The origins of the critical debate surrounding Amphitryon can be traced back to a letter written by Adam Müller on 25 May 1807 to Friedrich Gentz in which he explains that, ‘the play is as much concerned with the Virgin Birth as it is with the mystery of love itself’ (‘Der Amphitryon handelt ja wohl ebensogut von der unbefleckten Empfängnis der heiligen Jungfrau, als von dem Geheimnis der Liebe überhaupt’; Lebensspuren, no. 173). It is perhaps one of the more unfortunate ironies of literary history, that in his efforts to promote the play by bringing it to the attention of the literary establishment, Müller, who at that stage had not met Kleist, was partly responsible for its being subjected to an interpretation quite contrary to the intentions of its author. There can be little doubt that Müller's view of the play as an essentially Christian drama was coloured by his recent conversion to Catholicism, and it was to have a profound effect on the play's critical reception, not least because Müller, in his preface to the first published edition, drew attention to what he saw as its religious dimension. Thus it comes as no surprise to find Goethe, in a remark to F. W. Riemer recorded on 14 July 1807, describing the play as simply ‘a reinterpretation of the myth in Christian terms’ (‘eine Deutung der Fabel ins Christliche’; Lebensspuren, no. 182a). However, he was far closer to the spirit of Kleist's intentions than he perhaps realised, when he went on to add that, ‘the ending is unconvincing. The real Amphitryon has no choice but to accept the honour of Zeus's visitation.