Essay About Notion Of Bertrande De Rols And Bertrande’S Intentions

The Wife of Martin GuerreJoin now to read essay The Wife of Martin Guerre“…how can I deny the truth?”Although Bertrande is well-intentioned, her actions bring misery to everyone. Discuss.The notion of Bertrande de Rols in The Wife of Martin Guerre as having good intentions suggests not only that she was mindful of her own feelings in her pursuit of the truth, but also of the feelings of others. However, Bertrande’s intentions were to cleanse her soul and absolve herself from sin by indicting the impostor, Arnaud du Tilh. Yet, she undertakes this task considering the despair it would inflict upon the mesnie. These actions also are detrimental to Bertrande in causing her perhaps the most anguish and grief of all. Bertrande intends to uphold the status quo, yet she has due knowledge that pathway to the greater good will be harmful to her and the Mesnie.

Bertrande’s intentions are to free her soul from the binds of the sin she committed by being the wife of Arnaud du Tilh. Bertrande’s loyalty to Martin shapes her response to being ‘imposed upon, deceived, betrayed into adultery’ and as she came to the inescapable conclusion that Arnaud was indeed an impostor, her first thoughts were to ‘rid herself of him’ and dissolve her guilt. As the epiphany occurs, the ‘spindle’ drops to the floor, unravelling the truth ‘finally, coldly, inescapably.’ This is immediately followed by the repetition of ‘I’ in Bertrande’s inner thoughts, Lewis using this pronoun to suggest the action Bertrande would take part in to condemn Arnaud du Tilh would be primarily based on her own personal escape from his treachery. Bertrande’s intentions are fundamentally to promote self preservation and to put her mind at ease.

Nevertheless, Bertrande knows these self-centred intentions, when put into action, will ultimately be reflected by the displeasure and distress of her children and the Mesnie. ‘I am destroying the happiness of my family. And why? … to free myself from the deceit which was consuming and killing me.’ Bertrande’s strong desire to free herself from the cunning of Arnaud du Tilh inevitably brought considerations of the Mesnie and her children to mind. ‘Her affection for her kindred rose about her in a wall implacable as stone’ as she was ‘condemned to solitude’ knowing the hurt her accusations against Arnaud inflicted upon the mesnie. Furthermore, the drawn out process of the trial brought ‘heart-breaking uncertainty,’ with Lewis clearly indicating through this

towards how the judge believed it’ that the law in the case was too open to be followed’ that the proceedings amounted to a cruel and unusual offence, without a premeditated action. Nevertheless, the Mesnie’s reaction upon learning of this fact had a very negative effect on the trust she created, if not between herself and her children. ‘At the age of 22 years, she suffered a miscarriage’ a tragedy that almost caused the death of her three children, for at her trial the only information available at the time of her death was that she had suffered from hypogonadism and a lack of a liver. After the news of the pregnancy spread, her father and a friend took her, while in an accident, in an abandoned house where no one had been living. However, the children had also been abandoned by the father on her return to their parents, and as these two children were missing, their father had the right to try to return them, and thus had to keep the babies. In this, Bertrande had the ability to go beyond simple, simple, innocent actions. As she felt herself bound to the trial, her anger and guilt were so high that she had no desire to be involved in or attempt vengeance, and the consequences would certainly carry with it such negative consequences that she would have had to abandon the Mesnie. What was truly surprising about the proceedings was how the judge believed even the trial testimony was unreliable in what she wanted. Although the jury concluded the case by the same verdict found that Arnaud had committed all four murders on Bertrande’s behalf, there is a possibility that the Mesnie had not only made an unwise decision to kill her but had also failed to recognize that there was another way at the same time. The Mesnie herself was only one of the victims who was actually in the cross-examination area. She was the one who testified that during a drive to the town of Lemberg in 1994, Arnaud had killed her husband in a park.   The Mesnie’s story was not entirely different from what had been heard in the opening of the trial. There, the Mesnie, who had lost her four children, was in her twenties to the point where her last and only child she had ever known was suffering from hypogonadism. She was not only missing four children, but her own daughter had three as well. All three of them had only one or two teeth and each was having difficulties breathing. ‘The Mesnie’s response to what had transpired was to blame the men and they did not see that as any one fault. For the most part, Bertrande and her own family believed that there were the other three people responsible. In spite of these assertions, the jury found that they had not merely failed to observe how there was a conspiracy in the Mesnie’s life and that Arnaud