the entire psychology of his theft, she would have
listened with patience and sympathy; she would have encouraged him
to rectitude. And yet Julian had no claim on her; he was not her
husband; she did not love him. But because Louis was her husband,
and had a claim on her, and had received all the proofs of her
affection--therefore, she must be merciless for Louis! She perceived
the inconsistency; she perceived it with painful clearness. She had
the impartial logic of the self-accuser. At intervals the self-accuser
was flagellated and put to flight by passionate reaction, but only to
return stealthily and irresistibly....

She had been wrong to take the four hundred and fifty pounds without a
word. True, Louis had somewhat casually authorized her to return half
of the sum to Julian, but the half was not the whole. And in any case
she ought to have told Louis of her project. There could be no doubt
that, immediately upon Mrs. Tams's going out, Louis had looked for
the four hundred and fifty pounds, and, in swift resentment at its
disappearance, had determined to disappear also. He had been stung and
stung again, past bearing (she argued) daily and hourly throughout
the week, and the disappearance of the money had put an end to his
patience. Such was the upshot, and she had brought it about!

She had imagined that she was waiting for destiny, but in fact she had
been making destiny all the time, with her steely glances at Louis and
her acrid, uncompromising tongue!... And did those other men really
admire her? How, for instance, could Thomas Batchgrew admire her,
seeing that he had suspected her of lies and concealment about the
robbery? If it was on account of supposed lies and concealment that he
admired her, then she rejected Thomas Batchgrew's admiration....

The self-accuser and the self-depreciator in her grew so strong that
Louis' conduct soon became unexceptionable--save for a minor point
concerning a theft of some five hundred pounds odd from an old lady.
And as for herself, she, Rachel, was an over-righteous prig, an
interfering person, a blundering fool of a woman, a cruel-hearted
creature. And Louis was just a poor, polite martyr who had had the
misfortune to pick up certain bank-notes that were not his.

Then the tide of judgment would sweep back, and Rachel was the
innocent, righteous martyr again, and Louis the villain. But not for
long.

She cried passionately within her brain: "I must have him. I must