utterly mars the purity of the musical sound, and jars on refined ears
like the filing of a saw. If demonstrativeness is to be taken as a
test of feeling, then the ignorant audiences who stamp and roar over
the vulgar horse-play in a variety show have deeper feelings than the
educated reader who, in his room, enjoys the exquisite works of humor
of the great writers without any other expression than a smile.

Granted, then, that music has as much power to move our feelings as
ever, if not more, and bearing in mind that feeling is the chief
spring of action, does it not follow that music affects our _moral_
conduct, making us more refined and considerate in our dealings with
other people? Not necessarily and obviously, it seems, for there are
authorities who, while conceding the emotional sway of music, deny
that it has any positive moral value. The eminent critic, Prof.
Ehrlich, takes this sceptical attitude, in his "History of Musical
Æsthetics." If music, and art in general, has power to soften the
hearts of men, how is it, he asks, that the citizens of Leipsic did
not come to the rescue of the last daughter of the great Bach, but
allowed her to live in abject poverty? And how is that, in Florence
and Rome, some of the greatest patrons of art were princes who were
extremely unscrupulous in their manner of getting rid of their
enemies? Other instances might be added to those given by Prof.
Ehrlich. African tourists say that the Dahomans, although passionately
fond of singing and of instrumental music, are probably the most cruel
of all negroes. Nero, the cruelest of emperors, is said to have
regaled his ears with music after setting fire to Rome; and you have
all heard the story of the two famous prima donnas whose vicious
temper and jealousy drove them to a tooth and nail contest on the
stage, right before the public. Everybody knows, furthermore, what a
lot of scamps and vagabonds are included in the number of so-called