Eridon. Complications there are none, and the sole interest of the
play consists in the vivacity of the dialogues and in the arch
mischief with which Egle eventually shames Eridon out of his foolish
jealousy of his maiden, who is only too fondly devoted to him. What
strikes us in the whole performance is that Goethe, if he was so
madly in love with Kaethchen as his letters to Behrisch represent him,
should have been capable of writing it. From its playful humour and
entirely objective treatment it might have been written by a
good-natured onlooker amused at the spectacle of two young people
trifling with feelings which neither could take seriously.

[Footnote 42: This play was based on an earlier attempt made in
Frankfort.]

Equally objective is Goethe's handling of the very different theme of
the other play, _Die Mitschuldigen_ ("The Accomplices"),[43] and in
this case the objectivity is still more remarkable in a youth who had
not yet attained his twentieth year. This second piece belongs to the
class of low comedy, and is as simple in construction as its
companion. The scene is laid in an inn, and the characters are four in
number: the Host, whose leading trait is insatiable curiosity; his
daughter Sophia, represented as of easy virtue; Soeller, her husband, a
graceless scamp; and Alcestes, a former lover of Sophia, and for the
time a guest in the inn. In the central scene of the play there come
in succession to Alcestes' room in the course of one night Soeller, who
steals Alcestes' gold; the Host, to possess himself of a letter with
the contents of which he has a burning curiosity to become acquainted;
and Sophia by appointment with Alcestes. As father and daughter have
caught sight of each other on their respective errands, each suspects
the other of being the thief, and in a sorry scene the father, on the
condition of being permitted to read the letter, which turns out to be
a trivial note, informs Alcestes that Sophia is the delinquent.
Finally, Soeller, under the threat of a prick from Alcestes' sword,
confesses to the theft, and the piece ends with a mutual agreement to
condone each other's delinquencies.[44] The play is not without
humour, and the different characters are vivaciously presented, but
the blindest admirers of the master may well regret, as they mostly
have regretted, that such a work should have come from his hands. The
most charitable construction we can put on the graceless production is
that