WHEN RADCLIFFE suggested, in 1969, that she merge with Harvard, the inevitable consequence of their 90-year courtship seemed certain to soon become reality. Just as certainly, Radcliffe would never be heard from or spoken of again. Negotiations for any sort of union of the two Cambridge institutions could not possibly lead to a merger in the word's true sense: a genuine "partnership" was never considered.

As the trend toward coeducation continued, the probability that Radcliffe women would not merely become Harvard women grew slimmer. Harvard's status has not been debatable at any time in the history of the relationship between the two schools. The status of Radcliffe, on the other hand, has always been on the line.

As far back as 1879, there was such a thing as a "Harvard girl." And although the term, coined by Elizabeth C. Agassiz, Radcliffe's founder and first president, was used by almost no one else, it foreshadowed the course of the alliance between the two bastions of higher education and the future of Radcliffe women.

When Radcliffe was founded in 1879, it contained the seeds of what many thought would become its own dissolution. The school's original charter provided that Radcliffe's funds and property could be turned over to Harvard College whenever such an arrangement would improve education at the two schools. From the beginning. Harvard made it plain that it was in no way responsible for the "Annex."

But by 1893 President Eliot and the Fellows of Harvard College realized they would have to contend with the Annex. After painstaking negotiations. Agassiz finally persuaded Harvard to take some responsibility for the girls at "X College:" Harvard's President agreed to countersign the women's diplomas; Harvard assumed responsibility for approving Faculty appointments; and, the President and the Fellows were to be the "visitors of X College."

The college still had no name. Since its inception it had officially been called "The Society for the Intercollegiate Instruction of Women." Agassiz proposed to name it for Ann Radcliffe, who, in 1643, donated 100 pounds of sterling for a Harvard scholarship. In 1894, the Annex was incorporated as "Radcliffe College."

In 1903, Agassiz retired and LeBaron R. Briggs, dean of Harvard College, became the president. During his term, the endowment expanded, the curriculum was diversified, and the Faculty grew--Radcliffe was assured permanence. The objections of Corporation members and alumni stalwarts, which had been loudly voiced in Radcliffe's initial years, gradually died down.

In 1923, as Ada Comstock took over the presidency, the college began to build aggressively: Briggs Hall was dedicated in 1924; Longfellow Lecture Hall followed in 1930; Byerly Hall, in 1932; and finally, Cabot Hall, in 1937.

THE TREND toward coeducation really began during World War II, out of nothing less than sheer necessity. The War had so depleted Harvard enrollment that merging most educational facilities became the only pragmatic financial arrangement for Harvard.

Until 1943, Radcliffe had hired all of its own professors, with the approval of Harvard. These were all Harvard instructors, but Radcliffe paid them separately and they taught their women students in the Radcliffe Yard. But in 1943, Wilbur K. Jordan, Radcliffe's new president, made the first moves toward coeducation. Harvard agreed to educate women in Harvard buildings and with Harvard money. Radcliffe no longer paid the professors; instead it passed on its tuition revenue to Harvard.

"Now Harvard and Radcliffe education are the same except for the name on the diploma," one Harvard dean said smugly after coeducational classes were initiated. But in 1962, Radcliffe women began to receive Harvard degrees, although Harvard clung to separate commencements for another eight years.

Opening Hilles Library to men in the Fall of 1966 was another breakthrough in what had become a trend toward coeducation. The following September, the University abolished separate registration, and that Spring women were finally admitted to Lamont Library. Complete merger appeared inevitable.

And in February 1969, President Mary I. Bunting announced that Radcliffe had finally decided to propose a merger with Harvard. For a while Radcliffe women seemed likely to become true peers of their Harvard brethren.

After all, total merger, most assumed, was the imminent conclusion to the ever closer relationship. It was the only mechanism by which undergraduate women could finally reap all the fruits of the Harvard experience.

Initial enthusiasm for Radcliffe's recommendation stirred speculation that the school had committed institutional suicide. The Crimson extra announcing the merger plans included a picture of Bunting with the caption, "Cliffe's Last President."

But the presumed fait accompli came under attack from Radcliffe alumnae who opposed their alma mater's dissolution. And Harvard stalwarts came forward to reiterate the long-standing reasons for their skepticism. Franklin L. Ford, then dean of the Faculty, subtly summed it all up: "The most brutal formulation of the problem is that merger might mean achieving sexual diversity at the expense of other kinds of diversity."

Other Faculty members and Administrators followed in stride, implying that geographic, economic, academic, and racial diversity could not possibly be achieved with regard to women.

BUT ALL the rationalizations were just a way to duck the larger issue: equal admission of men and women, the logical next step for an institution with a decaying male tradition.

So in December 1970 a committee of Harvard and Radcliffe governing board members proposed a plan that, while technically a "non-merger," combined the two institutions, keeping Radcliffe as a separate but redefined administration. The terms of that "non-merger merger" peace settlement, later approved by the Harvard Board of Overseers and the Radcliffe Trustees, were:

that Radcliffe retain ownership of its property and endowment;

that Harvard assume responsibility for operating Hilles as well as the other Radcliffe buildings and dining facilities;

that Radcliffe pay Harvard 100 per cent of its income from endowment, tuition fees and rents, and that Harvard assume the total expense of Radcliffe's operation, including joint fund raising;

that the Radcliffe Houses become part of a unified House system under the Faculty of Arts and Sciences; and

that Radcliffe retain control of the Schlesinger Library, the Radcliffe Institute, the Alumnae Office, and its admissions and financial aid office.

The non-merger merger was financially attractive to Radcliffe: Harvard absorbed all of its debts. But for Harvard's sake, the compromise side-stepped the key issue--the total absorption of Radcliffe women into the Harvard mainstream, a situation that many observers felt could only be brought about by the admission of equal numbers of both sexes.

And, in fact, male faculty and administrators had feared a legal merger would eventually require a one-to-one male-to-female ratio.

Committee members who drew up the non-merger recommendation admitted freely that their proposal intentionally avoided the ratio issue--which was not in keeping with their report's repeated emphasis on "full and equal participation of Radcliffe students in the intellectual and social life of the University."

In the last couple of years, Pembroke and Jackson women have officially become Brown and Tufts women, respectively. The mergers at those institutions paved the way toward equal admissions.

But in 1972 the most President Bok would do was to offer a plan for a 2.5-to-1 ratio of men to women, and this only by expanding the colleges.

The non-merger merger that went into effect in June 1971 is renewable after four years. In June 1975 Radcliffe can recover its holdings, a move that will be virtually impossible since the school would have to reabsorb its debts and face a University for which coeducation has become a way of life.

Therefore, when the issue of Radcliffe's status arises again in a little less than two years, the two alternatives will be renewal of the non-merger merger accord or adoption of a total agreement.

Many Radcliffe (Harvard?) women sense a schizophrenia that follows from our experiences with the non-merger. Technically we were all admitted to Radcliffe: we filed our applications with the Radcliffe admissions office, and our letters of acceptance bore the Radcliffe crest and the signature of a Radcliffe dean.

But as it worked out, we came to Harvard. At Harvard we carry on the pursuits that make us students: we registered with Harvard men to take Harvard courses, we live in Harvard Houses, we pay our bills to Harvard, and we receive our walking papers from Harvard.

So, where the Radcliffe experience ends and the Harvard experience begins remains unclear. Apparently our affiliation with Radcliffe ends with the letter of admission we received when we were still in high school. And if the dividing line between our associations with the two schools was back in high school, maybe the issue of merger isn't an issue at all