“Glad to meet you again, Captain Morsirisse,” said Henri de Valfort, as a coughing spell forced him to cover his reddened face with a white handkerchief, quickly pulled out of his pocket. “How are you, Henri?” I asked, showing concern over the respiratory distress in which I found him struggling. The death of his brother had taken its toll. He seemed to be in a febrile state of health. He nodded to me with friendliness, a novel familiarity, uncharacteristic of what I had been able to observe in his behavior during previous encounters. As I was precisely mingling with the memory of our past conversations, out of my recollections, jumped the familiar sensation that there was a ‘je ne sais quoi’ unusual in him. What was it, again?! I was still …show more content…
“And if that is the case,” I concluded, “… if this anonymous message tells the truth, I feel the responsibility to discover who killed the Baron de Valfort… As you know, he was my client….” Henri did not answer. “You don’t seem to be surprised,” I said. "“Are you the one who sent me the clumsy messenger with his clumsy message?” “Don’t be absurd!” He now, exploded. “Why should I do that? Why should I need a note to tell you, anonymously, what I already told you directly, and many times? Someone murdered my brother!” “Do you suspect anyone?” “No. Of course not! Nevertheless, I maintain that he didn’t take his own life. I couldn’t say why, but I know he didn’t. What does it matter, anyway? The Commissaire Girodot is formal in his conclusion!” “He may change his mind if I showed him a proof. So far, he remains obnubilated by the room locked from the inside. It is, indeed, a fact that appears to defy logic when it comes to any murder scenario. I cannot blame him for that. It’s for me to discover the
Martin Guerre’s Return Natalie Zemon Davis wrote about a sixteenth century infamous court case of the question of the identity of Martin Guerre. She uses two sources for her essay which were Jean de Coras and Guillaume Le Sueur. Coras was one of the judges at the Criminal Chamber at the Parlement of Toulouse and Le Sueur was training at Toulouse to work in civil law (72, 94). She argues on the marite of Bertrande de Rols’ defense of her ignorance of the impostor Arnaud du Tilh as her husband. Davis was correct to conclude Bertrande and Arnaud colluded to create what she calls the “invented marriage.”
The reader is about to encounter life-saving and brave individuals during a shocking period of history. The structure of a 1907 novel that describes Englishmen rescuing members of the French aristocracy during the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution can be examined. For example, the author uses diction and a strong choice of words to appeal to the reader’s feelings and emotions. Moreover, the author also uses pathos, ethos, and logos and supporting quotes to enhance the story. The author’s diction and use of pathos, ethos, and logos help to form a theme that pertains to the bravery of the characters in the story.
" I want to tell you first about myself. I did not do it. And I didn't see the one who did. So it would be unjust if I should come to grief" (scene 1 lines 253-256). His own guards fear for their lives, fearing what he might do.
There are many mysteries about the Gunpowder Plot that have never been satisfactorily explained. It is not clear why an intelligent man like Catesby thought that such a scheme would work or why he imagined that if it did work, a small group of Catholics could seize the reins of government. Nor is it clear why the King and Lord Salisbury immediately interpreted Monteagle‘s letter to mean that a gunpowder plot was intended. Also it is odd that although the letter was received on October 26, the search of the cellars was not carried out until November 4. Nevertheless, the detailed confessions that have survived, including that of Guy Fawkes, make it difficult to believe, as has been argued, that the whole story was invented by Lord Salisbury to strengthen his position in the government of James I.
This being said, it must be taken into consideration that The Return of Martin Guerre uses little concrete factual evidence to support all of Davis’ claims. She may incorporated bias into her explanations for the actions of Bertrande, and she has no way of knowing for certain the thought processes and ideas of de Rols. Davis often makes statements that seem as if she is certain of the notions of Bertrande, using words such as “must have”, and statements such as these should be taken extremely lightly. If she wishes to psychologically analyze Bertrande she should ensure that she uses language that makes it apparent that there is no record of what Bertrande de Rols knew or desired. Davis sheds a new light upon the events of the Martin Guerre mystery and how du Tilh possibly got away with his charade, but her claims should not be considered historical fact.
So [she] killed him… ‘whoever done [the murder], they’re not going to be carrying a thing like that around with them longer than they need.’ ... ‘personally, I think
Shaking his fist, he declared, “They’ll discover secrets that are none of their business. It’s not going to happen! Somehow, I’ll stop them.” Dialing the phone, he said, “Hey, it’s me. I need your help.
Saxton gives me a strained look. “Your brother went missing and you never bothered to call his cell phone?” “No, I called him at least a dozen times. He never picked up.” I tell him.
"You seen the cops about this?" "Nah. The King's Men aren't interested in anything to do with his death. They say they did all they could do in trying to put him together again after the fall." I leaned back in my chair.
Dantes is taken to him first about his arrest. Villefort says that he will do whatever he can to prove Dantes’ innocence, however, when Villefort sees Noirtier, his father’s name on the letter, he is shocked “A thunderbolt could not
Here, help me open this bottle and let us get comfortable. What brings you here; not just to say ‘hello’ to an old man?” he said with another great smile. “Of course, Grandpa, I wanted to see you but I did want you to know what is going on with my and naturally, your family.
In the middle of the 12th century, King Henry II had a friend and trusted confidante in the person of Thomas Becker. In late 1170, Henry II’s words would incite four knights to murder Becket. In this paper, we will examine the proposition that Becket deliberately pursued a policy that led to his murder to advance his cause. Becket was the son of a London merchant, by training an accountant, who rose to become the Archbishop of Canterbury. Becket had worked for his cousin who was a banker.
Louis' POV: "Tom Richards" I heard Simon say. That was the last name, the last one that made it through. It was over now. Tom left and the place was filled with frustration. I could see it in everyone's faces, the tears trying to escape from their eyes.
Montresor and I have had mann “incidents” over the past few years. Some that may appear as insults to others. In result of my so-called ignorance, has led us to not speak for months on end. The next time that me and Montresor had met up was during carnival season. I can remember it as clear as day.
The use of unknown in the book ‘Death in Venice’ has a significant impact on the message that the narrator is communicating. The author of the book has used interruptions to make the traits of Aschenbach