The Necklace by Guy de Maupassant
Interactive Notes by Alfred Tom
Characters
Madame Mathilde Loisel is the central character of this story and the conflicts revolve around her. Those possible conflicts are character vs. self and character vs. society. Character vs. Self is evidenced by Mathilde simply being unhappy about her lot in life and essentially making herself miserable (“…she was as unhappy as though she had married beneath her..” pg. 1, “She suffered from the poorness of the her house, from its mean walls, worn chairs, and ugly curtains” pg. 1). This unhappiness continues even when her doting husband brings her an invitation to a ball he had hoped would “delight” her (pg. 1). Instead of joy, she is furious and complains, “And what do you suppose I am to wear to such an affair?” (pg. 1). This leads to the purchasing of a new dress and, on the advice of her husband, her borrowing Madame Forestier’s diamond necklace (pg. 2). Mathilde Loisel, one could argue, is foisting this unhappiness upon herself as denoted in the line, “All these things, of which other women of her class would not even have been aware, tormented and insulted her” (pg. 1). The narrator is telling the reader that Mathilde is different by her desire for things above her station in life. Most women of her stature would not be concerned with these items and dreams but nonetheless, Mathilde is. She is her own worst enemy by wanting and desiring these things. She brings these troubles upon herself and she is the one who is ultimately responsible for losing the necklace (pg. 3).
The counter-argument one can make is that the conflict is in fact Character vs. Society. Many of the same quotes from above can be interpreted slightly differently. Instead of blaming Mathilde’s unhappiness on her, you could argue that it is society’s fault, and more specifically, society’s rigid class structure that is oppressing Mathilde. According to the text, Mathilde is “one of those pretty and charming girls born, as though fate had blundered over her, into a family of artisans. She had no marriage portion, no expectations, no means of getting known, understood, loved, and wedded by a man of wealth and distinction” (pg. 1). This inability to control her life also explains why Mathilde allows herself “to be married off to a little clerk in the Ministry of Education” (pg. 1). Mathilde, it seems, is not being allowed to blossom and the text even argues that this trait is inherent to women as seen in the following quotation:
“…for women have no caste or class, their beauty, grace, and charm serving them for birth or family. Their natural delicacy, their instinctive elegance, their nimbleness of wit, are their only mark of rank, and put the slum girl on a level with the highest lady in the land”. (pg. 1)
This quotation comes to fruition when Mathilde makes her grand entrance at the ball wearing her new dress and Mme. Forestier’s diamond necklace. “She was a success. She was the prettiest woman present, elegant, graceful, smiling, and quite above herself with happiness” (pg. 3). This section of the party and having Mme. Forestier’s blessing to borrow the necklace are the only times in the text where she is happy (except for a tiny moment near the end which will be touched upon below). It is only in the moments where Mathilde reaches her full potential as a woman is she content. This interpretation along with viewing Chararacter vs. Society as the central conflict allows for a bit more sympathy for her character and could change the possible themes perceived by readers.
While the interpretation of conflict can diverge, it doesn’t change that Mathilde was a little harsh and had proclivities to act childish. For example, when Monsieur Loisel “exultantly” brings home the invitation, Mathilde becomes distraught and flings the “invitation petulantly” (pg. 1). Monsieur Loisel is finally able to convince her to accept the invitation after he allows her to buy a dress with some money he had been saving up to purchase a gun (pg. 2). Even after purchasing the dress, Mathilde is still not content and complains about not having any jewelry and remarks, “…there’s nothing so humiliating as looking poor in the middle of a lot of rich women” (pg. 2). One could again argue and wonder if these feeling are brought upon solely by Mathilde or if this is a true societal standard – nonetheless, she could have handled this more maturely instead of becoming self-defeatist. Again, her husband Monsieur Loisel is the one who advises her to go to her friend Madame Forestier in hopes of borrowing some jewels (pg. 2). It is interesting to note that, earlier in the story, the narrator informs the reader that Mathilde “had a rich friend, an old school friend whom she refused to visit, because she suffered so keenly when she returned home. She would weep whole days, with grief, regret, despair, and misery” (pg. 1). It seems fairly evident that this friend is Madame Forestier. Mathilde overcomes her hesitation and Madame Forestier is happy to lend her some jewels which results in Mathilde selecting the fateful diamond necklace.
As noted above, Mathilde is a sensation at the party but when she returns home, the necklace has been lost. Initially, Mathilde is inconsolable (“She remained in her evening clothes, lacking strength to get into bed, huddled on a chair, without volition or power of thought”, pg. 4). The Loisel’s buy themselves some time by letting Madame Forestier know they were getting the necklace mended but eventually they decide to replace the necklace at a considerable amount of money without letting Madame Forestier know of their ordeal (36, 000 francs, pg. 4). However, Mathilde takes on the responsibility of paying off the debts they accumulated that went into purchasing the replacement necklace: “From the very first she played her part heroically. This fearful debt must be paid off. She would pay it…She came to know the heavy work of the house, the hateful duties of the kitchen…and clad like a poor woman, she went to the fruiterer, to the grocer, to the butcher, a basket on her arm, haggling, insulted, fighting for every wretched halfpenny of her money” (pg. 4 and 5). Mathilde undergoes a transformation as she is no longer afraid of being perceived as a poor woman and seems to take pride in saving every “wretched” cent. This goes on for ten years which changes Mathilde from the beautiful charmer to looking old and becoming “like all the other strong, hard, coarse women of poor households” (pg. 5). However, the reader finds out that Mathilde still thinks about that night of the ball but instead of anger or resentment, her thoughts are almost wistful: “What would have happened if she had never lost those jewels. Who knows? Who knows? How strange life is, how fickle! How little is needed to ruin or to save!” (pg. 5). In all honesty, it is not clear if it is the narrator or Mathilde who is relaying the previous passage but it’s still a powerful line that starts to bring in the concept of fate into the story. If one takes this into account and the character vs. society conflict, it is easy to see how the rigidity of class and the inability of social mobility can be interpreted as an act of fate; if you are born poor, you will die poor. Don’t tempt fate by acting or pretending to be something you are not.
This growth can also be seen by her quick judgment to confront/speak to Madame Forestier when she sees her at the Champs-Elysees: “Madame Loisel was conscious of some emotion. Should she speak to her? Yes, certainly. And now that she had paid, she would tell her all. Why not?“ pg. 5). Earlier, it was noted that Mathilde would not confront her friend because “she suffered so keenly” (pg. 1) but here, Mathilde goes right up to her, even in her ragged state. She is also honest about the “sorrows” they’ve had and how they were poor: “You realize it wasn’t easy for us; we had no money…well, it’s paid for at last, and I’m glad indeed” (pg. 5). Mathilde does not seem to be ashamed about her lot in life and seems to have accepted it and displays this in a beautiful but heart-breaking moment when Madame Forestier needs clarification that the diamond necklace they replaced had been the one she lent to Madame Loisel, Madame Loisel replies:
“ Yes. You hadn’t noticed it? They were very much alike.”
And she smiled in proud and innocent happiness. (pg. 5-6)
Earlier I had mentioned that were very few moments in which Mathilde was happy and this is one of those precious times. Mathilde is proud to know that Madame Forestier never became aware of the switch which is why they went through all the trouble for in the first place. This is then shattered by the revelation that Madame Forestier’s necklace was an imitation and cost “at the very most five hundred francs” (pg. 6). It is a very difficult moment that evokes anger, sadness, sympathy, empathy and a veritable cornucopia of emotions, but it does not change the fact that Mathilde was a dynamic character that changed remarkably from the beginning to the end of the story. Now, one could argue again if this shows a growth of character in coming to grips with reality or if this shows a character that has had her hopes and dreams snuffed out of her due to the reality of the class structure of the era. It is a difficult question to answer and readers will feel differently for a variety of reasons. Literature is fraught with ambiguity and interpretation and The Necklace is no different.
Monsieur Loisel seems to be clearly in love with his wife, Mathilde Loisel. He hopes to win her favor as he is the one that initiates the plot by bringing home the invitation to the Minister’s Ball, incorrectly assuming his wife would love the gift. Instead he received “furious eyes” from his wife which leads to her eventually crying (pg. 1). Monsieur Loisel does not share Mathilde’s desire for the gilded life but rather seems content with the simple life as seen by Mathilde referring to him as the “careful-minded clerk” (pg. 2). However, he also desires to please his wife as can be seen by his exclamation of, “Aha! Scotch broth! What could be better”, to a simple meal (pg.1) and most obviously by allowing his wife to purchase a ball dress with money that had been earmarked to purchase a gun for himself (pg. 2). Loisel has simpler tastes and struggles to understand his wife which is exemplified most glaringly by asking her four times, on three different occasions, “What’s the matter with you?” (pg. 1, 2 and 3). Those three occasions coming when she begins to cry after reading the invitation, after the purchase of the dress and coming to the realization that she has no jewels to wear, and when she lets out a cry after realizing she no longer has the necklace (pg. 1, 2 and 3). They are two very different people. While Mathilde wants the grandeur of all life can offer, Monsieur Loisel want to go lark hunting with friends (pg. 2); while Mathilde dances the night away, “drunk with pleasure” (pg. 3), Loisel finds a quiet room with a few other men to catch a few hours of sleep (pg. 3); while Mathilde, upon conclusion of the festivities at the Ball, thinks “it was the end, for her” (pg. 3), Monsieur Loisel can’t help but thinking about getting some sleep because he had to work in the morning (pg. 3). Loisel, like any good husband, tries to ameliorate his unhappy wife. He knows her well enough to know she’d adore a party but does not foresee her desire not to simply attend, but to attend and dazzle, “to charm, to be desired, to be wildly attractive and sought after” (pg. 1). When they leave the party, he does not seem to be aware that his wife does not want him to place their “clothes, whose poverty clashed with the beauty of the ball-dress” (pg. 3) on her, and if he had been aware, he didn’t care as he was more concerned with her catching a cold (pg. 3). Also, when the necklace does go missing, it is Monsieur Loisel who puts his clothes back on and sets out to search for the necklace (pg. 3-4). The evidence seems to characterize a doting and considerate husband who just can’t completely understand his wife.
While much of the blame for what transpired could be put at the feet of Madame Mathilde Loisel, it is actually Monsieur Loisel’s idea to hide the truth from Madame Forestier and to purchase a replacement diamond necklace (pg. 4). This is interesting and could denote a few things about Loisel’s character depending on one’s interpretation. The first is that it could show how Loisel values honor or integrity by refusing to admit to losing the necklace and vowing to replace it. Or it could show how Loisel is aware of the class structure and how admitting to a superior that you have lost something valuable to them could be devastating for one’s reputation. This is hinted at when Madame Loisel drops off the necklace and wonders if Madame Forestier will think her a thief if she finds out the necklace had been replaced (pg. 4). It is a curious aspect of the story that could use more fleshing out and multiple perspectives from reader.
In the end, Monsieur Loisel enters into a series of “ruinous agreements…he mortgaged the whole remaining years of his existence, risked his signature without even knowing if he could honor it, and, appalled at the agonizing face of the future, at the black misery about to fall upon him…he went to get the new necklace and put down upon the jeweler’s counter thirty-six thousand francs” (pg. 4). Monsieur Loisel stands by his wife and the two manage to pay off the debt. This act of loyalty and love by Monsieur Loisel to Mathilde was consistent with everything else he had done when it came to his wife. The reader is not privy to any changes in Loisel, if any, after the ten years pass and we are left to wonder if he is still doting on his wife and if he was ever able to join his friends lark-hunting on the plain of Nanterre.