Maigret si confida

Inspector Maigret #54

by Georges Simenon, Margherita Belardetti (Translator)

«E se quella sera Maigret aveva iniziato di colpo a parlare era per distogliere l’amico dai suoi pensieri, certo, ma soprattutto perché la telefonata ricevuta da Pardon aveva risvegliato in lui sentimenti non dissimili da quelli che agitavano il dottore. Non era senso di colpa: Maigret, del resto, detestava quell’espressione. Ma neppure rimorso. Entrambi erano a volte costretti, in virtù del mestiere che avevano scelto, a prendere una decisione da cui dipendeva il destino degli altri. Nel caso di Pardon un destino di vita o di morte. Nel loro atteggiamento non c’era nulla di romantico. Né sconforto, né ribellione. Solo una certa serietà venata di malinconia».

Genres: Mystery, Fiction, Crime, France, Noir, Ebooks, Thriller

152 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1959

About the author

Georges Joseph Christian Simenon (1903 – 1989) was a Belgian writer. A prolific author who published nearly 500 novels and numerous short works, Simenon is best known as the creator of the fictional detective Jules Maigret.
Although he never resided in Belgium after 1922, he remained a Belgian citizen throughout his life.

Simenon was one of the most prolific writers of the twentieth century, capable of writing 60 to 80 pages per day. His oeuvre includes nearly 200 novels, over 150 novellas, several autobiographical works, numerous articles, and scores of pulp novels written under more than two dozen pseudonyms. Altogether, about 550 million copies of his works have been printed.

He is best known, however, for his 75 novels and 28 short stories featuring Commissaire Maigret. The first novel in the series, Pietr-le-Letton, appeared in 1931; the last one, Maigret et M. Charles, was published in 1972. The Maigret novels were translated into all major languages and several of them were turned into films and radio plays. Two television series (1960-63 and 1992-93) have been made in Great Britain.

During his "American" period, Simenon reached the height of his creative powers, and several novels of those years were inspired by the context in which they were written (Trois chambres à Manhattan (1946), Maigret à New York (1947), Maigret se fâche (1947)).

Simenon also wrote a large number of "psychological novels", such as La neige était sale (1948) or Le fils (1957), as well as several autobiographical works, in particular Je me souviens (1945), Pedigree (1948), Mémoires intimes (1981).

In 1966, Simenon was given the MWA's highest honor, the Grand Master Award.

In 2005 he was nominated for the title of De Grootste Belg (The Greatest Belgian). In the Flemish version he ended 77th place. In the Walloon version he ended 10th place.

Reviews

[Jim Fonseca · Rating 4 out of 5]

A woman has been found stabbed in her bathtub. She and her husband had both been at home and drinking heavily that evening, so he’s the logical suspect. He also delayed in reporting her death to the police for hours while he left the house and made preparations to flee the country with his woman friend. If an innocent man wanted to make himself look guilty, this guy did all the right things!



I was struck by how much this introductory setting reminded me of another novel, a Nordic noir by a Swedish author that I have reviewed. In Mind's Eye by Hakan Nesser, a man is arrested for drowning his (second) wife in the bathtub. He was so drunk that night that he can’t remember anything. That’s his defense: to the effect of 'I can’t remember anything but if I had drowned her I think I would have remembered that.' In addition, he starts to do laundry while waiting for the police to arrive.

The structure of this Maigret story is intriguing. It’s not your usual narration of events as they are occurring. Instead it’s largely a story that Maigret reminisces about as he tells it to a good friend over a series of dinners at his home. It’s over and done with. In theory “justice has been served” but Maigret always had a nagging suspicion that justice was “ill-served” in this case.

I think only a best-selling, accomplished writer like Simenon could get away with that – a detective story told as reminiscence. If you or I wrote it like that, the editor would immediately say --- "Write about the case as it is happening! No one wants to read about you having second thoughts about a case while you are conversing with a friend years later." Lol. But Simenon can do that and make it interesting.



I liked this line that Maigret says of his supervising Magistrate: “He calmly divides the sheep from the goats and is incapable of imagining that anyone could be a mixture of the two.”

I will say that I felt a little bit 'cheated' by this Maigret story. So I don’t give away too much plot I’ll just say this: if you like to follow along with a detective story and look for clues along the way, it won’t work with this book.

Note that this novel is titled Maigret has Doubts but other English translations list it as Maigret's Secret. In either case, it's #54 in the series.

I read this book as a buddy read with my GR friend Ebba and I thank her for her insights.



You always get a good story from Simenon, the Belgian author who wrote in French, and is best known for the 75 novels in his Inspector Maigret series. Incredibly, Simenon (1903-1989) wrote more than 500 novels in total. And it’s amazing to see some of the blurbs about his writing and who they are from. I imagine these comment refer mainly to Simenon's romans durs, not necessarily his Maigrets. John Banville wrote of his “extraordinary masterpieces of the twentieth century.” William Faulkner said “I love reading Simenon. He makes me think of Chekhov.” And [maybe a bit much] a reviewer in The Independent wrote “Simenon ought to be spoken of in the same breath as Camus, Beckett and Kafka.”

I enjoy reading a Maigret as a break from more serious topics. I’ve read a dozen or so but I won’t list all of my reviews below, just the few I’ve read that have ratings higher than 3.8 on GR:

Maigret’s Pickpocket

Maigret and the Loner

Maigret and the Madwoman

Maigret Has Scruples

Maigret Sets a Trap

Maigret and the Headless Corpse

Photos of two “Maigrets” from video series: Top Michael Gambron from theguardian.com; middle Richard Harris from variety.com
Bottom: The author as a young man from facebook.com

[Ebba Simone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Between 1931 and 1972 Georges Simenon published 75 Maigret novels. I have read 10 of these novels so far and Maigret is my favorite detective. And I know Maigret's close friend, Monsieur Pardon well. He is a physician, in this novel in his early 40's and a good doctor and good human being. I met him at several suppers at the Maigret's respectively Pardon's place in Paris and on other occasions. But I have never spent so much time in Pardon's company and at his home before (until "Maigret's Secret").

Pardon lits a cigar after dinner and coffee while Maigret is filling his pipe. And we can hear the rhythmic clack of their [spouses] needles carried on in the corner of the living room.

Maigret is looking back on an old case and is telling his friend Pardon about the day he interviewed the suspect Adrien Josset at Maigret's office. It was a Tuesday, a day in spring, like now in this novel. "The office was bathed in sunlight, and the noises of Paris could be heard through the open window."

Two close friends are talking, not talking and thinking out loud as you can only do with a close friend. The window is also open, I believe. We can hear the gaps, silences and we can also see the slow puffs of smoke from the inspector's pipe and the smoke of Pardon's cigar. (Monsieur Pardon only smokes one cigar every time on each dinner meeting.)

Pardon and Maigret are reflecting how their hands are tied sometimes. They want do more but it is not possible due to rules, the law, structures.

Maigret: "So this apparently normal individual you have before you, was he capable of killing someone or not? [...] I'm saying it's not about deciding if he is guilty or not. That's not the business of the Police Judicaire. But we do have to ask ourselves if it is possible that... Isn't that a form of judging. I hate that."

Georges Simenon said: "My motto, to the extent that I have one, has been noted often enough, and I've always conformed to it. It's the one I've given old Maigret, who resembles me in certain points... 'understand and judge not'."

I will not give details on the actual case. So everything about the murder case will be new to you when you are reading it.

This was a fabulous buddy read with my friend Jim discussed during a thunder storm on a Sunday afternoon (CET).

Penguin is publishing the entire series of Maigret novels in new translations. They amended the titles. So it is best if you look for the numbers. This novel is #54. Jim's copy was an older translation from the library called "Maigret Has Doubts". Maigret has doubts. My Penguin copy has been renamed to: "Maigret's Secret".

The original title is: "Une confidence de Maigret" (= Maigret's Confession).

Please find a link to Jim's thoughts on "Maigret Has Doubts" here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Another Maigret buddy read with Jim: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

During our buddy reads we noticed that the English translations varied.

Penguin was more true to the original text sometimes.

Example:

French original: "il sépare les bons des mauvais"

Translation "Maigret Has Doubts": good and bad was replaced by "sheep and goats"

Translation "Maigret's Secret" translated by David Watson: "distinguishing the good people from the bad people"

#54 has got lovely chapter names. Jim and I concluded that the Geraniums on the window sill at Rue Caulaincourt (chapter 2) could be a metaphor.

Ebba

[Adrian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lunchtime Listen October 2024

During the regular dinner parties between the Maigret and the Pardons, Maigret one evening whilst relaxing with his friend starts to recount the tale of a murder he had investigated many years previously.
This murder is forever etched on Maigret’s mind as he still has doubts as to whether the investigating magistrate and the public prosecutors went after the wrong man.

Was Adrien Josset really guilty of his wife’s murder, or was their relaxed lifestyle such that there were yet more unknown men in her life.

Maigret is only given one interview with the accused man, before the public clamour around the murder forces the Investigating magistrate to charge Josset. Maigret at that point should cease looking at the case , but he is not convinced that Josset is guilty.

The details of the case unfold as Maigret puffs on his pipe in the lounge of his friend Pardon, whilst their wives discuss other matters in quiet whispers. A brilliant story , cleverly told in the form of reminiscing as the old friends relax after a meal.

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars. An engaging, interesting crime fiction novella where detective inspector Maigret discusses with a doctor friend, an old murder case that he was involved in. Circumstantial evidence pointed to Adrien Joset stabbing his wife to death. Maigret tells the facts of the case. Adrien Joset had a young 20 year old lover, Annette, that his wife knew about. His wife also had lovers. At 8pm on the night of the murder, Annette and Adrien are in Annette’s apartment. Suddenly Annette’s father appears. Her father was unaware his daughter was having an affair with a married man. Adrien placates Annette’s father, promising to marry his daughter. Later that same night Adrien’s wife is stabbed to death.

Another satisfying reading experience. This book was first published in France in 1959. The 54th book in the Maigret series.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is a reflective aspect to the novel that shows the mind and memory of Maigret at work and the skill of the author in presenting a book told largely in flash back.
Those familiar with the Maigrets’ habits will know they meet with their friends, the Pardons, monthly for dinner usually in each other’s homes.
Usually, the men retire after the meal to smoke and share aspects of their professional lives while the Women discus more topical aspects of life.
This particular evening Dr Pardon is awaiting a call from the family of a dying patient. He has done all he can to manage the pain and intimates that there is a balance to care in the last days of life where death is a release but can not be ushered forward by the use of drugs. He can only do so much, and advise carers of this fine line. An earlier call showed the end was close, the pain intensifying cut the caution needed in given medication that could bring death sooner.
This fascinated Maigret who in other circumstances may have become a Doctor himself. Published nearly 60 years ago it is a strange insight into palliative care as we understand today.
But this is just the setting for this novel that strikes out to share the Chief Inspector’s own views of the judicial system, the ‘power’ over his inspectors of the examining magistrate and his changing role at a time of greater experience he his less able to raise his voice to share doubts or push the investigation in a particular way.
How in a changing society, with new roles and relationships older and more familiar milieu and individuals of class and trades made police work more challenging. Tasking inspectors to learn the environment that people move and worked. You might say this is the reflections of an elderly man nearing retirement but it isn’t just laid before as that in terms of regrets and resistant to modernisation and change. The author’s skill is in showing the bits the detective chooses to share or can remember as the ‘direction’ of the murder case would lead to a conviction and execution.
Maigret has long been seen as someone who likes to spend time with the principle players and determine truth through these discussions. Here he had just one interview and was not convinced of guilt. Josset maintains his innocence throughout but circumstances and public opinion were always against him. Indeed his team were always playing catch up for once aspects are known to the press the readership it attracts and reflects share the views of the printed word - guilty as charged. Subsequent interviews are marred by this knowledge and so long after the events blur and obscure memories.
Masterful writing even when the reality is known. It isn’t Maigret’s fault or mistake. It is the present system. His own views of guilt or innocence are not in question for he never jumps to such conclusions. The suspect’s own journey is important and Josset has always proclaimed he didn’t kill his wife. The facts in the main substantiate all he said when questioned by Maigret that one time.
Yet they could not find the doubt of all the other possible causes or reason Christine Josset was murdered. But many years later Maigret learned of a possible link, too late for Josset and still a little allusive to categorically imply a miscarriage of justice.
A great read; contemporary in many ways and about people always rather than the crimes committed.

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un Maigret insolito, dedito alle confidenze con il suo amico Pardon, tra un budino di riso e un bicchierino di liquore, ci fa rivivere in differita uno dei casi che ha affrontato tempo prima, un caso che gli ha lasciato una forte amarezza ed ha mosso in lui interrogativi sul suo lavoro. La confidenza del commissario ci svela il tormento che egli ancora sente per come è stato risolto il caso apparentemente semplice, chiarito in quattro e quattr’otto dall’opinione pubblica e dal giudice Coméliau, di una donna ricca sgozzata nel letto sposata in seconde nozze con un uomo proveniente da un ceto inferiore, che con il matrimonio si è arricchito. Nulla di più facile che accusare il marito stesso, il colpevole per eccellenza. Una situazione che conosciamo bene, oggi tutti i processi più eclatanti sono risolti dall’opinione pubblica sui giornali e in televisione, ognuno di noi si erge a giudice che condanna o assolve sulla base di convinzioni che i media ci impongono e così … giustizia è fatta.
L’impotenza di fronte al destino di un uomo che la società benestante cui la moglie apparteneva non ha mai accettato e che è rimasto incatenato al suo ruolo di arrampicatore sociale grava sul commissario Maigret a distanza di tempo, mettendolo in crisi per non aver potuto esercitare il suo dovere, quello di “dubitare di tutto, di cercare altrove, di non trascurare alcuna congettura…”. Non è andata così, ed una vita umana forse innocente è stata sacrificata.
Uno dei Maigret più amari e belli che abbia letto.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

A most unusual and relatively late Maigret mystery written in 1959. A woman with an impeccable reputation but rather tawdry morals is found murdered in her house, and her husband, Josset, immediately falls under suspicion because he fails to alert the police for many hours. Inspector Maigret interrogates him at length and, while Josset's story hangs together in many ways, the "Chief" still has his doubts (when repeatedly asked if Josset is the guilty party, Maigret repeatedly replies, "I don't know.") However, the public has prejudged the case and assumes that Josset is indeed the killer, despite his strenuous protestations.

While most Maigret novels end in a clear-cut verdict, Maigret is never able to come to a conclusion about the case -- and neither can the reader. This is such an evolution in sophistication for the Maigret books that it is quite revelatory. Josset's complex psychology eludes easy explanation, and Maigret, ever the astute analyst, is rather befuddled, and remains so at the end of the book. This is why I continue to read Georges Simenon (after devouring about 45 works). He is a literary master of the first order, and his characterizations are multilayered and brilliant.

[Tita · Rating 2 out of 5]

Julgo que este livro me foi oferecido pela Porto Editora na FLL 2016 e acabei por pegar nele pois queria um livro pequeno e, para juntar o útil ao agradável, um livro que tivesse na minha estante há mais de 3 anos.

Parti para a leitura sem saber nada da história e, a verdade, é que também não me impressionou.

O casal Maigret costuma ir jantar a casa de outro casal amigo, em que o homem é um médico e que começa a desabafar sobre a ética e, de modo subtil, sobre eutanásia, e Maigret, um polícia, decide também partilhar as suas dúvidas sobre um caso antigo, em que um empresário foi acusado de ter morto a sua esposa, que era mais velha e rica.

E basicamente, vamos acompanhando a história do caso deste empresário, contada por Maigret, e confesso, não achei nada de especial.

Leu-se mas não me conquistou.

[Ratratrat · Rating 2 out of 5]

ne ho letti di più belli, qua Simenon gioca un po' sporco con finale sospeso. No. lo rileggo, Simenon ama descrivere i caratteri e ci riesce benissimo, ma un giallo è un giallo quando ci spiega e ci fa trovare gli indizi per la conclusione. Qua a Simenon la cosa interessa poco e ( spoiler) un uomo ci perde la testa.
Riletto e tolto una stella. Simenon gioca sul carattere dell'uomo accusato , ma in un giallo si vuol sapere di più. Per di più il Maigret di questo libro si allontana dalla sua caratteristica, che dice che per capire un delitto bisogna conoscere la vittima. Qua la vittima compare appena appena e le ricerche verso la fine sono buttate su superficialmente. la vittima ha avuto un rapporto sessuale poco prima della morte e Maigret nemmeno cerca con chi..

[Jill H. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Simenon has such a wonderful minimalist style and this book, one of his multitude of Maigret tales, is another great read. The books are better appreciated if read in the original French as some of the dialogue does not quite translate the nuances of speech and shades of meaning. Whether in original or translation, all Maigret stories are well worth the time and this is no exception. Try it for a different approach to the detective genre......nothing fancy, just spare and succinct.

[Debbie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like all the Maigret books, very short, under 200 pages. In this instance Maigret relates a case from a couple of years prior in which a man he had interviewed in regards to that man's wife's murder had been found guilty and executed. Maigret has always had his doubts about the man's guilt. He had married a somewhat older and very wealthy woman and was currently having an affair with his secretary (all very French). He was a passive, eager to please kind of a guy who is thought guilty of gold digging and ambition. Maigret believes that he was largely found guilty because public sentiment had turned against him. What exactly Maigret's secret is, though, I really don't know. I guess when you write over 50 titles in a series, you might have to stretch for unique titles.

[Rhys · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting 'Maigret' novel. It is about injustice. The ending is genuinely poignant, almost as poignant as the ending of A Man's Head. It was good to read a 'Maigret' novel that doesn't follow the pattern of crime-investigation-arrest. There are others in the sequence that buck the tend too, of course, but this one does so in a rather surprising way).

[Kartikey Shandilya · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5/5

[Kb · Rating 3 out of 5]

When a successful novelist departs drastically from their normal storytelling style, some faithful readers love it and some… don’t. For me, it’s the latter.

While not as bad as Maigret in New York, this reminiscence of a case from the past that Maigret has doubts about was difficult to read. I’d go into detail, but it hardly matters. Some parts were okay: the dinner parties with Dr. Pardon and his wife which formed the framework for the reminiscence, and some of the early interviews with witnesses and relevant parties.

But the later revelations, which came only after the infamous magistrate, Coméliau, had control of the case, were somewhat stereotyped. I mean, I get that Simenon was trying to illustrate a kind of class system, where a man was considered guilty from the start simply because he had “cheated” the system by marrying up. But the “Executive Suite meets An American in Paris” depiction of the upper business class defies Simenon’s usually adept characterization of real French life.

There isn’t even a drink of note in this one (Maigret orders “the first aperitif whose label he saw”)—though we do learn that the secret to the distinctive flavour of Mme Maigret’s Coq au Vin is that she uses Alsatian Plum Brandy in place of cognac to finish it off.

Definitely not one of Simenon’s best. If you’ve never read a Maigret before, don’t start with this one.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

OK, this is a tough one to review. On one hand, there were aspects of this book that I loved - the mood and atmosphere Simenon builds around the characters and events of this book, his descriptions of springtime in Paris, the small details Simenon adds throughout the book all draw the reader into a story where the sense of place is clear. On the other hand, I found the ending quite deflating. Not anti-climactic, mind you. The conclusion is fitting for what the book is about. However, this book is not about the mystery. So don't expect a solution to a puzzle. This book is more about life and the events we encounter that we have no control over. It's about Maigret's ruminations over how class, circumstance, and people's preconceived ideas are sometimes more powerful than an individual's idealism. This was a bit of a downer for me since the story drew me in so deeply, I was hoping for a more definite resolution to the mystery on a positive note. But, this is not a bad, or even average, book by any means. It is superbly written and the themes will stay with you long after you put it down. I would still recommend this, but with caution.

[paper0r0ss0 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crepuscolare e malinconico, un "Maigret" che racchiude tutto il registro simenoniano. Una delle rituali cene a casa dell'amico Pardon, offre al commissario l'occasione di ricordare un caso che ancora lo turba. Un' indagine che chiama in causa l'essenza stessa del mestiere di investigatore, che lo ha messo dinanzi al terribile potere di disporre del destino di persone fino a un momento prima sconosciute. Una terribile responsabilita', soprattutto tenendo conto, come ben sa Migret, che non e' possibile discriminare il bene dal male, non esistono nella realta' queste categorie, non esiste il bianco e il nero ma una vasta area grigia nella quale chiunque, in determinate condizioni, sarebbe capace di tutto. Non e' un facile sociologismo, la pressione dell'ambiente puo' a volte cavare il peggio da ogni persona.

[Niko-Janne Vantala · Rating 3 out of 5]

Georges Simenonin vuosina 1931-1972 kirjoittamista 84 Maigret-romaanista Maigret uskoutuu, 1960 (Une confidence de Maigret, 1959) sijoittuu tuotantokauden jälkipuoliskolle. Romaanissa Maigret intoutuu konjakkilasin ja lukuisten piipullistensa äärellä kertomaan ystävälleen tohtori Pardonille eräästä tutkimastaan vuosien takaisesta naisenmurhasta, jonka lopputulos edelleen kaivelee komisarion mieltä. Asetelmassa näkyy Simenonin pyrkimys varioida kerronnan muotoja. Maigretin muisteluissa korostuvat harjunpäämaisesti poliisien voimattomuus, oikeusprosessin politikointi ja median vaikutus kansan mielipiteeseen. Romaanissa on hyvä imu, ja tapauksen kulku on aidosti kiinnostava, mutta lopun antikliimaksi jättää turhauttavan jälkimaun.

Arvioni 3,1 tähteä viidestä.

[John Frankham · Rating 4 out of 5]

An unusual Maigret, much about the difficulty of the police and judicial system in providing justice. An intentionally uneasy read. What a writer!

The GR blurb:

At a dinner party, Maigret recounts an old case in which Adrien Josset is found guilty and executed for the murder of his wife, Christine. As the case develops under the controlling hand of the magistrate, all clues point to Josset's guilt yet Maigret is left unconvinced following his one interview with him. Years after the case, Maigret still doubts the true identity of the murderer.'

[Andy Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

An investigation frustrated. Just too much evidence for Simenon to overturn despite his instinct for innocence and guilt being in the main suspect's favour. A rather sad and odd Maigret.

[Antonio Ippolito · Rating 4 out of 5]

Simenon non delude mai, e in questa tarda inchiesta di Maigret (fu scritta nel ’59, e il commissario rimugina molto sul passato e su come da giovane avrebbe valutato diversamente gli stessi fatti) ci dà una “contro-inchiesta”: ovvero, Maigret partecipa con successo a un’indagine, ma mantiene per tutto il tempo dubbi sulla conclusione ufficiale, fino a svuotarla di significato.
La storia ci arriva attraverso un doppio passaggio: narrata dal commissario al fidato dottor Paul durante una serie di tranquille cene in famiglia, inizia con il lungo interrogatorio di Adrien Josset, il principale sospetto, un giovane laureato in farmacia che ha sposato l’erede di una società farmaceutica, ed è accusato di averla uccisa. Si crea un legame di curiosità tra inquirente ed inquisito; il commissario fiuta un uomo debole ma non cattivo, che tutte le circostanze della sua vita, e anche il suo stesso comportamento, portano a considerare l’assassino; anche per la felpata ostilità dell’ambiente sociale in cui è entrato e da cui non è mai stato veramente accettato. Ma Maigret sa che non tutto nella vita ha spiegazioni logiche, e soprattutto che le spiegazioni cartesianamente logiche e semplici non sono necessariamente vere. Per il giudice d’istruzione è un caso aperto e chiuso, ma Maigret insisterà per continuare a indagare. Con grande delicatezza psicologica il mondo idilliaco che Josset si era creato con la sua amante viene messo a confronto con la scialba realtà; tra le righe ci viene mostrata prima una, poi un’altra possibile pista alternativa (la seconda sembra essere quella conclusiva, anche se rispetto alla prima ha il difetto di richiedere una coincidenza)..
SPOILER
..ma Maigret non riuscirà a evitare la ghigliottina per l’accusato: nemmeno la preterintenzionaità gli viene riconosciuta. La macchina della giustizia in realtà ha fatto tutti i passi possibili per esaminare le piste alternative: non le si può rimproverare nulla, è proprio la natura umana, quella dell’opinione pubblica, che esige un colpevole chiaramente identificabile; e persino un innocente può “sentirsi in dovere” di comportarsi da colpevole..
Come in altri “romans durs” coevi, Josset è un uomo che nell’amante aveva cercato un riscatto, un risarcimento delle delusioni patite dalla vita, e con lei aveva cercato di rivivere la felicità sognata nell’infanzia; ma a differenza della Edmonde dei “Complici”, Annette Duché non è davvero sua complice: l’appartamento non è il nido d’amore che sembrava nel racconto di Josset, l’interesse di lei nella relazione, anche se non troppo definito, è ben più limitato di quello di lui; come rivela l’episodio dell’aborto clandestino, di fatto chiesto da lei, e che lei non riesce nemmeno a nascondere nell’interesse di lui.
Se Simenon in generale ha pietà delle donne vittime, in questo romanzo appaiono piuttosto donne ben più dotate degli uomini per la sopravvivenza sentimentale: che siano Annette, la vedova del sarto polacco nel racconto che fa da cornice, ma anche la portinaia di Annette e la stessa povera Christine.

[Meredith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Inspector Maigret recounts a case in which he has lingering doubts about the guilt of a man who was convicted of and executed for the murder of his wife.

Maigret: Is such-and-such a person capable of committing a crime? Whatever happens, it is almost always we who ask ourselves the question first. (page 7)

"Maigret's secret" is less a secret than a nagging sense of regret that he played a role in a man who may have been innocent being sentenced to death based on solely circumstantial evidence. This is somewhat out of character for Maigret who, throughout this series, thrives on condemning people with little to no evidence and strong-arming them into confessing.

While Maigret does allow that people who commit murder are human beings with complex motives often caught up in extenuating circumstance, he is also playing a game that he intends to win. And he and the rest of the Police Judiciaire are willing to use whatever tactics necessary to secure a conviction. As a reader, I am often disturbed by the behavior of Inspector Maigret and other agents of the criminal justice system. They regularly employ methods that are unethical if not outright illegal by modern standards.

Maigret often brags about extracting confessions through interrogations lasting over 24 straight hours, leaving one to wonder how many innocent people would be wrongfully convicted as the result of police misconduct if this weren't a fictional world in which the people whom Maigret suspects are always guilty. In a system in which one is innocent until proven guilty, the guilty must be allowed to go free if there is insufficient evidence of their guilt. That's the price of protecting the innocent.

Maigret: I was just an instrument. I could only say what I had seen, what I had heard. No one asked my opinion. (page 149)

In this case, the suspect, Adrien Josset, is indeed shattered by Police Judiciaire but maintains his innocence to the very end. His refusal to admit to the crime plants a seed of doubt in Maigret who has seen others to the guillotine on less evidence. Maigret never directly volunteers his opinion on Josset's guilt because the prosecutors, judges, and other investigators never directly ask him for it. He does nothing to disrupt the legal proceedings because he has no other plausible suspect to offer in the accused's place, and in court he only gives the facts for which he is asked. But the case leaves Maigret with a bad taste in his mouth.

When the guilty verdict is handed out, Josset is shocked. Like most people, he falsely believed that if one has done nothing wrong, then one has nothing to fear from law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Let that be a lesson, dear reader. One's innocence will not protect one especially if law enforcement is under pressure to solve a high profile crime.

Josset, whose character is less than spotless, disclosed all sorts of incriminating things to the police, believing the nothing to hide, nothing to fear argument. The smartest thing he could have done is remain silent and say nothing without a lawyer present. The poor man digs his own grave by volunteering information that law enforcement then used against him as character assassination and the creation of alternate scenarios.

That was not his only mistake. He also chose the wrong defense lawyer, whose pompous theatrical demeanor worked against his case, and his young mistress didn’t have the sense to deny having an illegal abortion. He also had a nosy and spiteful elderly neighbor whose ability to recollect the comings and goings in the street on the night of the murder with absolutely certainty was never brought into question. But it was Josset’s failure to observe proper social norms (marrying into a higher social class, having extramarital affairs) that prejudiced everyone against him from the very start.

Years later, a criminal trying to strike a bargain repeats a second-hand confession of the Josset murder. Maigret unsuccessfully attempts to track down the person implicated, who had been named in an anonymous tip during the original investigation, which adds to his sense of guilt over the whole affair. For whatever reason, Inspector Maigret wasn’t up to his usual busybody, intervening, superior-defying self, and the result was a miscarriage of justice.

[mar · Rating 4 out of 5]

(11)
Extrañamente, me agradó mucho el que se dejara al lector con la incertidumbre de quién fue el culpable del homicidio, así se transmite de mejor manera las dudas de Maigret, que seguirá con curiosidad y culpa durante toda su vida.
En mi opinión, podría concluir que Josset efectivamente es culpable del delito, y logró que Maigret dudara gracias a la necesidad emocional de que el resto creyese que él era inocente, ya que, como se puede apreciar a lo largo de la historia, él tenía mucha dificultad para enfrentarse a la gente o que esta pensara mal de él. De todas formas, no sé si de verdad fue él, yo desde un inicio pensaba que fue el Señor Duché, creo que el principal problema para mí es que nadie tiene motivos tan contundentes como para haberla asesinado, en especial de forma tan violenta, ¿eran 23 apuñaladas? Algo así, ¡y en la cara! En verdad, no creo que haya sido Josset...

Podría seguir con una hipótesis tras otra, y seguiría cambiando de opinión todo el tiempo. Asumo que ese es el fin del libro, cumplió muy bien su objetivo.

Adoré el personaje de Josset desde un inicio, creo que fue muy honesto con sus palabras, incluso si no le convenía serlo, y nunca se mostro como una blanca paloma, incluso dijo que al inició de su relación con Cristina, él le había pegado por un arranque de celos. Esto, para mí, lo hizo más humano, y logró que me encariñara con el personaje, aunque su aparición haya sido breve al igual que la historia.

Por otro lado, el primer libro que leí de esta saga es "Maigret se divierte" y pensé que no reflejaba mucho a estos libros ya que este sería una "excepción", la cual es que Maigret no está trabajando, está de vacaciones. Esta segunda lectura también contaría como una excepción, siendo que nunca se encuentra al culpable, lo cual me hace sospechar que muchos libros de la saga serán de esta forma.

Por último, he notado que los libro de misterio o detectives no son lo mejor para mí, ya que, honestamente, olvido todos los detalles. Necesitaría hacer una línea de tiempo con los hechos para poder entender al 100% lo que ocurre, pero no haré eso con cada libro, en especial siendo que duran todos alrededor de 140 páginas. Prefiero ver este género en películas o series, como Detective Conan jaja, pero de todas formas seguiré leyendo la saga, ya que resulta entretenida, debido a que, finalmente, lo que más rescato son los sentimientos y desarrollo de los personajes a lo largo de la historia, y no la intriga del caso en sí, el cual no considero que sea un punto increíblemente fuerte del libro.

En fin, 4.0★, ¡agradable lectura!

[Dave Schaafsma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maigret Has Doubts (1959), also titled in English Maigret’s Secret, and not to be confused with #52, written two years earlier, also titled Maigret’s Scruples or Maigret Has Doubts! In this one, the fact that Maigret has doubts is his little secret, though I’ll end my review with another possibly embedded secret Simenon may have had.

From the dust jacket: “At a dinner party, Maigret recounts an old case in which Adrien Josset is found guilty and executed for the murder of his wife, Christine. As the case develops under the controlling hand of the magistrate, all clues point to Josset's guilt yet Maigret is left unconvinced following his one interview with him. Years after the case, Maigret still doubts the true identity of the murderer.”

The case is a Paris sensation, as “sordid” details seep out through the press, sensationalizing them; first the accused is discovered to have had a mistress, his (younger) secretary. When he discovered his dead wife, he knew his affair would get revealed so he threw the knife in the Seine and later, admitted that. He didn’t call the police; he packed a bag and took some extra money to leave the country, he thought better of that, though he admitted he also took some of his wife’s jewels.

Obviously guilty, the public cries, thanks to the press, and the Magistrate puts him away for life. Once the case is in the Magistrate’s hands, it is out of Maigret’s, and he is not allowed to comment on it publicly. But years later he hears some possible information confirming his suspicion that the killer was someone else, and we as readers have reason to believe the incarcerated Josset may be innocent, but nothing is conclusive.

Another possible secret here is that Simenon, infamous for his infidelity, is working out issues in his own life here. Some years earlier his wife divorced him as he had a baby with his (younger) personal secretary, criticized by many for this. Maigret also wrote two novels about this affair. There's an intensity to this novel re: the press, the accusations against Josset, Maigret's "understanding" or sympathy him. "Understand, don't judge," was Simenon's motto for himself and Maigret. Maybe he is asking us to do him the same favor here.

[Esdaile · Rating 4 out of 5]

Récemment j'ai donné un discours pour mon club online qui s’appelle « Soteria ». Dans Soteria (les gens peuvent se mettre en contact avec moi s'ils s'en intéressent) nous discutons des sujets de la littérature, en anglais. Le sujet de mon dernier discours s’était intitule « Do you care who killed Rodger Acroyd ? » il s'agissait des romans policiers, comment est le genre etc. J'ai pris position que les romans Maigret de Simenon furent écrits d'une façon très différents des « whudunnits » anglais du genre Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie ou Dorothy L Sayers. On s’intéresse dans les romans de Simenon beaucoup plus fort aux circonstances sociaux. On est dans un monde anti-romantique. Anti-touristique et on s’intéresse plus aux circonstances au fond aux antécédents que de savoir qui précisément était le meurtrier.

D'une enquête au debout banale dans un confidence de Maigret on arrive a mettre au jour des autres éléments des autres circonstances et des autres soupçons. Maigret raconte a son ami le Docteur Pardon (nom ironique?) une historie ancienne ou peut être un innocent fut exécute puisque jamais Maigret n’était parvenu a se convaincre « au delà de tout doute raisonnable de la culpabilité de la personne condamnée.

On ne saurait jamais- voilà une confidence très différent des confidences d'une Miss Marple ou d'un Hercul Poirot toujours si surs des faits.

Les médecins et les commissaires partent des responsabilités lourdes.

Un roman bref et simple mais qu'on n'oublie pas. Nous tous portent des responsabilités en face des autres. Il faut faire son mieux dans la vie et sans se laisser apporter par les préjudices des autres et surtout de l'opinion publique qui est si vite et facilement changée et manipulée. Je me sens corroboré après que j'ai lus « Une confidence de Maigret ». Le mode de Simenon est tout autre que le monde des romans policiers anglais qu je connais bien, plus dur, plus triste, plus réaliste.

[Thomas · Rating 1 out of 5]

À la mémoire des auteurs nombreux qui ont jeté dans les flammes des manuscrits bien meilleurs -

Ma plus grosse déception de la part de Simenon. L’idée de base aurait pu donner un excellent Maigret. Mais la façon dont il s’y prend...

Donc, un homme est accusé d’avoir tuée sa femme. Il a un mobile. Il n’a pas d’alibi, au contraire, on l’a vu rentrer à la maison à temps pour commettre le crime. Et on l’a vu sortir après pour se débarrasser d’un arme, et partir avec l’intention de s’enfuir.
C’est un lâche, sa femme était pus âgée que lui, elle était riche et il doit sa position à elle. Il avait une aimante. Elle avait des aimants. Après le meurtre, des faits secondaires se produisent et apparaissent, qui accablent l’homme encore plus. Il est donc condamné et exécuté.

Cependant, Maigret a douté de sa culpabilité, et il aura, bien après, des indices qui confirment que l’assassin a pu être un aimant mal choisi par la victime, mais qui est passé inaperçu des témoins.

Cela aurait pu donner donc un récit formidable, on est d’accord. Seulement voilà Simenon, cet animal aux instincts de narrateur infaillibles, faire tous les mauvais choix. La narration est insérée dans une action-cadre lourde et inutile, qui en plus, s’interrompt au milieu pour reprendre plus tard. Maigret, qui nous est décrit toujours comme assez peu bavard, la raconte mal et avec un excès de verbosité.

Bref, au lieu de l’habituelle économie de mots et d’idées qui marquent les meilleurs romans de la série, on a l’impression que notre auteur s’efforce de remplir des pages et des pages qui ne servent qu’à arriver à la longueur contractuelle du bouquin.

Fâcheux et décevant, et plein de considérations morales douteuses, avec presque tous les personnages féminins qui sont dénigrés d’une façon ou d’une autre - de la victime jusqu’aux témoins.

[Tony Fitzpatrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

This story concerns Maigret's worries about a possible miscarriage of Justice many years earlier. A man was sent to the guillotine for murdering his wife with pre-meditation. Maigret who interviewed him but then had the management of the case taken away from him by the Examining Magistrate, was not convinced about his guilt. He relays the story to his Doctor friend, Pardon, at one of their regular dinner parties. Parallels are drawn between the responsibilities that fall of the soldiers of both doctors and Chief Inspectors, and the life or death consequences that can follow. The story is relatively pedestrian, and the way in which time moves back and forward between the dinner parties and the case is clumsy, so this wasn't one of Simenon's finest. However the theme of irritation recounted in several earlier books over the way in which the police force is changing, with responsibility for a case passing to the Magistrates, continues in this story. Simenon notes the difference of perspective of policeman from Civil Servant - the latter has a class based view of seeing everything, people are fundamentally honest/good or criminal/bad. The policeman makes few moral judgments, simply trying to understand, and get under the skin of the suspects.

[Jane]

At only 154 pages long, this was an ideal interlude between longer novels. There are 28 short stories featuring Inspector Maigret and this is my first one.

Set in Paris after World War II, Maigret’s Secret is told in flashback at a dinner party he is attending with his wife. Sitting with his doctor friend after the much lauded over dessert of rice pudding, and to distract the doctor from an ailing patient, Maigret recalls an old case of his. Adrien Josset was accused of viciously murdering his wife, a wealthy socialite Christine. Josset denies the murder, despite him being the most obvious suspect.

Simenon leads the reader into cul-de-sacs, cleverly suggesting who the real murderer might be. We are soon embroiled in the case ourselves, with the quick fire pace of detective/suspect dialogue, which is too good to put down. You are itching to find out who-dunnit!

And Simenon takes you right to the wire with the reveal.

Expertly paced and intelligently crafted. I’m hooked. Only 27 more to go!

[Per altri motivi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Durante una delle cene mensili con il dottor Pardon
Maigret raccoglie uno sfogo dell'amico,
che esprime quasi il rimpianto di aver scelto quella professione.
Ma in realtà è la frustrazione di non poter capire e curare tutti
i suoi pazienti.
Allora Maigret, un po' alla volta,
tra un sorso di liquore e una boccata di pipa,
racconta un caso che lo ha fatto sentire allo stesso modo.
Perché le due Professioni hanno una cosa in comune:
non sono scienze esatte.
Così come non c'è modo di essere certi a priori
della correttezza di una diagnosi e dell'efficacia della cura,
non esistono metodi infallibili per verificare
la memoria e la buona fede dei testimoni
o la correttezza degli indizi.
Bisogna non avere certezze assolute,
esplorare tutte le possibilità, non trascurare nessuna ipotesi,
dare il meglio di sè e della propria esperienza.
Ma nonostante ciò,
il risultato non è sempre
quello che ci si aspetta.

[Luís · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mais uma excelente lição de bem escrever e de bem contar.
A forma como uma Primavera em Paris, nos anos 50, onde não falta a preocupação com a seca, é de se lhe tirar o chapéu.
Em forma de desabafo, com um médico amigo, Maigret narra um caso que o inquietou e continua a inquietar. Acaba por ser uma forma de catarse.
George Simenon apresenta aqui uma crítica a uma forma de fazer justiça, mais interessada em agradar ao grande público, do que em procurar encontrar a verdade. Indirectamente, é a própria pena de morte que é aqui posta em cheque.
Escrito em 1959, só em 1969 o romance foi registado, para efeitos de direitos de autor. Será que Simenon receou chocar os sectores mais conservadores da sociedade francesa?
Registado em 1969, o livro aproveitou a abertura provocada pelo Maio de 68, embora, só em 1981 a pena de morte tenha sido abolida em França.
Sendo verdade que gosto muito dos livros de George Simenon, este não deixou de me surpreender.

[Seán Rafferty · Rating 3 out of 5]

An intriguing 'Maigret' where he reminisces on a case that still haunts him. Simenon uses it as a vehicle to explore press and public reactions to a high-profile murder case. The accused does not stand a chance as he is deemed guilty by both press and public opinion.
The accused is deemed a social climber who has risen above his station. Maigret reflects sympathetically on a character who has all the circumstantial evidence stacked against him. Yet Maigret is not fully convinced that the accused is guilty. In asking such questions, Maigret implicates public opinion and the popular press. The fate of the accused is almost treated as a ghoulish game played by the press and public opinion. As the jury retire to consider the verdict, Simenon writes: 'There were people eating sandwiches, women passing round sweets. The reporters reckoned they had just enough time to nip out for a drink in the bar.'.
It is a little bit different from the usual Maigret's but is of the usual excellent quality and highly enjoyable. 3.5*