“the true face of the past.”
The entire purpose of the book is to discover what really happened with the story of Martin Guerre, his wife and his imposter. The central mystery of the tale is whether Martin’s wife Bertrande really could have been fooled into thinking the imposter was the husband she had not seem for eight years. Or did she know the truth the whole time and simply go along for the ride? By the end, the author frames her conclusions through metaphor:
“I think I have uncovered the true face of the past.”
It is perhaps necessary to add that not all critics of the text agree.
Protestantism
One of the arguments in favor of Bertrande knowing the imposter was not her husband is situated within the theory that the imposter—Arnauld de Tilh—might have been exposed to exciting new Protestant ideas which would have stood in stark relief to the predominant Catholicism of most French citizens. One of those ideas would have been that the sin of marital union not ceremonially consecrated by God was matter of interest between only themselves and God. The somewhat morally ambiguous nature of this concept is captured in a metaphorical description of the town where it turns out the imposter had come from; a place where
“Protestant ideas were flowing along the fleece, grain and wine.”
“Cast under a spell”
Of course, there is a much stronger reason that Bertrand might have been so willing to go along with the imposter. Ironically, that very reason also presents one of the strongest arguments condemning her as a liar when she claimed to have actually thought Martin had returned. Martin Guerre—the real Martin Guerre—was impotent. Such was the distress this condition placed upon the marriage that it was widely believed Bertrande and Martin had been “cast under a spell.”
Could Bertrande have been Duped?
The mysterious circumstances surrounding the two Martin Guerres rests upon whether one believes or disbelieves the possibility that a wife really could mistake two different men for her husband after not seeing that husband for nearly a decade. Some reject it outright, but others are less quick to condemn human nature by praising the complications of the species. The author quotes French philosopher Michel de Montaigne to reveal through metaphor that even some very educated people have been willing to accept that Bertrande could have been duped.
“Truth and falsehood have both alike countenances…we behold them both with the same eye.”
The Second Martin Guerre
Jean de Coras presided over the trial of Arnauld de Tilh. At one point, an argument on behalf of the defendant takes the form of justifying his actions on the ground of his simply being an unusually inventive person, capable of tricking even a wife into believing he was her husband. Coras rejects it and the author penetrates into his mind to suggest that the rejection was absolute under terms of French Catholic legal code:
“Arnaud was a magican, aided by an evil spirit.”
