La Parure by Guy de Maupassant.

The anthology that will make you say ‘miskine’ at the end.

There are of these anthologies that can be remembered years later. In France, La Parure (The Necklace) by Guy de Maupassant appears to belong to this category since the latter is usually given to read in secondary school (between the years 9 and 10).

Maupassant wrote tons of anthologies, to the point of being reminded just for this feat. Amongst them, we find Le Papa de Simon (Simon’s Dad), Rouerie (Craftiness), Boule de Suif — which is often regarded as his reference — and La Parure. Written straightforwardly and overflowed by the irony whose Maupassant has the secret, the latter gained fame because of his often-mocked ending.

But to appreciate this ending, it is first necessary to know the beginning.

Taking place somewhere in the second part of the 19th century in Paris, ‘La Parure’ tells us the story of Mathilde Loisel. Married to a civil servant working at a Ministry, Ms Loisel greatly suffers from her way of life that she considers as ‘miserable’. What she dreamed of having is a life of full of lust; where she could offer herself everything that the greatest dame can have and where she would be admired.

Someday, returning from work, her husband told her he succeeded to have places for a ball where the most important people will be.

Mr Loisel offers to her wife the opportunity to attend an important ball — one of those where only the most important can participate. Firstly hesitating because of her lack of decent clothes, she eventually accepts, before that, another problem arises the lack of a necklace. Under the advice of her husband, Mathilde brings herself to visit one of her close and rich friend — Ms Forestier — to ask her if she could borrow one. There, she encounters a beautiful necklace that Ms Forestier does not struggle to let go.

So come the day of the ball. Ms Loisel is splendid. Everybody acclaims her beauty: her dream finally come true! But this one would finally transform into a nightmare. After the ball, Ms Loisel realizes that the necklace — which was supposed to be around a neck — was no more. Ample research later, the husband and her wife must face the tough reality: the necklace is nowhere to be found and they will have to repay it.

By chance, they find a doppelgänger of Ms Forestier’s necklace, but this one cost 34,000 francs. To grant it, Ms Loisel let his 16, 000 francs inheritance go; Mathilde has to do the worst of the chores and lending is essential. Once the necklace bought and returned, it is now a question to repay the debt. And this calvary lasted 10 years. 10 years, Ms Loisel did not stop working. 10 years where Mathilde often dreamed of the ball in which she has been so acclaimed.

Tired and aged, she goes on the Champ Elysée one afternoon where she comes across her old friend Ms Forestier — still fresh and beautiful. Mathilde takes the opportunity to tackle the necklace affair — accusing Ms Forestier of all her hardship. But Ms Forestier tells a terrible to Ms Loisel: The necklace was a trinket and was worth… 400 francs.

Yep. I told you you’d say ‘miskine’.

La Parure is a reference regarding ‘l’ironie à la Maupassant’ (Maupassant’s irony). Like in ‘Boule de Suif’, the main character is disenchanted swiftly after having known the taste of success and/or recognition.

Beyond that, La Parure teaches us several elements:

Woman’s place in the 19th Century: Though central in the story, Mathilde is considered inferior to her husband. One example is when Ms Loisel was obliged to ask her husband to buy a new rope for the ball — meaning that she had no financial power.

Telling the truth is often the best solution: Despite the fact that she might gain 34,000 francs back at the end of the story, Ms Loisel will never get her time back. if she had directly told Ms Forestier about the loss of the necklace, her misfortunes would not have happened…and I’d not be paradoxically telling you that.

It is sometimes good to enjoy what you have at the moment: Mr Loisel and Ms Loisel are not rich, but they’re poor neither. Indeed, they can at least go to the theatre — an activity that few could offer at this period.

Don’t pretend to be someone you’re not: Ms Loisel once said — ‘There is nothing more humiliating than appearing poor in the middle of rich women’. I personally don’t think it is the case and would say that it is actually more humiliating to appear rich in the middle of rich people.

Maupassant is — without any doubt — my favourite 19th Century French author and the reason for that is quite simple: Because his writing is quite straightforward (compared to Le Rouge et le Noir (Red and Black) by Stendhal that I find tricky to read.). So, if you want to read one author, I definitely advise you Maupassant.

*The painting is Young Woman With a Veil by Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1877).