http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIZnWyu_8MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK1csiCmaeE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY6ri5L-KRU&feature=related
Type of Work
.......“The Necklace,” published in 1881, is a short story—among the finest surprise-ending stories in any language. It is a compact, neat little package with just the right amount of character and plot development and nary a wasted word. It is one of many of Maupassant’s short stories that earned him recognition as a master of the genre.
Setting
.......The action takes place in Paris, France, in the second half of the nineteenth century. Specific locales include the residence of the Loisels, the home of Madame Jeanne Forestier, the palace of the Ministry of Education, Paris shops, and the streets of Paris, including the Rue des Martyrs and the Champs Elysées.
Characters
Mathilde: Pretty young woman born into a common, middle-class family. She yearns for the wealth, privileges, and fashions of highborn young ladies.
Monsieur Loisel: Government clerk whom Mathilde marries.
Madame Jeanne Forestier: Friend of Mathilde. She allows Mathilde to borrow a necklace to wear to a gala social event.
Housemaid: Girl from Brittany who does the Loisels' housework. Her presence reminds Mathilde of her own status as a commoner.
Jeweler: Dealer who provides a replacement necklace.
Monsieur and Madame Georges Rampouneau: Minister of Education and his wife, who invite the Loisels to a party.
Child With Madame Forestier: See number 5 under "Unanswered Questions" for information about this character.
Plot Summary
By Michael J. Cummings...© 2006
.......Even though Mathilde is pretty and quite charming, she has none of the advantages of upper-class girls: a dowry, a distinguished family name, an entree into society, and all the little fineries that women covet. Consequently, she accepts a match made for her with a clerk, Monsieur Loisel, in the Department of Education.
.......Her home is common and plain, with well-worn furniture. The young girl from Brittany who does the housework is a constant reminder to Mathilde of her own status as a commoner. But she dreams of having more: tapestries, bronze lamps, footmen to serve her, parlors with silk fabrics, perfumed rooms, silver dinnerware, exotic food, jewelry, the latest fashions.
.......One evening, her husband presents her an envelope containing a special surprise. He is sure it will please her. Inside the envelope she finds a card inviting her and her husband to a social affair as guests of the Minister of Education, Georges Rampouneau, and his wife at the palace of the Ministry of Education.
.......But Mathilde is not at all pleased, for she has nothing to wear. When her husband asks her what it would cost to buy her suitable attire, she says four hundred francs—the exact amount he has set aside to buy a gun to shoot larks at Nanterre with friends. However, he agrees to provide the money, and she buys a gown. When the day of the fête draws near, Loisel notices that Mathilde is downcast and inquires into the cause of her low spirits. She tells him she has no jewels to wear. As a result, others at the party will look down on her. But her spirits brighten when Monsieur Loisel suggests that she borrow jewels from her friend, Madame Jeanne Forestier........Wasting no time, Mathilde visits her friend the following day. Madame Forestier, only too willing to cooperate, opens a box and tells Mathilde to choose. Inside are glittering jewels. Mathilde selects a diamond necklace so beautiful that it quickens her heartbeat.
.......At the party, Mathilde is the center of attention. Handsome men of high station ask who she is and line up to dance with her. Not until 4 a.m. do the Loisels leave the palace. On their way out, Mathilde’s husband puts a wrap on her shoulders—an article of clothing from her everyday wardrobe. To avoid being seen in it, she hurries out against her husband’s wishes. He wants to wait for a cab to arrive. Out in the cold, they search for transportation, wandering toward the Seine. In time, they find a cab, and it takes them to their home on Rue des Martyrs. In her bedroom, Mathilde stands before a mirror and removes her wrap to gaze upon the woman who has enchanted so many men. Then she notices to her horror that the necklace is missing. She and her husband search through their belongings but cannot find it. After they conclude that the necklace must have come off on their way home, Monsieur Loisel goes out to search for the cab they rode in. He returns at 7 a.m. after failing to find it. Visits to the police and the cab company, as well as other measures, also leave them empty-handed.
.......At her husband’s suggestion, Mathilde writes to Madame Forestier, telling her that the necklace clasp has broken and that it is being repaired. This ploy will buy time. Next, they decide that their only recourse is to replace the necklace. Going from jeweler to jeweler, they search for a facsimile. They find one in a shop in the Palais Royal. The price: 36,000 francs. To raise the money, Loisel uses all of his savings and borrows the rest, writing promissory notes and signing his name on numerous documents. Then the Loisels buy the replacement, and Mathilde takes it in a case to Madame Forestier. The latter expresses annoyance that it was returned late, then takes the case without opening it to check its contents.
.......Thereafter, the Loisels scrimp and save to pay their debt. After they dismiss their housemaid, Mathilde does the work herself, washing dishes and linen, taking out the garbage, and performing other menial labors. She also wears common clothes and haggles at the market. Monsieur Loisel moonlights as a bookkeeper and copyist.
.......Ten years later, they are out of debt. They have paid back every borrowed franc and sou. By this time, Mathilde is fully a commoner, with rough hands, plain clothes, and disheveled hair. And she looks older than her years. Occasionally, she thinks back to the day when she wore the necklace and when so many men admired her. What would have happened if she had never lost the necklace?
.......One Sunday on the Champs Elysées, she encounters Madame Forestier walking with a child. When Mathilde addresses her, her friend does not recognize her—so haggard does Mathilde look. After Mathilde identifies herself, she decides to tell Madame Forestier everything. What could be the harm? After all, she has paid for the necklace, working ten long years at honest, humble labor to fulfill her obligation. Madame Forestier then holds Mathilde’s hands and says, “Oh, my poor Mathilde. But mine was false. At most, it was worth five hundred francs!”
Fate vs Free Will
.......Is Mathilde a hapless victim of fate or a victim of her own desires and the choices she makes to fulfill them? In the opening sentence of the story, Maupassant introduces the notion of fate as a controlling force:
- Original French: C'était une de ces jolies et charmantes filles, nées, comme par une erreur du destin, dans une famille d'employés.
Literal Translation: She was one of those pretty and charming girls, born, by a mistake of destiny, into a family of employees (common middle-class workers).
- Original French: Elle eût tant désiré plaire, être enviée, être séduisante et recherchée.
Literal Translation: She had so much desire to please, to be envied, to be enticing, to be sought after.
Translations by M.J. CummingsClimax
.......The climax of a literary work, such as a short story or a novel, can be defined as (1) the turning point at which the conflict begins to resolve itself for better or worse, or as (2) the final and most exciting event in a series of events. The climax of "The Necklace" occurs, according to the first definition, when Mathilde discovers that she has lost the necklace. According to the second definition, the climax occurs at the end of the story, when Madame Forestier informs Mathilde that the lost necklace was a fake.
.
Themes
False Values
.......People should evaluate themselves and others on who they are intrinsically (that is, on their character and moral fiber), not on what they possess or where they stand in society. Mathilde Loisel learns this lesson the hard way.
Real Values
.......Honesty, humility, and hard work are what shape character, not the clothes or jewels that a person wears or the high station into which he or she is born.
Appearances Are Deceiving
.......Mathilde Loisel believed the necklace genuine the moment she saw it. Likewise, she believed that all the people at the party were real, genuine human beings because of their social standing and their possessions. The necklace, of course, was a fake. And, Maupassant implies, so were the people at the party who judge Mathilde on her outward appearance.
Unanswered Questions
- After paying off her debt, Mathilde wonders what her life would have been like if she had not lost the necklace. The narrator does not suggest an answer to this question. What do you think would have happened to her?
- Do you think Madame Forestier will sell the diamond necklace and return the Loisels' money?
- If Madame Forestier does return the money, will Mathilde save her share of it? Or will she spend it to fulfill her old longings?
- What will her husband do with his portion of the money?
- At the end of the story, the narrator tells us that Madame Forestier is walking with a small child? Why does Maupassant introduce a new character, about whom he tells the reader nothing, at this point in the story? Is it possible that the child is supposed is to represent a new generation of Parisians who will go on pursuing false values? Or does the child's presence at the end suggest something else?
- Write an essay that attempts to answer the first or fourth question under "Unanswered Questions." Support your position with logical reasoning and opinions gleaned from research.
- Write an essay arguing for or against the view that Mathilde's yearning for wealth and social status, not fate, brought about her downfall.
- In an informative essay, discuss to what extent French society in the nineteenth century imposed limitations on Mathilde's opportunities to earn money and attain social standing.
- Explain why "The Necklace" continues to enjoy widespread popularity with modern readers.
- Assume the role of a psychologist. Then write a psychological profile of Mathilde.
- Would the men at the party admire Mathilde if they were aware that the necklace was fake and that she had few material possessions? Provide your answer in an essay supported by relevant passages from the story, as well as other evidence.
An Analysis of Guy de Maupassant's 'The Necklace'
Guy de Maupassant's 'The Necklace'Commentary by Karen Bernardo
During the course of Guy de Maupassant's short story 'The Necklace,' the main character, Matilda Loisel, makes a number of ironic discoveries. In addition, there are other discoveries that the reader makes but Matilda does not. The discovery that forms the story's climax concerns the true nature of the necklace she has borrowed from her friend Mrs. Forestier. But this is perhaps not the most important lesson of this story.
As the story opens, Matilda, a young middle-class wife who aspires to join the upper ranks of society, is finally invited to a high-society affair given by her husband's employer. Hoping to impress her guests and thus 'fit in', she borrows a beautiful diamond necklace from her friend Madame Forestier. Unfortunately, during the course of the evening, the necklace is lost. Rather than confront her friend directly with the story of her carelessness, she and her husband scrape together every bit of money they can.
As de Maupassant explains, '[Mr.] Loisel possessed eighteen thousand franks which his father had left him. He borrowed the rest. He borrowed it, asking for a thousand francs of one, five hundred of another, five louis of this one, and three louis of that one. He gave notes, made ruinous promises, took money of usurers and the whole race of lenders. He compromised his whole existence, in fact, risked his signature without even knowing whether he could make it good or not, and, harassed by anxiety for the future, by the black misery which surrounded him, and by the prospect of all physical privations and moral torture, he went to get the new necklace, depositing on the merchant's counter thirty-six thousand francs.' Matilda then places the new necklace in the same case in which she had borrowed the old one, and returns it to her friend without explanation, hoping against hope that the deception will not be discovered -- which it is not.
Now comes the task of paying back all the money that the Loisels have borrowed. In order to do so, 'they sent away the maid; they changed their lodgings; they rented some rooms under a mansard roof.' A mansard roof is very steeply pitched, so that it is possible to have living quarters beneath it; by implication, living 'under a mansard roof' means they live in the attic. No longer is Matilda able to send her laundry out to be cleaned, or employ someone to wash the dishes and care for the house. Because houses in those days had no running water, she has to haul the water up the stairs to the attic herself. Her husband is forced to take on a second and even a third job. They are conscientious and hard-working, however, and by the end of ten years they have repaid every creditor.
But at what a cost! Matilda is no longer lovely and refined; she now looks old, haggard, and common. When she meets Mrs. Forestier in the street, her friend does not even recognize her. The story ends with Mrs. Forestier's revelation that the stones in the original necklace weren't even really diamonds -- they were 'paste,' or rhinestones. We have no way of knowing if Mrs. Forestier was able to refund Matilda's money. But would it matter? Ten years of Matilda's life have been robbed -- and for what? For an evening of vanity and pride.
The central discovery of the story -- that the jewels were fake -- is, therefore, not really the point of the story at all. The point of the story is that pride goeth before a fall -- and in fact, that a fall is precisely what pride will bring about. Matilda felt dissatisfied with her husband and his lifestyle because she was vain; she felt she was entitled to something better than the petty, bourgeois existence his income offered her. She felt she could not attend the Minister's party without a stylish dress and jewels because she was vain; she should never have sought to borrow a necklace so opulent she could not afford to replace it. She felt she could not tell Mrs. Forestier about the loss of the necklace -- even after it had been replaced -- because she was too proud, and also, by that time, too frightened. Over the ten years that it took Matilda to earn thirty-six thousand francs, she undoubtedly learns much about the hardships of life, but does she learn what has caused these hardships?
There is no real evidence that she does. As she sits, prematurely aged, before her window, she is not thinking of how vain and silly she had been as a young woman; she is daydreaming about how lovely and glamorous the Minister's party had been -- 'of that ball where she was so beautiful and so flattered.' She is not angry with herself for having been so stupid; she is simply puzzled at the way life works itself out: 'How would it have been if she had not lost that necklace? Who knows? Who knows? How singular is life, and how full of changes! How small a thing will ruin one!' Matilda does not see her ruination as in any way being her own fault, but considers it a particularly cruel trick of fate.
Here is the point that what the reader's understanding of the story departs from Matilda's. We see only too clearly the reason for Matilda's downfall; she does not. We see that her vanity led her to seek to borrow the necklace to begin with; we see that her pride led her to try to conceal the fact from her friend. We see that the loss of Matilda's comfortable existence is due entirely to factors that could have been easily avoided. She does not. All Matilda understands at the end of this story was that life has played a cruel trick on her, and she has suffered ten long years for nothing. We, on the contrary, come to know the depths to which vanity and pride can drive one, and the terrible price one can pay.
