examination of the historical record, including local

histories, trial records, and the account of Jean de Coras, a judge at the trial of du Tilh, Davis

constructed what could be considered a much more interesting account of the Martin Guerre

story. Under Davis’ skillful touch the reader is introduced to a young Martin Guerre who makes

the unexplained decision to run from his life, including his young wife and son, with no

explanation and no word. Davis gives some account of his life after he ran, including his journey

into Spain and his employment in the home of a Catholic cardinal.5 From there it appears that he

passed into the Spanish Army in a battle against France, at which point he lost a leg, and was

then lost in the record.6 As for his young wife, Bertrande, she continued on with her life as best

as she could. According to Davis, Bertrande was left in a bit of a limbo, “Neither wife nor

widow…”7. It was into this vacuum that Arnaud du Tilh was able to slip, taking on the identity

of the long missing Martin Guerre, with what appears to be some ease. Davis portrays Bertrande

as being aware of the truth of the situation, but unwilling to call the lie because of the improved

marriage and stability that she was experiencing. The situation finally reached a head with

accusations from Martin’s uncle Pierre and the eventual and unforeseen return of the real Martin

Guerre. Davis’ portrayal, with some narrative license, is compelling and incredibly evocative of

5 Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre, 24.

6 Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre, 26.
7Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre, 33.
 3

the time period and the way in which a fraud like this might have been enacted, and believed.

Overall it was a well-written and largely well-received effort.

Some scholars however, including Robert Finlay, took issue with Davis’ take on the case,

and most especially, with her portrayal of Bertrande de Rols. In an article he wrote for The

American Historical Review in 1988, Finlay stated that Davis’ interpretation of Bertrande, and

her belief about Bertrande’s placement in this peasant society “...does not yield a portrait of

Bertrande that is either plausible or persuasive.”8 The alternative narrative that Finlay provides

leaves Bertrande as an entirely unknowing dupe up to to end of the charade. In fact, throughout

his article, Finlay appears to be incredibly offended that Davis would portray Bertrande as a

woman with her own deep strength who could be fully capable of not only knowing that the man

in her bed was not her husband, but also being entirely accepting of the situation. He laments that

she has been “refashioned into an assertive and principled champion”, a “sort of proto-feminist

of peasant culture”9. One can only surmise that Finlay believes all peasants, and most especially

women, to have been illiterate and incapable of cunning, much less the ability to comprehend the

long game in which they were engaged. While he does take some issue with Davis’ portrayal of

Arnaud du Tilh and Jean de Coras, he reserves the lion’s share of his spite for Bertrande de Rols

which might cause some to question his expertise in this subject.

Unwilling to let this stand, Davis composed a response to Finlay in her own article for the

same issue of The American Historical Review10. In her piece Davis calls out the differences

between herself and Finlay, and explains her research methods and her use of a more narrative

approach to the story, versus a strictly scholastic one, so as to make the story more widely

8Finlay, “Refashioning of Martin Guerre,” 557.

9Finlay, “Refashioning of Martin Guerre,” 570.
10 Natalie Zemon Davis “On the Lame” AHR, 93 (June 1988)
 4

readable11. Davis admits that there could be issues with this approach, including confusion for or

misrepresentation to the reader however there are copious footnotes to accommodate any

questions. She is also careful to point out that Finlay’s area of expertise is Renaissance Italy, not

peasant life in 16th century France, which is a subject in which she herself is well versed. Davis

then delves into a more in-depth discussion of Bertrande, taking down Finlay’s points one after

the other, demonstrating how messy history can be, in contrast to the black and white simplicity

that Finlay seems to prefer. Throughout her piece, Davis makes clear the liberties she has taken,

and the conclusions that she has drawn, and she is also clear about potential issues with these

conclusions. Davis never attempts to trick her readers or sell them false stories. In fact, her

overwhelming honesty lends itself to the belief that her interpretation is quite possibly the most

accurate and certainly the strongest. Not only does she provide a narrative, she gives the readers

everything they need to do their own research and make their own conclusion. There could be no

better interpretation than one that lets the reader make the decision for themselves and Davis has

done this quite handily.

11Davis “On the Lame”, 575