music teachers, and what irregular lives some composers have led.

At first sight, these facts look formidable and discouraging; but they
are nothing of the sort. If anyone asserted that music is _a moral
panacea_, an infallible cure for all vices, these facts would, of
course, be fatal to his argument; but no one would be so foolish as to
make such an extravagant claim in behalf of music. Music may be, and
doubtless is, a moral force, but it is not strong enough to overcome
all the various demoralizing forces that counteract it; hence, it must
often fail to show triumphant results. If we take the cases just
cited, and examine them separately, we see that they are delusive. Is
it not asking a good deal of the Leipsic citizens to support the poor
relatives and descendants of all the great men that city has produced?
If Bach himself had lived to claim their charity, I am convinced he
would have been cared for, notwithstanding the fact that probably most
of those who love his music are poor themselves, while the public at
large does not even understand it, and cannot, therefore, be morally
affected by it. Similarly, the reason why the Viennese allowed
Schubert to starve was not because his music failed to make them
generous, but because he died before they had learned even to
understand it. To-day they worship his very bones, and build Schubert
museums and monuments.

Again, if savages and emperors can be musical and cruel at the same
time, this only proves, as I have just said, that music is not strong
enough to overcome _all_ the vicious inherited and cultivated habits
of civilized and uncivilized barbarians. As for the fighting prima
donnas, it is obvious that a singer whose success is constantly
dependent upon the whims of a fickle public, is more subject than
almost any other mortal to constant attacks of envy and jealousy, so