Essay Questions

What event ironically described by Ambrose himself in his one of his letters provides one of the strongest pieces of evidence supporting Rachel’s innocence?

At the heart of the novel lies the question: did Rachel murder Ambrose or did he die of a genetically susceptible brain tumor. This question is never fully answered to satisfaction and Rachel’s behavior is the primary stimulation behind the suspicion that she was involved. Unfortunately for Philip, the most enthusiastic proponent of brain tumor theory is Signor Rainaldi whom he and Ambrose strongly suspect of being Rachel’s lover. Thus, it is easy to dismiss that idea for the young man. Complicating the suspicion of Rachel’s complicity, however—more so for the reader, perhaps, than for Philip—is the contents of a letter Ambrose sent three months before his death in which he describes an event to modern readers is inescapably connected to neurological dysfunction:

“The onset is sudden…seized with pains and sickness, which passes swiftly to great excitation of my brain, driving me near to violence, and I can hardly stand upon my feet for dizziness of mind and body. This, in its turn, passes, and an intolerable desire for sleep comes upon me, so that I fall upon the floor, or upon my bed, with no power over my limbs.”

How did Rachel’s first husband die and what significance is there in it?

When she was just twenty-one, Rachel married an Italian Count named Sangalletti. What seems to be irrefutable is that the Count was killed during a duel with another man. Because Philip is telling the story, the reader only knows what he knows and what he knows is—like with everything else in the book—never the full story. The significance of Rachel’s husband dying in a duel, therefore, lies less in the factual circumstances of the event than in Philip’s analysis and interpretation. That analysis and interpretation is, in turn, corrupted not just by a lack of detailed factual information, but opinions expressed by others. For instance, Louise—completely without any substantiation—warns, “Didn’t you tell me once he had been killed in a duel? You see, that speaks badly for her, too. She probably had several lovers.” Louise’s father—Philip’s godfather—on the other hand suggests that the duel was initiated on behalf Rachel being besmirched as a gold-digger rather than to Rachel being unfaithful. In this sense, the means of her first husband’s death is significant because, once again, the truth is ambiguous, neither convicting nor acquitting Rachel’s fundamental character.