[Footnote 1: 

  “Well may the nobles of our present race
  Watch each distortion of a Naldi’s face;
  Well may they smile on Italy’s buffoons,
  And worship Catalani’s pantaloons.”

“Naldi and Catalani require little notice; for the visage of the one and the salary of the other will enable us long to recollect these amusing vagabonds.”—­English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.  Artists in general, and men of letters by profession, did not rank much higher in the fine world. (See Miss Berry’s “England and France,” vol. ii. p. 42.) A German author, non-noble, had a liaison with a Prussian woman of rank.  On her husband’s death he proposed marriage, and was indignantly refused.  The lady was conscious of no degradation from being his mistress, but would have forfeited both caste and self-respect by becoming his wife.]

Did those who took the lead in censuring or repudiating Mrs. Piozzi, ever attempt to enter into her feelings, or weigh her conduct with reference to its tendency to promote her own happiness?  Could they have done so, had they tried?  Rarely can any one so identify himself or herself with another as to be sure of the soundness of the counsel or the justice of the reproof.  She was neither impoverishing her children (who had all independent fortunes) nor abandoning them.  She was setting public opinion at defiance, which is commonly a foolish thing to do; but what is public opinion to a woman whose heart is breaking, and who finds, after a desperate effort, that she is unequal to the sacrifice demanded of her?  She accepted Piozzi deliberately, with full knowledge of his character; and she never repented of her choice.

The Lady Cathcart, whose romantic story is mentioned in “Castle Rackrent,” was wont to say:—­“I have been married three times; the first for money, the second for rank, the third for love; and the third was worst of all.”  Mrs. Piozzi’s experience would have led to an opposite conclusion.  Her love match was a singularly happy one; and the consciousness that she had transgressed conventional observances or prejudices, not moral rules, enabled her to outlive and bear down calumny.[1]

[Footnote 1:  The pros and cons of the main question at issue are well stated in Corinne:  “Ah, pour heureux,’ interrompit le Comte d’Erfeuil, ’je n’en crois rien:  on n’est heureux que par ce qui est convenable.  La societe a, quoi qu’on fasse, beaucoup d’empire sur le bonheur; et ce qu’elle n’approuve pas, il ne faut jamais le faire.’  ‘On vivrait done toujours pour ce que la societe dira de nous,’ reprit Oswald; ’et ce qu’on pense et, ce qu’on sent ne servirait jamais de guide.’  ‘C’est tres bien dit,’ reprit le comte, ’tres-philosophiquement pense; mais avec ces maximes la, l’on se perd; et quand l’amour est passe, le blame de l’opinion reste.  Moi qui vous parais leger, je ne ferai jamais rien qui puisse m’attirer la desapprobation du monde.  On peut se permettre de petites libertes, d’aimables plaisanteries, qui annoncent de l’independance dans la maniere d’agir; car, quand cela touche au serieux.’—­’Mais le serieux, repondit Lord Nelvil, ’c’est l’amour et le bonheur.’”—­Corinne, liv. ix. ch. 1.]