She was very susceptible to pleasurable stimulus, took delight in details of form, color, and sound.  Her fancy and imagination were easily stimulated to genial activity, and she erroneously thanked the artist for the pleasing emotions and thoughts that rose in her mind.  So that, though capable of it, she did not always bring that highest tribunal to a work of art, namely, the calm presence of greatness, which only greatness in the object can satisfy.  Yet the opinion was often well worth hearing on its own account, though it might be wide of the mark as criticism.  Sometimes, too, she certainly brought to beautiful objects a fresh and appreciating love; and her written notes, especially on sculpture, I found always original and interesting.  Here are some notes on the Athenaeum Gallery of Sculpture, in August, 1840, which she sent me in manuscript:—­

’Here are many objects worth study.  There is Thorwaldsen’s Byron.  This is the truly beautiful, the ideal Byron.  This head is quite free from the got-up, caricatured air of disdain, which disfigures most likenesses of him, as it did himself in real life; yet sultry, stern, all-craving, all-commanding.  Even the heavy style of the hair, too closely curled for grace, is favorable to the expression of concentrated life.  While looking at this head, you learn to account for the grand failure in the scheme of his existence.  The line of the cheek and chin are here, as usual, of unrivalled beauty.

’The bust of Napoleon is here also, and will naturally be named, in connection with that of Byron, since the one in letters, the other in arms, represented more fully than any other the tendency of their time; more than any other gave it a chance for reaction.  There was another point of resemblance in the external being of the two, perfectly corresponding with that of the internal, a sense of which peculiarity drew on Byron some ridicule.  I mean that it was the intention of nature, that neither should ever grow fat, but remain a Cassius in the commonwealth.  And both these heads are taken while they were at an early age, and so thin as to be still beautiful.  This head of Napoleon is of a stern beauty.  A head must be of a style either very stern or very chaste, to make a deep impression on the beholder; there must be a great force of will and withholding of resources, giving a sense of depth below depth, which we call sternness; or else there must be that purity, flowing as from an inexhaustible fountain through every lineament, which drives far off or converts all baser natures.  Napoleon’s head is of the first description; it is stern, and not only so, but ruthless.  Yet this ruthlessness excites no aversion; the artist has caught its true character, and given us here the Attila, the instrument of fate to serve a purpose not his own.  While looking on it, came full to mind the well-known lines,—­

                  ’"Speak gently of his crimes: 
      Who knows, Scourge of God, but in His eyes, those crimes
      Were virtues?”