society of the same period,—­as different, for example, as the Goddess of Reason from our first mother, though at first glance one might think those two similar.  New-England parents had the utmost confidence in their daughters, and almost no restraint was laid on social intercourse.  Their personal dignity and propriety wore presupposed, as matters of course.  Religion and virtue needed only to point, not to restrain.

The Colonel, on his part, took little heed of Dorcas’s movements in the way of balls and sleigh-rides.  Content that her face showed health and enjoyment, he never thought or cared what passed in her mind.  If only the hay-crop proved abundant, and the Davis lot yielded well,—­if neither wheat got the blight, nor sheep the rot,—­if it were better to buy Buckhorn for milk, or sell the Calico-Trotter,—­these thoughts so filled his soul that there was very little room to let in any nonsense about Dorcas, only “to have Swan Day shet up before he begins,” for, as he often said, “he wouldn’t give the snap of his thumb for as many Swan Days as could stand between this and Jerusalem!”

She had met him twice before, and both times rather accidentally, as she supposed, under the pear-tree,—­both times, when she went to the well for water.  He had drawn the water, and had talked some with his tongue, but more, far more, with his eyes of Oriental depth and fascination.  Dorcas thought and meant no harm in meeting Swan.  Even if her nature had been more wakened and conscious,—­even if she had had either the habit or the power of analyzing her own sensations,—­even if she had seen her soul from without, as she certainly did not within,—­she would have recoiled from the thought of deliberate coquetry.

In the nature even of a coquette there is not necessarily either cruelty or hardness.  It cannot be a fine nature, and must be deficient in the tact which appreciates the feelings of another, and the sympathy that shrinks from injuring them.  It may be called selfishness, which is another term for thoughtlessness or want of consideration or perception, but it is not deliberate selfishness.  This last is often found with fine perceptions and intuitive tact.  It is rather a natural obtuseness, a want of thought on the subject.  Such persons remember and connect their own sensations with the object, thinking little or nothing of the feelings they may themselves excite by the heedlessness of their manner.

If Dorcas had once thought of the value of the hearts she played with, and as it were tossed from hand to hand,—­if she had even weighed one against another, she might have had some sorrow in grieving either.  But having no standard of delicacy and tenderness in her own nature by which to judge theirs, Dorcas cannot be accused of intentional injustice, which is generally understood by coquetry.  On the contrary, if she had been able to express her emotions,—­

    “How happy could I be with either!”