THE NECKLACE by Guy de Maupassant:

A Critique of Class-Consciousness

French writer of short stories and novels of the naturalist school Guy de Maupassant (1850-
1893) is by general agreement the greatest French short story writer. His genius rose from the
sad, traumatic experiences he had as a child. His parents’ marriage was a failure. They
separated for good when Guy was 11 years old. Guy sided strongly with his mother, was a
devoted son all his life, and, in spite of the help that he received from him, was markedly hostile
to his father. The failure of the marriage left its mark on the son, as both man and writer. It
explains Guy’s fears of marriage and the frequent appearances in his stories of the ridiculous,
persecuted husband. His apprenticeship under the great writer Gustave Flaubert and his
association with Emile Zola, Ivan Turgenev, Edmond de Goncourt, and Henry James
contributed to his refinement as a writer. That resulted in his genuine achievement – the
invention of a new, high-quality, commercial short story, which has something to offer to all
classes of readers. This short story, The Necklace, mirrors his understanding of the French
society of his time. He manages to highlight the travails of life one entertains as a result of being
class-conscious. That is why this topic claims that it is a critique of class-consciousness.
The disparity between Madame Loisel’s personality and her life
Guy de Maupassant introduces Madame Loisel as “one of those pretty and charming girls born,
as though fate had blundered over her, into a family of artisans”. According to him, she does
not lack anything like a personality in terms of “natural delicacy”, “instinctive elegance”, and
“nimbleness of wit” that could “put a slim girl on a level with the highest lady in the land”. She
is conscious of her beauty and is in the belief that with her personality she could be at the center
in an elite gathering.
She seems to have had her education in a fashionable school where she met the wealthy
Madame Forestier as a classmate. Her education has given her exposure to the fashions in
vogue in the current elite of France. After leaving school, even on a limited scale, she seems to
have been continuing her relationship with her school friends like Madame Forestier.
Nevertheless, she is always frustrated by her inability to support her ideas influenced by their
lifestyle. She does not have the material requisites to keep up with them.
Her personality full of beauty, delicacy, elegance, and wit (that she later puts to test at the
Minister’s party) is alone, not sufficient in “getting known, understood, loved, and wedded by a
man of wealth and distinction”. Sans marriage portion, “she let[s] herself be married off to a
little clerk in the Ministry of Education” as a last resort. This is not a solution to her problem.
She is still a poor woman. She realizes that she is “married beneath her”.
As a fashion-conscious, self-important woman, she always tends to dream of the rich
furniture, the classical architecture, the pleasant atmosphere, the warm and hearty social milieu,
and the delicious meals that constitute the luxurious lifestyle of the current French elite. The
accounts frequently made by the Breton servant girl of her experiences of such lovely places in
her daily routine aggravate her frustration. This always makes her feel repulsion about living in
her own situation.
 Regarding the poor quality of her house with its “mean walls, worn chairs, and ugly
curtains,” she feels “tormented and insulted”. The simple menus served at home, featured by
foods like “Scotch broth,” spoil her appetite. The absence of proper clothing and jewelry when
going out takes away her spirit.
A woman of great self-esteem, “feeling herself born for every delicacy and luxury,” she
trusts she was made “to charm, to be desired, to be wildly attractive and sought after”. But,
while in abject poverty, she is destined to be worried eternally. She cannot even visit her friend
Madame Forestier very often because she cannot invite the latter to her house. Thus, her
inability to reciprocate her friends’ hospitality makes it embarrassing to associate with them.
Therefore, the only thing she does is "weep whole days with grief, regret, despair, and misery."
Madame Loisel knows the French society of her time very well. She seems to have tested
herself many a time while associating with people of high society and to have a clear idea about
her potentials and limitations. In that society, despite one’s beautiful features and ability to
speak intelligently of various interesting subjects, one has to live in a villa in a posh region,
move in places of prestige, eat at grand hotels, travel in elegant cars, and wear rich clothes and
jewellery, in order to earn respect from the elite. Except for her beautiful personality and her
ability to move with people in a fashionable manner, she does not have most of the other
requisites. Here lies the disparity between Madame Loisel’s personality and the circumstances
she is destined to live in.
She is just a victim of the materialistic values of that French society. There she feels isolated
when she cannot keep up with the elite. She tends to look at poverty as a curse. The education
that had nurtured most of her values is also responsible for her frustration. The strength of
character remains a lacuna in her education. It had separated her from her natural society and
has turned her into a misfit in conflict with her own family and environment. Stranded in a
cultural mess, Madame Loisel suffers endlessly.

The irony behind the invitation that M. Loisel has obtained for his wife
Monsieur Loisel, the husband of Madame Loisel, is a simple clerk in the Ministry of Education.
He seems to have realized the frustration in his wife. Maybe he regrets his inability to please his
wife in the way she wants. Intending to make her happy, he obtains an invitation to the
Minister’s party. His sole idea here is that it would be “a great occasion” for her to “see all the
big people there”.
To his surprise, Madame Loisel responds to this gesture of generosity and concern by him in
an extremely contradictory way. She reads the invitation at once and flings it petulantly across
the table, murmuring, “What do you want me to do with this?” In return, M. Loisel explains
how difficult it was to get an invitation. He declares that he has “had tremendous trouble to get
it”. He also states that the allocation of invitations to the clerical staff was very small.
Madame Loisel’s nonchalance expressed herein sorrowful terms originates from her poverty.
She impatiently complains about her not having a proper dress to wear for the occasion. When
M. Loisel suggests the possibility of wearing the dress she goes to the theatre in, she bursts into
tears. He reiterates “What’s the matter with you?” In answer to his question, she calmly says
“Nothing, only I haven’t a dress and so I can’t go to the party.” Because of his masculine
identity in a patriarchal society, he cannot endure her pitiful state. With pain, he is
“heartbroken.”
 The irony behind this situation lies in the change M. Loisel’s mood undergoes from the
exultant air when he arrives home to the agony when Madame Loisel rejects the invitation since
she does not have a proper dress to go in. He seems to have stirred up a hornets’ nest by trying
to please his wife, without realizing her self-consciousness.
Unable to withdraw from the situation he is faced with, he now offers to finance her in
purchasing a dress. When the knowledge that with four hundred francs she could buy a dress
emerges, he reluctantly agrees to give her that sum. Here he sacrifices the saving he made for a
gun, to go lark-shooting with his friends. Thus he foregoes this anticipation of an adventure,
which is crucial for a man in French culture. The loss he faces this moment occasions another
incident of irony.
The generosity expressed through the invitation boomerangs on M. Loisel again, when
Madame Loisel notices that she has no jewelry to wear. She refuses to go to the party for the
second time. Having run through his saving for the gun, it will be a real shame if they cannot
make it. M. Loisel’s suggestion about the possibility of wearing flowers only rouses her anger.
She says, “No… there’s nothing so humiliating as looking poor in the middle of a lot of rich
women.” She declares here her sharp pragmatic knowledge of the current French society.
However, M. Loisel finds a good solution to the present problem. He intelligently advises her to
borrow a necklace from her school friend Madame Forestier. She jumps at the idea, and next
morning manages to borrow a necklace from the latter. Nevertheless, she has the risk of
protecting the piece of jewelry.
Through the conflicts between Monsieur and Madame Loisel over the invitation, Guy de
Maupassant creates a very dramatic situation. In fact one sees M. Loisel open a Pandora’s box
by bringing this invitation home however precious it is. The trouble he faces in procuring the
necessaries for his self-conscious wife is far greater than the trouble he has had in obtaining the
invitation. None can blame Madame Loisel for being adamant about her attire for the occasion.
In that French society, as a festive occasion is an excuse for a woman to show her wealth,
beauty, and elegance, she rightly decides that it is advisable to go there properly dressed or not
to go at all. As a product of such a social milieu, it is natural for her to vie with other women, or
at least, not to want to be subjected to their condescension and humiliation. Therefore, Madame
Loisel appears here rather a victim of class-consciousness, which is prevalent in society, than an
ambitious woman wanting to be accepted by the elite. Regarding a poverty-ridden beautiful
woman of Madame Loisel’s mentality, which is typically a product of the value system in the
current French society an invitation to a grand soirée hosted by a Minister would definitely be a
challenge rather than a pleasure.

The paradox in Madame Loisel’s feelings during and after the party
Madame Loisel manages to attend the Minister’s soirée thanks to the dress bought with the
saving her husband had made for a gun and the diamond necklace borrowed from Madame
Forestier. As she esteems herself so highly, at the party she proves to be “the prettiest woman
present, elegant, graceful, smiling, and quite above herself with happiness”. She makes herself
“a success”. As she has wished “all the men stared at her, inquired her name, and asked to be
introduced to her”. This is an occasion when her dream of vying with wealthy fashionable
women in that French society has, for a moment, materialized.
Guy de Maupassant describes her psyche at this moment in graphic terms. “She danced
madly, ecstatically, drunk with pleasure, with no thought for anything, in the triumph of her
beauty, in the pride of her success, in a cloud of happiness made of this universal homage of
admiration, of the desires she had aroused, of the completeness of a victory so dear to her
feminine heart.” So deeply thrown into ecstasies over her charming personality, she even
forgets her husband who is right now “dosing in a deserted little room”.
She awakes from her reveries, only around four o’clock in the morning, when the others
were getting ready to leave. She realizes the transience of this happiness all of a sudden when
her elegant personality has to be covered with modest everyday clothes. The woman who has
once been yearning for the others’ attention is now very ironically trying to escape from their
notice. Here lies the paradox in her feelings. She seems to have embarked on a mission for the
sake of her happiness that she cannot continue owing to the lack of wealth. She does not have
most of the requisites to equip herself in order to compete with others. She realizes the futility
of using a façade to earn respect from society. With this disillusionment, the paradox in her
feelings begins.
In their ordinary garments, Madame Loisel and her husband failed to stop a cab to go home
in. Their shouting is not heard by those drivers, as they prefer to cater to wealthy fashionable
customers only. After a considerably long walk, they manage to get “one of those night-
prowling carriages”. So scandalous in their look, are these carriages allowed to move only after
dark. Like the struggle to escape from the others’ notice, the humiliation they face while trying
to go home adds to the paradox in Madame Loisel’s feelings. Ugly realities get irrevocably
superimposed on beautiful fantasies.
The enjoyment at the party ends in its entirety when Madame Loisel notices the loss of the
necklace on arriving home. It is really an anticlimax. The distress she experiences here adds
even more to the paradox in her feelings. Instead of being proud and happy of herself now she
tends to feel guilty. The husband and wife both search for the necklace everywhere in the
house. Her husband covers the streets they walked on their way home once again, expecting to
find the necklace somehow. In the morning he goes to work, having informed all possible
people and places about the loss. Utterly helpless, she remains “in the same state of
bewilderment at this catastrophe”.
It is clear that Madame Loisel has to undergo all these troubles because of her desire to be on
the lap of the elite. It is one’s freedom and the right to look for fashion, elegance, beauty, and
delicacy while moving in society. In France, the home of many ideological revolutions with
regard to people’s feelings, it is quite possible for a person like Madame Loisel to desire to enjoy
the company of the fashionable elite. When people are governed by their fancies of the kind
Madame Loisel harbors, they fall into such predicaments quite naturally. But it is not Madame
Loisel who is to be blamed here. It is a society that discriminates against certain people on the
scale of their wealth. From a literary angle, the main condition developing from all the
movements and experiences she makes during and after the party represents a paradox. This
highlights the tragic nature of the party situation. Madame Loisel’s whole life can be seen as a
paradox, because of the confusion her character suffers. The fantasies and the realities she
struggles within her daily life wear her out in a strong way. Guy de Maupassant depicts some
of the salient tragic flaws of society through her psychological condition.

Madame Loisel’s stoicism after the loss of the necklace

The loss of the necklace does not cause a moral downfall in the lives of the Loisels. They do not
inform Madame Forestier of the incident and begged of her forgiveness; nor do they abscond
from returning the object they borrowed and breach her trust with them; nor do they tell her
about their poverty and lose their class identity within the current social hierarchy. They simply
take the responsibility and challenge to replace the lost article however much it is of value. Thus
the loss of the necklace serves as the turning point in Madame Loisel’s enlightenment.
They find an identical diamond necklace in a shop but are informed that they have to pay an
exorbitant sum of thirty-six thousand francs to purchase it. In terms of sacrifices and risks,
Maupassant describes the way in which they procure the money. Half the money comes from
M. Loisel’s inheritance from his father. The other half is made by mortgaging “the whole
remaining years of his existence” and by risking “his signature without even knowing if he
could honor it”. He was “appalled at the agonizing face of the future, at the black misery about
to fall upon him, at the prospect of every possible physical privation and moral torture”, while
collecting the rest of the funds to buy the new necklace and settle the deal with Madame
Forestier. What benefit are they going to derive from this unimaginable struggle? Only their
identity as people of dignity and integrity.
Determined to overcome this poverty-ridden shameful situation, Madame Loisel plays her
part “heroically”. As two significant steps, she discontinues the servant girl and changes their
flat to a garret under the roof. However tiresome, she undertakes to do the washing, cleaning,
laundry, marketing, and bringing water. She learns to spend money circumspectly. She gives
up her pride and starts wearing simple clothes and maintaining simple domestic practices. Thus
she fights “for every wretched halfpenny of her money”, in order to help her husband. She
becomes great moral support to her husband who, in addition to his clerical job, works late
hours, doing accounts for a merchant. Their joint struggle continues for ten whole years.
Vicissitudes of life experienced by Madame Loisel in the course of these ten long hard years
seem to have taught her how to accept reality. By now she has lost most of her good looks.
In a society affected by materialism and even existentialism, the Loisels have many unethical
options in the face of this misery. But they accept the consequence of their carelessness and act
stoically to clear their conscience as well as to preserve their dignity. They do not blame each
other for what happened. They do not try to interpret the agony as the folly or mistake of
anybody, but face life as it is. Maybe after this incident, they remain in the same wavelength
with regard to the travails of life. Scotch broth may go down both their throats without causing
any regret or nostalgia.
The growth and maturity of Madame Loisel’s character are manifest in her meeting with
Madame Forestier. She calls her friend by her first name, but the latter cannot identify her. She
has changed drastically. Her friend even says that she is may be mistaken. They talk about the
diamond necklace and she maintains that the trouble caused by it led to the loss of her beautiful
appearance. She concludes her version of the story, having “smiled in proud and innocent
happiness”. Finally, the ability to maintain such an open smile is not the only achievement she
makes through her stoicism.
In her broken appearance, her guts to introduce herself to the wealthy Madame Forestier and
to renew their friendship do not come from any outward agent, but from her own personality
that retains its beauty by fulfilling her obligation of returning what she borrowed. She cannot
talk to her unless she has honored it. Stoicism hidden in her character from the very beginning
comes out through the impetus given by the loss of the necklace. The dullness of her personality
as a frustrated woman yearning for the impracticable disappears when she has a real urge to
struggle for existence. Another woman in her original form may have collapsed on realizing this
loss. After all, it is her stoicism that leads her in her discovery of the real truth about the
necklace. Madame Forestier being a genuine friend may not allow her to continue with her
agony. As she reveals the truth, she is expected to return the necklace to the Loisels and recover
them from their poverty-ridden situation. Even this achievement is possible owing to her
stoicism.

The relationship between Madame Loisel and her husband

Matilde gets married to M. Loisel, a simple clerk in the Ministry of Education, as a last resort, on
finding that she has no possibility of marrying “a man of wealth and distinction” as she has no
“marriage portion”. According to Maupassant, the process generally involved in marriage has
three preliminary stages – knowing, understanding, and loving. Yet she does not try to know,
understand, or love her husband, even after getting married to him. This shows that Matilde’s
indifference towards her husband caused by her frustration has become chronic.
Although M. Loisel tries his best to please her she cannot change her perception of life
influenced by the materialistic values prevalent in that class-conscious society. Carried away by
the bourgeois tastes in eating, housekeeping, dressing, spending the evening, and associating
with people, she finds no companionship in her husband. She consigns herself to unhappiness,
not because of her husband’s inability to be a warm-hearted man, but because of her own
fastidiousness about her lifestyle.
As a couple of human beings, the disparity between the two, Matilde and her husband, has
two major points. Matilde is a beautiful, witty, delicate, and elegant woman: M. Loisel is a
simple clerk with a limited income. On the strength of her elegant personality, Matilde believes
that she is eligible to get married to a man of wealth and distinction and that M. Loisel is no
match for her. This is a prejudice entertained by Matilde, with her limited knowledge about life.
She perceives that the external agents, represented by wealth, fame, power, and prominence,
transcend natural human faculties.
Maupassant shows in this situation how human relationships that lead to marriage between
men and women are reduced to business transactions where a union between two individuals
appears to be an event of buying and selling. Thus he highlights people’s tendency to attach
more importance to external agents in selecting a partner. He sees the undermining of personal
qualities that appeal to one’s emotions as a drawback in that French society.
There are many reasons to establish M. Loisel’s potential of being a gentle husband. His
remark – “Ah! Scotch broth! What could be better?” signifies his contentment with whatever his
wife prepares for him to eat. He does not expect anything impossible from her, as he himself is a
careful man who knows to cut the coat according to the cloth. He obtains an invitation to the
Minister’s soirée, with the sole intention of pleasing his wife. Once he gets to know about the
expenses that it would incur, he does not withdraw from his offer to take her there. He spends
his saving for a gun on a ball dress and suggests a way to procure some suitable jewelry. His
generosity signified in his gesture of taking her to the party after making all such sacrifices
becomes even clearer from the way in which he spends his time there. “Since midnight, her
husband had been dosing in a deserted little room, in company with three other men whose
wives were having a good time.” Thus he proves that in his own right he is an unselfish
husband who takes care of his wife. “He throws over her shoulders the garments he had
brought for them to go home in.” This shows he knows how to protect her. When she hurries,
he calls her. “Wait for a little. You’ll catch a cold in the open. I’m going to fetch a cab.” Here he
establishes his genuine concern for her. Her indifference to all his kind gestures manifest in her
obstinate hurrying does not annoy him at all. He still continues to care for her.
It is obvious that the necklace falls somewhere because of her carelessness. She was more
concerned about the façade she wore among the crowd she met at the ballroom than her
responsibility of protecting the necklace she had borrowed from Madame Forestier. Yet her
husband does not scold her. He strives hard to find it out by physically searching for it and by
contacting all possible people and places. Failing to do so, he buys a new necklace to replace the
old one by withdrawing all his inheritance from his father and by borrowing money from all
sources possible. He risks his future for her sake. Yet he does not give her any psychological or
physical pain to take revenge on her for her disregard for him. Matilde cultivates her stoicism
most probably in respect of her husband’s decency proved in all these tragic circumstances. The
man’s patience remains a source of positive energy in their personal relationship. The news
from Madame Forestier will no doubt make their lives happy.

Criticism of class distinction in the 19th-century French society

This story by Guy de Maupassant is clearly an indictment of class distinction in his time that
kept many men and women in eternal frustration by setting barriers in their efforts of
associating with whom they admired. As the essentials of class identity one recognize a set of
conditions like wealth, material prosperity, intellectual achievements, artistic reputation and
renown, political power, aristocratic lineage, or gallantry at war. Those who have any claim
over one or several of these are eligible to occupy a position in the elite. Men and women, who
have no claim over any of the above, are not. A man who is fortunate to be recognized as part of
the elite does not need to have any special personal qualities to win the heart of a woman with
substance, and vice versa. External agents, represented by wealth, fame, power, and
prominence, can take a person to the top of the social hierarchy.
Maupassant clarifies this situation through the heroine, the beautiful and fashionable
Madame Loisel, who is fond of being part of the elite without any substance though.
Unfortunately, her personality full of beauty, delicacy, elegance, and wit, is alone not sufficient
in “getting known, understood, loved, and wedded by a man of wealth and distinction”.
Therefore, married to a simple clerk, she leads a life of frustration. Thus Madame Loisel’s
inability to marry a man according to her taste shows that society’s tendency to adore one’s
wealth rather than one’s personal qualities.
Moreover, the reader is not made to lament Madame Loisel’s misfortune. She has a
wonderful man who sacrifices his whole future to make her happy. But she does not care for
him, because he is poor. Her belief that she is married below her originates not from the
vulgarity of M. Loisel but from her dream world made of the luxuries in the houses of the
wealthy. The gap between the has and the have-not is made obvious here through the careful
juxtaposition of the bitter realities and the sweet fantasies that foreground the turmoil in
Madame Loisel’s mind. Values inculcated in her by that society operate as her ruination.
Because society has attached so much value to sartorial elegance, Madame Loisel believes
that either she should attend the Minister’s party in an elegant outfit or she should not attend at
all. That makes them go to the extent of running through their savings and taking risks. Even
here M. Loisel is very patient and tolerant. He does not charge Madame Loisel of any element of
vanity, carelessness, or thoughtlessness. He simply shoulders the crisis that develops from the
loss of the necklace. He also understands that it is not Madame Loisel’s persona, which is the
stumbling block in their relationship, but the norms of clothing established in society. People
tend to believe that one has to wear such and such a fashion to earn respect. Perhaps the
psychological breakdown one would experience by violating the norms would be more harmful
than the present material loss of the necklace. One observes that both Monsieur and Madame
Loisel have become victims of this situation, as they have not enough resilience to face the
repercussion of being non-conformist and radical. Maupassant does not blame his heroine but
society as a whole.
The story ends in a very ironical tone. Having lost all her looks, Madame Loisel meets
Madame Forestier. The latter does not recognize her. She introduces herself and the other
expresses surprise. As a reason for not being able to show up for such a length of time, Madame
Loisel relates the story of the lost necklace. In reply, Madame Forestier surprises her by telling
that it was an imitation of a diamond necklace. The “smile” of “innocent and proud happiness”
on Madame Loisel’s face should continue. The falsehood of the necklace lays bare the truth
about the whole system of social hierarchy. Just like the false diamonds, anything that looks
precious is valued in that society. This applies to human beings too. Their characters may not
have any significant virtues, but as far as they appear in a rich outfit they are recognized as
respectable persons in society. The illusion under which the whole system of society operates is
exposed thus in the final episode. The universality in this story lies in the fact that it applies to
any society where people have to hide behind clothes and commodities in order to assert
respect. In this story, Guy de Maupassant establishes his genius not only as a storyteller but also
as a social critic.