Nancy certainly would have been justified in divorce.It did not seem in the retrospect that I would have been:surely not if,after I had married Nancy,I had developed this view of life that seemed to me to be the true view.I should have been powerless to act upon it.But the chances were I should not have developed it,since it would seem that any salvation for me at least must come precisely through suffering,through not getting what I wanted.Was this equivocating?
My mistake had been in marrying Maude instead of Nancy--a mistake largely due to my saturation with a false idea of life.Would not the attempt to cut loose from the consequences of that mistake in my individual case have been futile?But there was a remedy for it--the remedy Krebs had suggested:I might still prevent my children from making such a mistake,I might help to create in them what I might have been,and thus find a solution for myself.My errors would then assume a value.
But the question tortured me:would Maude wish it?Would it be fair to her if she did not?By my long neglect I had forfeited the right to go.
And would she agree with my point of view if she did permit me to stay?
I had less concern on this score,a feeling that that development of hers,which once had irritated me,was in the same direction as my own....