touchingly expressed, is deeply wrapped in meditation upon her crucified
Master. She has forsaken the world ... to follow the cross!--but surely
this idea would have been more powerfully expressed, if the cross had _not_
been _visible_?. Was this object necessary to tell the tale?--or, rather,
did not the sculptor deem it necessary to _balance_ (as is called) the
figure? Nor am I over well satisfied with the scull. It is common-place. At
any rate, if scull and cross must be there, I wish the cross had been
simply of stone--as is the scull.

My next objection relates to a somewhat more important point. I think the
_face_ and _figure_ do not seem to belong to the _same_ human being: the
former is shrunken, ghastly, and indicative of extreme constitutional
debility: the latter is plump, well formed, and bespeaks a subject in the
enjoyment of full health. Can such an union, therefore, be quite correct?
In the different views of this figure, especially in profile, or behind,
you cannot fail to be struck with the general beauty of the form; but this
beauty arises from its fulness and just proportion. In gazing upon it, in
front, you are pained by the view of a countenance shrunk almost to
emaciation! Can this be in nature? And do not mental affliction and bodily
debility generally go together? The old painters, even as far back as the
time of illuminators of books, used to represent the Magdalen as plump,
even to fatness,--and stout in all respects; but her _countenance_ usually
partook of this vigour of stamina. It was full, rosy, and healthful. The
older artists sometimes placed the Magdalen in a very awkward, and perhaps
impossible, situation; and she was even made to be buried up to the bosom
in earth--still exercising her devotions. Canova has doubtless displayed
great pathos in the wretched aspect, and humiliated attitude, of his
Magdalen; but he has, at the same time, not been inattentive to beauty of
form. I only wish she appeared to be in as good condition as the _torso_
indicates. A fastidious observer might say the figure was not _quite
balanced_, and that she must fall backward--if she retained such an
attitude for a quarter of an hour. But this is hyper-criticism. The date of
the execution of this figure is 1796: and parts of it clearly indicate
that, if the sculptor were now to re-execute it, he would have paid even
yet more attention to the finishing of the hair. Upon the whole, however,
it is a masterly effort