Our status in society has been an important concept for centuries. During the 19th century, status was significantly based up on wealth and whether or not you were a man or a woman. This can be seen in Guy de Maupasant's short story, "The Necklace." The main character of the story, Mathilde Loisel, agonizes over the fact that she isn't someone in the world and only has meager things in life. This is reiterated throughout the story and ultimately emphasizes her status as solely a common woman in 19th century France. Her status serves as a burden, and through a series of events her status plays a significant role in her life. Through a close reading of "The Necklace" it is apparent that status is dependent on what one owns, gender, and wealth. 

Mathilide was consumed by a materialistic obsession. She constantly daydreamed and longed for an elegant life with everything that she didn't and wouldn't be able to have due to her husband's income.  She had a house, but longed for a mansion. She had clothes, but longed for beautiful dresses and jewels. She had a loving husband, but longed for a wealthy one at that. As de Maupassant explains, "she had no dresses, no jewels, nothing. And she loved nothing but that" (22). While she did have these items, it felt as if she didn't have them at all because they weren't lavish and expensive. According to her, what we own must be expensive for it to be enjoyable which is an unfortunate philosophy. The dearth of these expensive items induced a daily struggle for Mathilde. This can be seen when she could no longer visit her wealthy friend because it inflicted so much suffering once she had to return home. One would be able to deduce that if given the opportunity to be rich, Mathilde would grasp it. However, when offered the opportunity to attend a ball, she immediately refused, as she didn't have the proper clothing to be seen at the event. Once she and her husband finagled enough money to fund a dress, she realized that she didn't have jewels and yet again considered dropping out of attending. Flowers were out of the question because "there [was] nothing more humiliating to look poor among other women who are rich" (de Maupasant 24). Thankfully she agreed to borrow a beautiful jewel necklace from her friend, Mme. Forestier. Though terrible, having an expensive dress and jewels made Mathilde feel worthy of a having a wealthy status, even if it were just for one night. 

Another aspect of status in the story is between Mathilde and her husband. Unlike today where many husbands and wives both work to support themselves, Mathilde's husband was the sole breadwinner of the story. After all, "since with women there is neither caste nor rank" (de Maupassant 22.) Mathilde's husband made enough to support himself, his wife, and to pay their servant. There weren't any supplemental funds to support lavish clothes or jewelry- both Mathilde so desperately desired. However, if she wanted them so badly why couldn't she work to purchase them herself? This idea is widely accepted and encouraged in today's society, but the status between men and women in 19th century France was differentiated based on the concept of working. Mathlide's husband worked everyday as a clerk, while she sat around the house their servant cleaned.  However, once the two had gained so much debt from the replacement necklace, they had to fire their servant and move to a smaller house. Mathilde "now knew the horrible existence of the needy" by having to pursue the housework as an occupation (de Maupassant 26). Her status as a woman shows that she couldn't have considered a profession of trade or physical labor, both of which bring in money.  Only her husband would continue his work as a clerk and have additional jobs to settle their debt. This signifies that having status as a woman didn't allow much flexibility when it came to pursing a career. 

The final aspect of status is the assumption that all wealthy people own expensive items. Upon losing the necklace, Mathilde and her husband immediately thought it was a necklace of some worth. Therefore they searched for a replacement that had diamonds as the jewels and they were confident in the decision that Mme. Forestier wouldn't suspect a thing. After ten years of debt finally paid, Mathilde reveled to Mme. Forestier that she had lost the necklace and was poor because of having to pay off the thirty six thousand francs for the replacement. Mathilde felt so proud that Mme. Forestier hadn't noticed that it wasn't the real necklace. Yet Mathlide's assumption backfired greatly. Mme. Forestier explained that "[her] necklace was paste. It was worth at most five hundred francs" (de Maupassant 28). This proves that having a wealthy status doesn't mean everything you own is of value. 

Status in society influences our opportunities and perceptions. In "The Necklace" Mathilde would never have a career due to her status as a woman and would never have valuable things due to her status as a commoner. Mme. Forestier's status as a wealthy person made Mathilde and her husband assume everything she owned would be worth something. Finally, Mathide's status as an average commoner set her back and caused her to deeply yearn for a life that was financially impossible. Conclusively, Mathilde's status determined her life's path and assumptions she made about higher ranking people. Ironically, after both working off the debt for ten years, they would have been considered of a wealthy status and afford all that Mathilde wanted ten years ago. Status is relative and in the end cannot be defined by what we own and who we are. In the case of "The Necklace", had Mathilde not taken her poor status so close to heart, she may have been able to accomplish more and perhaps own a beautiful necklace of her own. 
