been brought against Wagner.

I have already remarked that an important difference between the old
conception of the story and Wagner's lies in the fact that in the
latter their love remains unsatisfied. The notion of their longing
being fulfilled is utterly foreign to Wagner's _Tristan_, nor is
there at any moment the smallest hope of their ever possessing each
other in this life. However consumed they are with love they retain
perfect mastery over themselves. This is so abundantly clear from the
first moment when their love is revealed--when they drink the
potion--that it is inconceivable for a misunderstanding to occur to
any one who follows the text with any attention. Were the mistake
confined to vulgar and careless people who make up the bulk of the
audience, however deplorable, it would be intelligible, but from
scholars and professional critics we expect at least acquaintance with
the text. An author who enjoys a deservedly high reputation as an
authority upon Greek art and is widely read by young students writes
in a recent work: "Any one at first hearing of Wagner's _Tristan und
Isolde_ would perceive that it was a most immoral subject.... It is
an artistic glorification of adultery." How, one must ask, does the
learned author reconcile this statement with Tristan's words just
before he drinks the supposed poison: "Tristan's Ehre--hoechste Treu'"?
What is the meaning of the whole dialogue of the second act, of
Tristan's address to Isolde at the end, and of her reply to him when
both go forth to die? How does it come that at last, when all
obstacles have been surmounted, when nothing more hinders the lovers
from full possession of one another, he deliberately puts an end to
his own life? This and much more could only be explained by supposing
that Wagner wrote, in operatic fashion, words without meaning, with an
eye solely to stage effect. It is the old story! Wagner having been