irregular habits; Mozart had a continual struggle with poverty; Schubert was frequently on the verge of starvation; Bach was known to go barefooted for want of shoes; Rossini was set to earning his own living when but seven years old; Haydn, the son of a poor wheelwright, acted as a servant and valet in order to obtain instruction; Weber, Spohr, Glück, Wagner—but why go on? All went through the "storm and stress" period and all came out conquerors; not in a financial, but in an intellectual sense.
This would seem to prove that poverty is an impetus to great works. Affluence and ease have produced little in this field of labor. They seem to enervate the mind and to stifle genius. Doubtless, there have been many talented men among the wealthy classes of different countries, perhaps some with the genius of Haydn or Weber; but the motive power was lacking. They were born under the same condition that Rossini secured for himself—a condition that was fatal to even his energy.
Rossini achieved wealth and fame in the first half of his life. Nearly everything he produced was greeted with the acclamations of the musical world. Wealth poured in upon him. Then, when "William Tell" did not receive the customary amount of applause, Rossini retired from active composition, and for the last forty years of his life he did nothing but enjoy the fruits of his early talents and industry. This was the only instance, as far as we know, where a really great composer has allowed the productivity of the best years of his life to be blighted by the influence of wealth.
But Rossini was an exception. Poverty followed some of the great geniuses, even in their latest day. Others accumulated only a tithe of what would have been the reward of equal genius in other walks of life.
Mozart left to his family but sixty gulden in money and personal property to the amount of four hundred gulden.
The inventory of Schubert's effects, which consisted
