In reference to these passages, the Edinburgh reviewer remarks: 

“Nothing can be more reasonable; and we should certainly live in a more peaceful (if not more entertaining) world, if nobody in it reproved another until he had so far identified himself with the culprit as to be sure of the justice of the reproof; perhaps, also, if a fiddler were rated higher in society than a duke without accomplishments, and a carpenter far higher than either.  But neither reasoning nor gallantry will alter the case, nor prevail over the world’s prejudice against unequal marriages, any more than its prejudices in favour of birth and fashion.  It has never been quite established to the satisfaction of the philosophic mind, why the rule of society should be that ‘as the husband, so the wife is,’ and why a lady who contracts a marriage below her station is looked on with far severer eyes than a gentleman qui s’encanaille to the same degree.  But these things are so,—­as the next dame of rank and fortune, and widow of an M.P., who, rashly relying on Mr. Hayward’s assertion that the world has grown wiser, espouses a foreign ‘professional,’ will assuredly find to her cost, although she may escape the ungenerous public attacks which poor Mrs. Piozzi earned by her connexion with literary men.”

In 1784 they hanged for crimes which we should think adequately punished by a short imprisonment; as they hooted and libelled for transgressions or errors which, whatever their treatment by a portion of our society, would certainly not provoke the thunders of our press.  I think (though I made no assertion of the kind) that the world has grown wiser; and the reviewer admits as much when he says that his supposititious widow “may escape the ungenerous public attacks which poor Mrs. Piozzi earned by her connexion with literary men.”  But where do I recommend unequal marriages, or dispute the claims of birth and fashion, or maintain that a fiddler should be rated higher than a duke without accomplishments, and a carpenter far higher than either?  All this is utterly beside the purpose; and surely there is nothing reprehensible in the suggestion that, before harshly reproving another, we should do our best to test the justice of the reproof by trying to make the case our own.  Goethe proposed to extend the self-same rule to criticism.  One of his favourite canons was that a critic should always endeavour to place himself temporarily in the author’s point of view.  If the reviewer had done so, he might have avoided several material misapprehensions and misstatements, which it is difficult to reconcile with the friendly tone of the article or the known ability of the writer.

Envy at Piozzi’s good fortune sharpened the animosity of assailants like Baretti, and the loss of a pleasant house may have had a good deal to do with the sorrowing indignation of her set.  Her meditated social extinction amongst them might have been commemorated in the words of the French epitaph: