as if she were stating a scientific fact, in enumerating the merits of somebody, ‘He appreciates ME.’” Mr. Emerson accounts for this egotism partly on the ground of hereditary organization, and partly on “an ebullient sense of power, which she felt to be in her, and which as yet had found no channels.” In further illustration of this he adds, that in conversation she seldom, “except as a special grace, admitted others upon an equal ground with herself.” She was exceedingly tender, when she pleased to be, and most cherishing in her influence; but to elicit this tenderness, it was necessary to submit first to her personally. When a person was overwhelmed by her and answered not a word, except ‘Margaret, be merciful to me a sinner,’ then her love and tenderness would come like a seraph’s, and often an acknowledgment that she had been too harsh, and even a craving for pardon, with a humility—which, perhaps, she had caught from the other. But her instinct was not humility—that was an after thought. This peculiarity, so honestly stated by Mr. Emerson, probably made Margaret Fuller all her enemies; and it is a fault which every person is bound to resent, though it appeared in an angel or archangel. It cannot be justified though it may be accounted for; and by those who knew her best, it was explained on principle! which relieved it of positive offensiveness. Some of her intellectual dependents, persons who gloried in wearing her mental livery, and were delighted with the servitude she enforced, might say very naively, in explanation, that Margaret was the greatest woman that ever was, and that Margaret was very sincere, and that being sincere it was very proper that she should not conceal her knowledge even of her own greatness.