er share. She was one of those maidens who form passionate
attachments to older women, and there were many Cambridge ladies of the
college circle who in turn won her ardent loyalty.

"My elder sister," writes Thomas Wentworth Higginson, in his biography
of Margaret Fuller, "can well remember this studious, self-conscious,
over-grown girl as sitting at my mother's feet, covering her hands with
kisses, and treasuring her every word. It was the same at other times
with other women, most of whom were too much absorbed in their own
duties to give more than a passing solicitude to this rather odd and
sometimes inconvenient adorer."

The side of Margaret Fuller to which scant attention has been paid
heretofore is this ardently affectionate side, and this it is which
seems to account for what has always before appeared inexplicable--her
romantic marriage to the young Marchese d'Ossoli. The intellect was in
truth only a small part of Margaret, and if Hawthorne had improved, as
he might have done, his opportunities to study the whole nature of the
woman, he would not have written even for his private diary the harsh
sentences already quoted. One has only to look at the heroic fashion in
which, after the death of her father, Margaret took up the task of
educating her brothers and sisters to feel that there was much besides
selfishness in this woman's makeup. Nor can one believe that Emerson
would ever have cared to have for the friend of a lifetime a woman who
was a "humbug." Of Margaret's school-teaching, conversation classes on
West Street, Boston, and labours on the _Dial_, a transcendental paper
in which Emerson was deeply interested, there is not space to speak
here. But one phase of her work which cannot be ignored is that
performed on the _Tribune_, in the days of Horace Greeley.

Greeley brought Boston's high priestess to New York for the purpose of
putting the literary criticism of the _Tribune_ on a higher plane than
any American newspaper then occupied, as well as that she might discuss
in a large and stimulating way all philanthropic questions. That she
rose to the former opportunity her enemies would be the first to grant,
but only those who, like Margaret herself, believe in the sisterhood of
women could freely endorse her attitude on philanthropic subjects.

Surely, though, it could not have been a hard woman of whom Horace
Greeley wrote: "If she had been born to large fortune, a house of
refuge for all female ou