Selma was opposed to divorce in theory. That is, she had accepted on
trust the traditional prejudice against it as she had accepted
Shakespeare and Boston. But theory stood for nothing in her regard
before the crying needs of her own experience. She had not the least
intention of living with her husband again. No one could oblige her to
do that. In addition, the law offered her a formal escape from his
control and name. Why not avail herself of it? She recollected, besides,
that her husband's church recognized infidelity as a lawful ground of
release from the so-called sacrament of marriage. This had come into her
mind as an additional sanction to her own decision. But it had not
contributed to that decision. Consequently, when she was confronted in
Mrs. Earle's lodgings by the errand of Mr. Glynn, she felt that his
coming was superfluous. Still, she was glad of the opportunity to
measure ideas with him in a thorough interview free from interruption.

Mr. Glynn's confidence was based on his intention to appeal to the ever
womanly quality of pity. He expected to encounter some resistance, for
indisputably here was a woman whose sensibilities had been justly and
severely shocked--a woman of finer tissue than her husband, as he had
noted in other American couples. She was entitled to her day in
court--to a stubborn, righteous respite of indignation. But he expected
to carry the day in the end, amid a rush of tears, with which his own
might be mingled. He trusted to what he regarded as the innate
reluctance of the wife to abandon the man she loved, and to the leaven
of feminine Christian charity.

As a conscientious hater of sin, he did not attempt to minimize
Babcock's act or the insult put upon her. That done, he was free to
intercede fervently for him and to extol the virtue and the advisability