after the first performance of the _Ring_ at Bayreuth, in 1876,
which have been so often quoted in illustration of his arrogance: "You
have seen what we can do; it is now for you to will. We now have an
art if you will." Namely, thus: "Germany now has for the first time an
indigenous drama, not imported from foreigners; if you accept it, try
to develop and perfect it." Or shortly: "I and my friends have done
what we can; the rest is for you to do." This seems to me the natural
meaning of the words, and agrees with all his utterances at other
times, namely, that the public must not leave it all to the artist,
but must exert itself to cooperate with him. It has latterly become
almost a fashion among some German authors to transgress all bounds of
modesty in advertising themselves. Nietzsche, for example, leaves us
in no doubt whatever as to what he requires us to think about him. But
nothing of the kind will be found in Wagner.

The charge of "grapho-mania" is scarcely worth discussion, except to
show what slender arguments have to be relied upon by those who try to
prove Wagner insane. Ten, not _bulky_ volumes, as Nordau calls
them, but volumes of very moderate dimensions, some 30 per cent. of
which are accounted for by his dramatic works, are not a very large
allowance for a man who lived seventy years, and was often under the
necessity of writing to eke out his income. They are scarcely
sufficient to be regarded as an indication of insanity. The fact is,
that Wagner, either as dramatist or as author, was not a voluminous
producer. It is the quality, the intensity, of his work that is
important, not its bulk. This is only another instance of the amazing
indifference to the most easily ascertainable facts shown by Wagner's
assailants, and of the truth that if you only assert a thing, however
nonsensical, persistently enough, there will always be some who will
believe it. I cannot be expected to go through in detail the whole