the hero must be truthful; we must not be always on the watch to find
him out unawares, as in actual life.

Wagner's drama has been often described as a story of adultery; we are
even told that it would have no interest were it not a tale of illicit
love, and so it is regarded by nine out of ten of those who witness
the performance without having closely studied the text. That such a
notion should prevail in spite of the clearness of the text on this
point is due to the fact that most people can only conceive of a drama
as spectacular. They expect incidents, and, finding none, they seek
for pruriency. All they see is a man and woman in passionate love for
each other without any hope of ever being married, so they conclude it
must come under the familiar heading of illicit love. The difficulty
of the language is no doubt partly responsible for this gross
misapprehension, and the music gives no help. It tells of the passion,
but can say nothing about its legality. Of adultery or illicit love
there can be no question in Wagner's _Tristan_, if for no other
reason than that Isolde is not married to King Marke, and owes him no
allegiance. She has been carried off to be married to him, but that is
quite a different thing. Are we to suppose that after all that
happened on board the ship she consented to become the wife of King
Marke? Certainly the text gives us no authority to suppose anything so
incredible; we only learn from some words of King Marke in the second
act that she is still an inviolate virgin. Even if we could believe
the gentle and chivalrous Marke capable of committing such an outrage
upon a woman as to go through a form of marriage with her against her
will, no rite so performed would be binding by any law of God or man.
Without her consent she cannot be the wife of King Marke. The point
would not be of any real importance did it not seem to lend colour to
the absurd charge of licentiousness and sensuality which has so often