Draft Two
Christine WANG, Yuting
May 13, 2007
Draft Two
Title
‘Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death!’ was one of the most well-known slogans of the French Revolution, which was widely regarded as a pivotal turning point in the history of France – from the age of aristocracy to the age of democracy. It claimed the doctrine of "natural rights", including rights to life, liberty, and property, trying to put into practice the idea that France should be ruled by the ‘best’ of its society instead of the so-called hereditary class.
Despite the trans-age significance of the French Revolution, class distinctions, however, undeniably remained an integral part of French society, where privileges and reputations of an individual person were still based on his/her wealth. Born into a middle-class family, Guy de Maupassant had to become an ordinary civil servant because of no money to support his law studies. So he had a deep-felt understanding of class distinctions. In his novel ‘The Necklace’, Maupassant tells a story of Mme. Mathilde Loisel, who borrows a seemingly pricey necklace for an upper-class party but loses it. She and her husband take a ten-year poor life to pay off the debts on the necklace that is practically worthless. The dramatic ending may at first appear to be the natural result of Mathilde’s vanity but in fact involve condemnation on mechanism of the society itself. Virtually, class distinctions of French society are the underlying cause leading to Mathilde Loisel's misery.
The story begins with a description of Mrs. Mathilde Loisel, drawing readers’ attention to have a close look to how class distinctions greatly influence destiny of the girl ‘born in a family of clerks’ (38). ‘Pretty and charming’ (38), she, in sharp contrast, has to marry ‘a little clerk’ (38). Hence, a psychological gap opens between dissatisfaction of her trivial marriage and pride of her own natural fineness. The gap, amplified later when she finds no jewel to wear for the party, turns to be a prerequisite to subsequent tragic outcomes. Nevertheless, what causes her psychological gap? It is easy to trace the story for the answer, that is, she insists on the idea that ‘there is neither caste nor rank: and beauty, grace, and charm act instead of family and birth’ (38) whereas the reality is right opposite to her idealistic thoughts. It is the society with strict class distinctions, in which men set higher standard for women. Besides beauty, grace, and charm, money or property also works. ‘A man often chose a wife on the basis of how large her fortune was.’ (38) Although it is completely unfair that dowry seems everything to girls, Mathilde’s fate appears to be understandable in her society. As a member of the lower-middle class, she fails to offer a decent dowry in the pursuit of her happiness. Even though she reasonably will do her best to change it later at the ball, her looming misery is doomed.
Besides her current situation, class distinctions of French society also deeply affect Mathilde’s attitude to the upper-class ball. Important but invisible evidence is the following words said by Mathilde’s husband:
‘But, my dear, I thought you would be glad. You never go out, and this is such a fine opportunity. I had awful trouble to get it. Everyone wants to go; it is very select, and they are not giving many invitations to clerks. The whole official world will be there.’ (39)
The depiction seems thought-provoking in two aspects. One is why everyone wants to go to the ball; the other is why there are only a few invitations to clerks compared with the whole official world. Actually, those two phenomena exactly suggest what kinds of class distinctions exist in the society. First, the rigid upper class is not easy to step into, revealed by the limited invitations, together with the comparison between clerks and the official world. Secondly, ‘a fine opportunity’, ‘it is very select’, and etc indicates that the middle class is eagerly dreaming to enter into the mainstream of the upper class. What’s more, those fundamental points disclosed are apparently incompatible with one another. So as for the middle class, the opportunity to attend the upper-class ball turns out to be a freaky symbol of social status and reputation. Wealth a middle-class lady owns fails her dream to identify herself at the extravagant ball, while the social station she is in encourages her attempt for a social climber. Naturally, Mathilde is not the exception. Like other middle-class women, she feels complicated facing to the invitation. By seizing the opportunity, she would probably ‘be envied’, ‘be charming’, and ‘be sought after’ (39). However, she, at the same time, realizes her incapability of perfect self-demonstration because the upper class judge women not only by natural beauty but also by delicacies and luxuries they are in possession of. Such a shilly-shally attitude to the upper, a vivid reflection of class distinctions of French society, later grows to be one of crucial reasons for jewel borrowing -- a key fact leading to her misery.
Another detail presented in the story is related to Mathilde’s attitude to the lower. As written by the author, in debate with her husband on what to wear at the party, she gives her seemingly righteous reason: 'there's nothing more humiliating than to look poor among other women who are rich.' (40) By taking into account the derogatory term of ‘humiliating’, the hidden meaning beneath her statement is not a portrayal of her vanity, but correspondence between her contempt and class distinctions. Actually, it indicates that contempt to the lower class prevails in her society. In details, in the society with rigid class distinctions, personality and character of an individual are judged by his/her class, and the class is identified by money or property. In other words, a poor woman has no access to be recognized as nobility. Therefore, one measure to be admired is at least to look rich, as a way of pretence to be of the upper class. Suffering from the popular social system of judgment, Mathilde tries her best to carefully avoid being mistaken for a lower-class woman at the ball. Her method responding to her attitude is to borrow a necklace to impress others. In the pressure of class distinctions, the method is what will ensure her self-improvement, as well as what will cause her tragedy.
Mathilde’s reactions in the story are the direct results of imperceptible influence of class distinctions. One of her reactions constituting vital factors of plot development is as follows when she returns the replaced necklace to Mme. Forestier.
‘…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 Mme. Loisel for a thief?' (43)
At first glance, it appears to be, in some sense, ridiculous psychological activities. Why, you may wonder, would her friend see her as a thief? Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, ‘A friend is a person with whom I may be sincere. Before him I may think aloud.’ So, it is no doubt that friends trust each other. Mathild’s worried reaction, on the contrary, suggests that her uncertainty about friendship between Mme. Forestier and herself. This kind of uncertainty derives from the common tread in her society because people are divided by social classes. So the reasonable explanation for her unusual reaction is that class distinctions invisibly held back their healthy mutual communication. She thinks too much, subconsciously with the agreement that because of her family and birth she is likely to be recognized as a thief even if she claims that the necklace is lost. The burden of potential charge with theft is too heavy to bear, causing Mathild’s hesitation to tell her friend what happened. If Mathilde had done it, she might have had an opportunity to find the truth and would have no use to spend the following ten years on repaying. It is a pity that her deep-rooted notion of class distinction plays a dominating role of her reactions.
In addition, a minutia of Mathilde’s sensitive reaction when the ball is over also reminds readers of the influence of class distinctions. As her husband attempts to prevent her from catching a cold with ‘modest wraps of common life’ (41), ‘she felt this, and wanted to escape so as not to be remarked by the other women, who were enveloping themselves in costly furs.’ (41) It is a vivid description of her subtle feelings. She has a clear understanding of her own wealth, but she refuses to accept the fact that she is of the middle class. That is not merely the result of her vanity. Due to class distinctions, rich women would laugh at her modesty because it is a ruthless society where judgment is easily made by money and property. And due to class distinctions, there is no way for her to merge into the upper class even if she is of great elegance. In deeper level, what she wants to escape is her social station in life. However, her tragedy is that class distinctions will not allow her to escape although she reacts sensitively and cautiously.
With the story developing, Mathilde’s dramatic fate is tempting and sympathetic. When compared with the slogan of French Revolution quoted in the first paragraph, the miserable ending of Mme. Mathilde Loisel is sharply ironic. She is always trying to be treated equally. Unfortunately, she fails, and furthermore pays heavily for the trial.
In his paper ‘Six Questions on the French Revolution’, Troy Southgate once evaluates the famed slogan by the term of ‘pseudo-egalitarianism’. The very notion of equality had become widely embedded in the society where Maupassant lived. Nevertheless, the visible marks of class difference could be found everywhere. Those with idealistic dreams were heavily hurt in the face of the antinomy. In fact, Mathilde represents thousands of those victims of class distinctions of French society in the time of post-revolution. By picturing the tragedy of the major character, Maupassant expresses his confusion and discontent on the issue of class distinctions, in the purpose of self-awakening all over the country.
Work Cited
1) Shafer, David
Unsettled Idealism: The French Revolution's Ambiguous Legacy
Eighteenth-Century Studies - Volume 34, Number 3, Spring 2001, pp. 447-450
The Johns Hopkins University Press
Eighteenth-Century Studies 34.3 (2001) 447-450
2) http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/hist23.php
Six Questions on the French Revolution
By Troy Southgate
"Indeed, unless the 'rights of man' are offered to all people, regardless of social distinction or circumstantial qualification, the very notions of ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’ are reduced to a complete sham. Not, of course, that the pseudo-egalitarianism of the French Revolution was ever going to be workable anyway."
