In "The Necklace," does Mathilde Loisel deserve her punishment?

Quick answer:

One could argue that Mathilde Loisel deserved her punishment because of her materialistic personality, poor decisions, and selfish motivation. Mathilde's vain, self-centered personality influences her to borrow Madame Forestier's necklace and she deceives her friend after losing the piece of jewelry. Mathilde makes the poor decision of immediately replacing the necklace, which leads to her working for ten years to pay off her debts.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles
In Guy de Maupassant's short story "The Necklace," Mathilde Loisel borrows and loses Madame Forestier's diamond necklace and spends tens years working to replace the expensive piece of jewelry, only to discover that it was an imitation. The question of whether or not Mathilde deserves her punishment of working ten years to pay off her debts to replace Madame Forestier's necklace requires one to examine her personality, motivation, and decisions. Mathilde Loisel is depicted as an extremely materialistic, ungrateful woman, who believes that she is entitled to experience the life of a wealthy aristocrat. She resents marrying her husband and continually daydreams about experiencing a luxurious life. Mathilde's superficial, selfish character prevents her from appreciating her current situation or being thankful to be invited to the ball.
Mathilde's materialistic, vain personality influences her to visit Madame Forestier's home, where she chooses the most attractive diamond necklace she can find. One could argue that Mathilde's self-centered, ungrateful attitude leads to her decision to borrow the necklace in the first place, which she ends up losing after the ball. After Mathilde loses the necklace, she does not tell Madame Forestier the truth and immediately tries to replace it. Her decision to conceal the truth and deceive Madame Forestier is both ignorant and dishonest. Given Mathilde's selfish, materialistic personality and her impetuous, dishonest nature, one could argue that she certainly deserved her punishment. If she was more grateful, honest, and less entitled, she would have easily avoided laboring for ten years to pay off her debts.
Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

The question of whether or not Mathilde Loisel deserves the punishment she receives in Guy de Maupassant's short story "The Necklace" requires a close look at the choices she makes in the story, and what motivates those choices.   

Mathilde Loisel's punishment consists of working for ten years (alongside her husband) to pay off a debt. This debt is incurred because Mathilde, a woman of meager means and great pride, borrows a necklace from a wealthy friend for a party. She assumes that the borrowed necklace is made of genuine diamonds. The necklace is lost during the evening, and Mathilde and her husband concoct a plan to replace the necklace without telling Madame Forestier the truth of its disappearance. They find a near-exact replica, but it costs them dearly. They purchase it for thirty-six thousand francs and spend the next ten years working off the debt. 

When Madame Loisel returns the necklace to Madame Forestier, she is nervous that her friend will discover the ruse. 

"She did not even open the case, as her friend had so much feared. If she had detected the substitution, what would she have thought, what would she have said? Would she not have taken Madame Loisel for a thief? 

Madame Loisel now knew the horrible existence of the needy. She made the best of it, moreover, frankly, heroically. The frightful debt must be paid. She would pay it. They dismissed their servant; they changed their lodgings, they rented a garret under a roof." 

If Mathilde Loisel had not been so consumed with pride, she wouldn't have felt it necessary to borrow jewels from a wealthy friend. If she wasn't so consumed with status, she would have been able to be honest with her friend about the necklace's disappearance and then might've learned the truth about its worth. If she hadn't been so filled with stubborn pride, she wouldn't have been compelled to work ten years to pay off the debt for the necklace. Whether or not Mathilde deserved the punishment, it's clear the punishment was self-inflicted. Madame Forestier did not demand a replacement. Madame Forestier didn't demand the return of the necklace sooner than it was returned. If Mathilde had chosen to be honest with the woman who is described as her friend since childhood, the purchase of the replacement necklace would not have been necessary. It is her pride that causes her to make the choices she makes, and pride often goes before destruction.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

You are being asked to make a value judgement about the consequences of Madame Loisel’s actions in “The Necklace” by Guy de Maupassant.

Madame Loisel is unhappy with her life. Although she came from a meager background, she longed to live a life of entitlement. She married a common man who worked hard for a living, which allowed his wife to be comfortable. Unfortunately, she longed for more wealth and elegance.

When Madame Loisel borrows a piece of jewelry from a friend to wear to a party, she assumes the necklace consists of real jewels. She dances the night away, enjoying the attention she receives for her beauty.

Unfortunately, as she leaves the dance, she realizes the borrowed piece of jewelry is missing. Instead of telling her friend the truth about losing it, she and her husband replaced the piece with real jewels at great expense. This put the couple in the debt, which they spent many years working off.

Therefore, when answering the question of whether the punishment fit the “crime,” one can conjecture that if Mathilde had told her friend the truth, the friend would have told her the piece was a fake and the price of the piece would have been much less. The destruction of Mathilde’s life can certainly be seen as excessive, but the author makes a point about telling the truth and living within one’s means.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Is Mathilde Loisel justified in her misery in the story "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant?

The first of Buddha's Four Noble Truths is:

Life from birth to death is filled with pain and suffering.

The second Noble Truth is:

Pain and suffering are caused by the desire for worldly things.

Mathilde Loisel is not too much different from most of us. We all want things we can't have. We make ourselves miserable by wanting something we haven't got. And very often when we manage to get something we wanted, we find that we are still not satisfied and want something else. So I would say that Mathilde Loisel is as justified in wanting to be admired as most of us are justified in wanting whatever it is we think will make us happy. She is human, like the rest of us. 

I am not a Buddhist, but those Noble Truths make very good sense to me. They made good sense to the German philosopher Schopenhauer too, and he had a very strong influence on Guy de Maupassant. Schopenhauer wrote that happiness is an illusion. The best we can ask from life is contentment and freedom from pain. In chasing after illusory happiness, Madame Loisel caused herself years of unhappiness for a few hours of dancing with men who would soon forget her. She created the same amount of unhappiness for her husband, too. 

Last Updated on
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Is Mathilde Loisel justified in her misery in the story "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant?

Guy de Maupassant’s “The Necklace” presents a woman who feels that she deserves more than the portion of life that has been given to her.  Mathilde Loisel is a pretty woman who will not allow herself to appreciate what she has. 

To Mathilde, everything that she has is not good enough. She looks around her and wishes that she had better furniture, clothes, and food.  She daydreams about having the things that she believes that she should have.

She had no clothes, no jewels, nothing. And these were the only things she loved; she felt that she was made for them. She had longed so eagerly to charm, to be desired, to be wildly attractive and sought after.

As an outsider looking at Mathilde’s life, what can the reader assess about her?  Mathilde sits around being miserable instead of appreciating the things that she does have: an apartment, a servant, her outward beauty, and a husband that would do anything for her.  Mathilde deserves her misery for focusing on the material aspect of life.

Her long-suffering husband is amazing.  He probably listened to her complaining about the insufficiency of her plight on a daily basis.  The reader does not learn much about him except that he does not abandon her even when she loses the necklace and must replace it thinking that it is of great value.

When her husband brings the invitation to the ball, he hopes it will make Mathilde happy. Instead, Mathilde immediately rejects the idea of the party.  As she tosses the invitation back to her husband, she whines about not having a dress to wear. 

Once again to please her, he gives up his extra money and buys her a gown.  This does not satisfy her because she has no jewelry to wear with her new dress.  The husband suggests that she borrow something from her friend Madame Forrestier. 

After losing the necklace that she borrowed, Mathilde and her husband spend the next ten years working and saving to pay back the loan incurred to buy another necklace for her friend. Mathilde loses everything: her beauty, her home, her servant.  The one thing that she does not lose is her husband.  Everyone should be so lucky as to have a quality man like Monsieur Loisel. 

Mathilde deserves her misery.  She did not deserve her husband who supported her throughout her mistakes.

Foolishly, she does not tell her friend the truth and suffers for it.  If she had been honest and told her friend about the lost necklace, none of this would have happened. Yet, Mathilde does do the right thing and works hard alongside her husband.  Did Mathilde learn a lesson? It is not clear about her attitude and how much she changed.  Probably, she would like to have back the miserable life that she had to give up.

See eNotes Ad-Free

Start your 48-hour free trial to get access to more than 30,000 additional guides and more than 350,000 Homework Help questions answered by our experts.

Get 48 Hours Free Access
Last Updated on