Even in his general sketch of the action, Wagner is above all an actor. The first thing that occurs to him is a scene which is certain to produce a strong effect, a real _actio,_[4] with a basso-relievo of attitudes; an _overwhelming_ scene, this he now proceeds to elaborate more deeply, and out of it he draws his characters. The whole of what remains to be done follows of itself, fully in keeping with a technical economy which has no reason to be subtle. It is not Corneille's public that Wagner has to consider, it is merely the nineteenth century. Concerning the "actual requirements of the stage" Wagner would have about the same opinion as any other actor of to-day: a series of powerful scenes, each stronger than the one that preceded it,--and, in between, all kinds of _clever_ nonsense. His first concern is to guarantee the effect of his work; he begins with the third act, he _approves_ his work according to the quality of its final effect. Guided by this sort of understanding of the stage, there is not much danger of one's creating a drama unawares. Drama demands _inexorable_ logic: but what did Wagner care about logic? Again I say, it was not Corneille's public that he had to consider; but merely Germans! Everybody knows the technical difficulties before which the dramatist often has to summon all his strength and frequently to sweat his blood: the difficulty of making the _plot_ seem necessary and the unravelment as well, so that both are conceivable only in a certain way, and so that each may give the impression of freedom (the principle of the smallest expenditure of energy). Now the very last thing that Wagner does is to sweat blood over the plot; and on this and the unravelment he certainly spends the smallest possible amount of energy. Let anybody put one of Wagner's "plots" under the microscope, and I wager that he will be forced to laugh. Nothing is more enlivening than the dilemma in "Tristan," unless it be that in the "Mastersingers." Wagner is _no_ dramatist; let nobody be deceived on this point. All he did was to love the word "drama"--he always loved fine words. Nevertheless, in his writings the word "drama" is merely a misunderstanding (--_and_ a piece of shrewdness: Wagner always affected superiority in regard to the word "opera"--); just as the word "spirit" is a misunderstanding in the New Testament.--He was not enough of a psychologist for drama; he instinctively avoided a psychological plot--but how?--by always putting idiosyncrasy in its place ... Very modern--eh? Very Parisian! very decadent! ... Incidentally, the _plots_ that Wagner knows how to unravel with the help of dramatic inventions, are of quite another kind. For example, let us suppose that Wagner requires a female voice. A whole act without a woman's voice would be impossible! But in this particular instance not one of the heroines happens to be free. What does Wagner do? He emancipates the oldest woman on earth, Erda: "Step