[Illustration: MONUMENT TO MOZART IN SALZBURG.
Mozart, as we have seen, wrote much for the church. Unfortunately the best known of his masses were written to suit the florid taste of his patron; and his church music, judged thereby, has been reproached for its frivolity and insincerity. Some, forgetting the solemnity of the litanies de venerabili, the dignity of the vespers, the heavenly "Ave Verum," the "Qui tollis" from the mass in C minor, and portions of the Requiem, have denied him religious feeling, so far as his religious music is concerned. But the musical expression of religious feeling differs with the time, the place, and the individual. What is religious music? To the Aztec, who in religious sacrifice cut out the victim's heart, the beating of the serpent-skin drum was religious music; to the monks of the Middle Ages the drone of the plain song of the church seemed the expression of religious contemplation; and to-day many worthy people find spiritual consolation in the joyous ditties of the Salvation Army. We define religious music conformably with our own religious sentiment. In the days of Palestrina, church music influenced subtly the congregation; it created a mood, a _Stimmung_. In the days of Haydn and Mozart the influence of the virtuosoship of the opera-singer was strongly felt; it invaded the church; it was recognized by the composer of the mass. So in more modern days the dramatic instinct of operatic composers is seen in their religious works; and one may say with Rubinstein, "I think it an error, however, to condemn for that reason the 'Stabat Mater' of Rossini or the 'Requiem' of Verdi in Protestant countries. The Protestant may indeed say: 'I have a different feeling,' but not, 'That is bad, because it is other than my feeling of worship.'" Thibaut may attack the church music of Mozart, and Lorenz may defend it; each expresses thereby his own religious sentiment. It is true that many of the masses of Mozart, considered as music, are not to be compared with his works of a higher flight; and the one that is the most popular, the 12th, so called, was not written by him. But how about the "Requiem," which he left unfinished, and which has been the subject of so many legends, so many disputes? Did not the mystery that for a time surrounded its birth give it a fictitious value? The Requiem and Kyrie are the work of Mozart as they now exist; the movements from the Dies Iræ to the first eight bars of the Lacrimosa, also the Domine Jesu and Hostias, were finished by him in the voice part and bass, and the principal points of the instrumentation were also indicated by him. It will be seen, therefore, that the part of Süssmayer, who completed it, is considerable. Now there has been much discussion concerning the merits of the double fugue even from the technical standpoint, and it is true that the most beautiful portions of the work are the least polyphonic, as the wailing Lacrimosa, which beyond a peradventure belongs to Mozart, although so little was actually written with his own hand; the Confutatis with the antiphonal effects of male and female voices, and the marvellous, unearthly harmonies of the _Oro supplex_; the powerful and concise _Rex tremendae_. On the other hand the _Tuba mirum_ with the trombone cantabile is an inadequate setting of the dread scene. By many worshippers of Mozart, who at the same time believe in the supremacy of religious music, the Requiem is called the truest and most genuine expression of Mozart's nature, and his imperishable monument. But the contrary opinion now prevails among prominent musicians. The Requiem as a whole cannot be considered as complete a revelation of the genius of the composer as the G-minor symphony, the quartets dedicated to Haydn, "Figaro" or "Don Giovanni."