Natalie Davis’s is looking at this case from a historian’s perspective as Jean de Coras being the judge at the time was looking at the case through the claims of everyone involved. Of course, there are going to be clear bias’s and different reasons they think what might have happened. Davis had an opinion on what they believed Bertrande knew and about when she discovered it wasn’t really her husband. I don’t believe that we will truly know the full truth of what happened back then considering everyone is dead now and don’t only proof of this is through court files.
Bertrande tells the court that she denies knowing that Arnaud was not her Martin. Coras believed that since she spent four years with this man than she had to at some point question about Arnaud not being Martin. It could have been very possible but Bertrande had a very good reputation of being loyal and virtuous. However, Davis has a bit of different outlook of when she might have known about Arnaud. Davis sides more with what Bertrande had said in court, she didn’t know about Arnaud the whole time they lived together. …show more content…
Martin left 8 years ago, after they have conceived a child. Since that in the eyes of the church divorce was not an option, but since a man that she got along with betrayed to be her husband was about the best she could make of her situation. If she would have been a protestant than her divorce of Martin could have been possible because of his desertion. She clearly loved this man by stepping in front of him getting beat up, defending him in court, and having a child with Arnaud. When Martin had finally come back and everyone realized that it was the true Martin, I still don’t think that Arnaud should have been hung since he had already made a life with his