Reddit mentions of The Return of Martin Guerre

There is a good film on The Return of Martin Guerre if anyone wants to watch it. Its based upon the court documents of Jean de Coras who was a jurist during the trial of Arnaud du Tilh (I tried to hide it to not spoil the story but spoilers are not working). Its also based on Natalie Zernon Davis's and Janet Lewis's scholarship on the european witch craze.

The book: http://www.amazon.com/Return-Martin-Guerre-Natalie-Zemon/dp/0674766911

The film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084589/

There have long been 'passports' of one type or another for elite or emissaries; official papers which gave introductions and vested the bearer with certain powers, as well as transferring a certain amount of immunity to the bearer from local laws or customs, but essentially Rick Steves is correct; before the widespread implementation of railroads, there were not really any "passports" per se. But also, his explanation elides another development: nationalism.

Nationalism 'hardened' the borders between countries and separated "us" from "them" (i.e. "We are not French, we are Belgians"). Prior to the modern period, regional and even national identities were much more fluid and it was possible for someone born in, say, France to work for the Dutch navy, the Spanish army, or as a Russian engineer. A good example of this is the really interesting book "The Return of Martin Guerre" (see: http://www.amazon.com/Return-Martin-Guerre-Natalie-Zemon/dp/0674766911 there is also a movie with Gerard Depardieu if you'd rather watch the film).

Also, it overlooks the increase in wealth for an enlarging Middle Class; very few people had money to travel abroad in the 18th century, certainly not working class or middle class. But as the Industrial Revolution opened a lot of economic opportunities, and more wealth was acquired by a larger number of people, more opportunities for international travel presented themselves. With more people traveling, there was more need to document them by the host country.

So, steam travel, nationalism, and increasing wealth (as well as a whole host of other factors) conspired to make the passport a reality.

[Montaillou](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montaillou_(book) by Emmanuelle Roy la Durie is a classic social history, and actually pretty entertaining. Christopher Dyer is an English economic historian who's books Standards of Living in the Middle Ages and Making a Living in the Middle Ages seem exactly what you're looking for, though they are more academic.

I'd also recommend looking up some micro-histories. They're snapshots of events in the lives of medieval people. The Return of Martin Guerre is pretty famous and there's always like 5 copies in my local used bookshop. Giovanni and Lusanna is also good. I also have Stephen Bednarski's book on my shelf and it looks very interesting, but I haven't read it yet.

Edit: fixed link.

Oh there's so many good ones out there.

One of the most controversial, but also seminal works in the field is Natalie Zemon Davis' The Return of Martin Guerre which, significantly, she wrote after serving as a historical advisor to the production of a film of the same name. There's a lot in the book that old-timey historians would view as too tangential or even as blurring fiction and history, but Davis is a brilliant storyteller and a great historian.

Carlo Ginzburg's The Cheese and the Worms is another great storytelling exercise that is also a fascinating historical work.

I'm recommending these (which are more strictly 'microhistories' a subset of cultural history) because they're super readable, classics, and would probably appeal to what you're looking for. A great way to move away from the old 'date-name' crusty chronologies of schoolrooms and bring history and the people who lived in it (incidentally ordinary folks not kings, popes and emperors) into vivid focus.

>A few ways, first it showed me that white people weren't the only ones to displace Native Americans. Not only did the Spanish and Mexicans do it, but the Native Americans displaced people who were here before they crossed the land bridge. I learned a healthy respect for the values and traditions of the Native Americans who lived here, and found out that the beautiful California is very different from the one that existed long ago. From the vegetation to the population, it has changed.

A couple of questions: Do you not consider the Spanish to be white people? They were European invaders, after all, and arguably committed worse atrocities on the people they colonized than any other empire in recent history save, arguably, Belgium. Check out the writings of Bartolome de las Casas for more information.

How are you defining "Mexicans" here? Just as a nationality? If so, isn't the country made up of an extremely diverse mixture of people of Spanish, indigenous, and African descent? Some of them would certainly qualify as "white people," at least from an American perspective. I'm not super familiar with Mexican history, but how did the government displace Native Americans specifically?

>I agree, history should be learned and respected so we learn from it. But I fail to see what posthumously condemning actions that were, at the time, will do. Appreciate what they did right, learn from what they did wrong.

I don't think it's possible to learn from history without posthumously condemning heinous actions, even if they were accepted at the time as relatively normal. How else do you draw a distinction between the past and present and say, "Never again"? I might agree with you if the world was enjoying an era of peace and prosperity and humanity had collectively shed its history of violence, but unfortunately that is not the case. You can clearly see the mistakes of the past repeated over and over again from the human rights abuses of dictatorships to the expansionist propaganda of terrorist organizations to the petty mail bombs sent to political dissidents. Until those mistakes are no longer repeated, I think we owe it to ourselves as a species to keep reminding everyone around us of how we got here, especially if our ancestors did it the wrong way. You can celebrate achievements and condemn mistakes in the same breath.

>But I love that our ancestors began what has become this great country.

How do you feel about manifest destiny? I'm sure you'll disagree with this, and I know nothing can change the past, but there's no doubt in my mind that the world would be a better place if colonists had never invaded the Western Hemisphere. Or if that was inevitable, would you disagree that we could have treated indigenous populations with a modicum of human decency? Imagine if instead of lying and murdering and breaking treaties, Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase and then just gave the land to the Native Americans. The entire West would be left unscathed and millions of lives would be saved. Would the United States really be worse off today with a neighboring country run by mutually respected indigenous people and a slightly smaller empire?

>I would love that! Thank you very much! I find that utilizing different perspectives tends to give an accurate middle picture.

That's great to hear! The best way I can introduce you to historiography is the same way most college professors do it. It's kind of a big commitment, so I totally understand if you don't have the time or inclination to pursue it, but I'd love to hear your thoughts if you do.

Okay, so the basic outline is this: An author named Natalie Davis wrote a nonfiction book about the legendary court case of Martin Guerre, a 16th century Frenchman who was allegedly impersonated by a man who lived in his place for years before his wife noticed the switcheroo. Davis drew on a number of primary sources and turned the legend into an engaging, fact-based narrative. Enter Robert Finlay, a rival historian. He wasn't happy with the liberties Davis took with the story or her practice of history; the "nonfiction" book she wrote might as well have been fiction, according to Finlay. Davis and Finlay each took turns publishing papers that absolutely ripped each other's reputations apart. Who was right? What is the "correct" way to interpret history? That's the million dollar question of historiography.

So if you want to basically experience a freshman historiography class, start by reading Davis' book The Return of Martin Guerre. It's quite short.

Then, go ahead and read Finlay's rebuttal of the book. Here's a pdf.

Finally, read Davis' rebuttal of Finlay's rebuttal. Here's a pdf of that.

Then try to wrap your mind around the fact that literally every single detail we take for granted as historical "fact" has gone through a similar process of rebuttals upon rebuttals until one of them sticks. Usually it's the wrong one, at least in the case of popular history that most Americans think they know.