Guy de Maupassant (1883) — a man stoops to pick up a scrap of string, and an entire town decides what kind of man he must be
Easier version available: read this lesson at A2/B1 level →
Maupassant tells the whole story in a few thousand words, and the cruelty arrives slowly, the way real cruelty does. Read each part, pause for the discussion box, then continue. The ending is one murmured sentence — do not skip ahead.
Along all the roads around Goderville the peasants and their wives were coming towards the town, for it was market day. The men walked with a slow step, their bodies thrown forward at every movement of their long, crooked legs. The market square was full of a confused mass of people and animals — the smell of the stables, of milk, of sweat, and the sour human odour of the country folk.
Maître Hauchecorne, of Bréauté, had just arrived at Goderville, and he was making his way towards the square when he saw on the ground a little piece of string. Hauchecorne, thrifty like all true Normans, thought that everything was worth picking up that might be of use. He stooped down painfully, for he suffered from rheumatism, and took the bit of thin cord from the ground, and was about to roll it up carefully when he noticed Maître Malandain, the harness-maker, watching him from his doorway.
The two men had once had a quarrel about a halter, and they had remained on bad terms, being both inclined to bear a grudge. Hauchecorne was suddenly seized with a kind of shame at being seen by his enemy looking in the dirt for a scrap of string. He quickly hid his find under his smock, and then in his trouser pocket, and pretended to be still searching the ground for something he could not find. Then he went off towards the market, his head bent forward, doubled up by his pains.
The midday meal was over. The square was beginning to empty when a town crier went through, beating a drum. A crowd gathered round him, and he read out his announcement: a black leather wallet, containing five hundred francs and some business papers, had been lost on the road that morning between Goderville and the surrounding farms. Whoever had found it was asked to return it at once to the mayor's office, or to its owner, Maître Houlbrèque of Manneville. A reward was promised.
The people talked of it as they went their separate ways. Towards the end of the afternoon a policeman appeared and asked for Maître Hauchecorne. He was found at last, drinking his coffee in an inn, and told that the mayor wished to speak with him. The peasant, surprised and uneasy, set off behind the policeman.
"Maître Hauchecorne," said the mayor, "you were seen this morning to pick up, on the road, the wallet lost by Maître Houlbrèque of Manneville."
The countryman, astounded, looked at the mayor, already frightened by this suspicion that rested on him, without his understanding why.
"Me? Me? I picked up that wallet?"
"Yes, you. You were seen."
"By whom? Who saw me?"
"Maître Malandain, the harness-maker."
Then the old man remembered, understood, and, reddening with anger, cried out:
"Ah, he saw me, did he, the rascal? He saw me pick up this string here, Monsieur le Maire!"
And fumbling in his pocket, he drew out the little piece of string. But the mayor shook his head, unconvinced. It was hard to believe that a respectable man could be accused on the word of an enemy of so trifling a thing. Hauchecorne was searched. Nothing was found on him. But the mayor remained doubtful, and let him go with a warning that the matter would be reported to higher authorities.
The story spread. By evening it was said everywhere that Hauchecorne had picked up the wallet and hidden it. He went from group to group, telling his tale, showing his pockets turned inside out, repeating again and again: "It was a piece of string, Monsieur — see, here it is." But the more he insisted, the less he was believed. People laughed. His story of the string was thought to be an invention, a clever cover.
The next day, however, the wallet was found by a farm labourer of Manneville and returned, untouched, to its owner. The thing was real; the wallet had been on the road exactly as the crier had said, and Hauchecorne had never touched it.
The news ran through the district. Hauchecorne was overjoyed; he was vindicated at last. He set off to tell everyone, certain now that the whole affair was over. But to his astonishment, the people only smiled. They did not believe him innocent. They said to one another that he must have had an accomplice who returned the wallet for him, that the two had arranged it between them. It was the very neatness of the return that condemned him.
The old man felt the injustice settle on him like a weight. He grew obstinate in his own defence, telling his story to anyone who would listen, on the road, in the inns, at the next market — longer each time, with new arguments, new oaths, which he prepared in his hours of solitude, his whole mind given up to the story of the string. The more elaborate his defence, the less he was believed. People mocked him to his face. He felt it eating into him.
He began to waste away. He could no longer eat. He took to his bed. Towards the end of December he declined rapidly, and in his last delirium he protested his innocence still, repeating, with the feeble voice of a dying man:
"A little piece of string — a little piece of string — see, here it is, Monsieur le Maire."
Ten words from the story that earn their keep far beyond Goderville. Tap to reveal meaning and a usable example.
The whole story turns on three things working at once: an author who never raises his voice, a town that becomes a single cruel judge, and a man defined entirely by one helpless repetition. Notice how each one operates.
| Element | What it does | Marker in the text |
|---|---|---|
| Maupassant's irony | The narrator reports the cruelty flatly, without comment, so the reader feels the injustice the author refuses to name | "It was the very neatness of the return that condemned him." |
| The crowd as judge | No court, no evidence — the town's collective opinion becomes the verdict, and it cannot be appealed | "The more he insisted, the less he was believed." |
| Characterisation through obsession | Hauchecorne is built almost entirely out of one repeated act of self-defence, which narrows until it is all that is left of him | "A little piece of string — a little piece of string — see, here it is." |
This is a story told largely in the passive voice and in impersonal report — "it was said that…", "he was accused of…", "the wallet had been found." That is no accident. The passive lets a whole town act on a man without any single person taking responsibility. Learn the structure and you will hear how Maupassant builds the injustice.
Pattern: subject + the verb to be (in the right tense) + past participle (+ by + agent, if needed).
We choose the passive when the agent is unknown ("the wallet was lost"), unimportant ("Hauchecorne was searched"), or when we deliberately want to hide or generalise who acted ("it was said that…", "he was thought to be guilty"). Official reports and rumour both love it for exactly that reason — it removes the person doing the accusing.
1. A wallet (lose, past) in the square that morning.
2. Maître Hauchecorne (accuse, past) of stealing it.
3. The peasant (search, past) by the mayor, but nothing was found.
1. was lost
2. was accused
3. was searched
Note: each one hides or downplays the agent. We are not told clearly who lost the wallet, and "was accused" lets the whole town do the accusing without a name attached.
When a rumour or an official claim has no clear source, English reaches for impersonal passive structures: it was said that…, he was thought to be…, he was believed to have…. These are the verbs of gossip and bureaucracy alike.
1. By evening, it (say, past) that Hauchecorne had hidden the wallet.
2. It (think, past) that he had an accomplice.
3. He (believe, past) to have invented the story of the string.
1. was said
2. was thought
3. was believed (he was believed to have invented…)
Note: "is believed to have…" / "was thought to have…" lets us report a widely held belief without ever saying who holds it. That faceless quality is exactly what destroys Hauchecorne.
The story's bitter turn needs a passive set one step further back: the wallet had been found. The form is had been + past participle.
1. The next day the wallet (find) by another man and returned untouched.
2. By then the rumour (spread) through the whole district.
3. Even after the truth came out, he (already / condemn) in the minds of the crowd.
1. had been found
2. had spread (active — "spread" here has no agent; "had been spread" is also possible if a spreader is implied)
3. had already been condemned
Use the passive when the agent is unknown, unimportant, or deliberately suppressed — and when the focus belongs on the person things are being done to, not the people doing them.
Four moves to spot. Together they explain why a story about a scrap of string still grips us.
The wallet is found. Hauchecorne is innocent in plain fact. By every ordinary expectation, this should free him. Instead the return of the wallet condemns him further — the town decides only a guilty man could have arranged so clean an outcome. Maupassant ironises the whole idea that truth wins, and the gap between what should happen and what does is where the cruelty lives.
There is no trial in this story. The verdict is delivered by the collective murmur of the market — "it was said," "people thought." Maupassant shows how a rumour, once it forms, recasts every new fact as further proof of guilt. The crowd becomes a single judge with no face, no name, and no appeal.
We barely learn anything else about Hauchecorne. He becomes his defence. Maupassant distils the man down to one repeated phrase, and as the story narrows, so does Hauchecorne's whole mind, until the repetition is literally his last breath. The technique enacts the obsession it describes.
Maupassant refuses to rescue his character. No one apologises; the town simply moves on. The flat, unconsoling ending elevates a petty village grudge into a portrait of how ordinary people destroy one another without ever meaning to commit a crime. The bleakness is the point.
Now move to the next tab. The technique work above feeds directly into the three speaking tasks.
Do all four. Each one builds on the last. The timer is for your benefit — it forces you to fill the time rather than escape it. Use the passive, impersonal report, and effect verbs from the previous tabs.
Before we discuss it, tell the story back to me as if I had never read it — in your own words, not line by line. Aim for about eight to ten sentences.
As you go, use at least five words from the Vocabulary tab and keep the events in order using the passive and impersonal report from the Grammar tab. These beats will help you: on market day the thrifty Hauchecorne bends to pick up a piece of string · his enemy sees him and, when a wallet is reported lost, accuses him · though searched and protesting, he is disbelieved by the mayor and the jeering crowd · even after the wallet is returned by another man, no one believes him · he tells his story obsessively and wastes away.
Describe a time when you, or someone you know, was wrongly accused or wrongly judged — at work, at school, in a family, anywhere. Tell it in three stages:
Use at least three passive structures ("I was accused of…", "It was assumed that…", "Nothing was ever proved…") and at least two effect verbs from the Technique tab (recasts, distils, ironises…).
Maupassant's town never holds a trial — the verdict forms by itself, out of repetition. Talk for three minutes about how a rumour or a reputation takes hold and then becomes impossible to undo. Draw on something you have actually seen: in an office, online, in a town, in a school.
Frame the spreading of the rumour with impersonal report ("It was said that…", "People were believed to…", "He was thought to have…"), so that the gossip has no single owner — exactly as in the story.
Take any real event from your week — a meeting, a mistake, a piece of news. First, for two minutes, report it impersonally, as an official notice or a neutral bulletin would: "A decision was taken… It was announced that… The matter was referred to…" Strip out every I and every name.
Then, for two minutes, tell the same event personally — "I decided… I felt… I told them…" Notice out loud what the impersonal version hid, and what the personal version restored. Use at least one effect verb to describe the difference (reframes, distils, elevates…).