The psychological analysis offered in several sections — about what isolation does to human beings, about the sustaining role of religious practice, about the psychology of survival — draws on general knowledge about human psychology rather than on specific documentation of Marguerite’s interior experience.

It is offered as context and possible understanding, not as fact.

This approach may frustrate readers who want a more confident narrative.

But the alternative — presenting speculation as established fact, filling gaps with invention, claiming certainty the record does not support — would misrepresent both the historical person and the nature of historical knowledge.

Marguerite de la Rocque deserves better than that.

She was real.