EXCAVATIONS AT ERETRIA.

57

hood of Eretria, including that which has been called the Tomb
of Aristotle, in addition to the general supervision of the work.

Besides the general advisability of delaying the publication of re-
sults until all the material has been collected and sifted, another cogent
reason lies in the fact that the work at the theatre is not yet completed,
and must be continued in the coming season. Even as regards the
skene, some digging will still have to be done in the region of the
parodoi and the walls marked PZ and OH on the flan (pl. iv).

However, the important bearings of the theatre Ave have excavated
upon fundamental questions of the Greek stage, and thus upon the
nature of the performance of ancient Greek plays, are such that our
work has already been introduced by both contending parties into the
controversy now in progress. Dr. Dorpfeid (in the Berliner Philo-
logische Wochenschrift), Messrs. E. A. Gardner and Loring, and Miss
Sellers (in the Athenaeum), have quoted the theatre of Eretria in sup-
port of their respective views. In a letter to the Athencmm (in July,
1891)1 pointed to theprematureness of any introduction of the theatre of
Eretria for evidence on either side, and asked that we should be allowed
to make an accurate publication of the facts we had established, be-
fore they were made the subject of inference and controversy. But,
considering the exceptional importance of the skene of Eretria, to-
gether with the impatience manifested by the scientific world for the
publication of our work, I have deemed it right to issue at once the
papers of Professor Richardson and those of Messrs. Fossum and
Brownson, together with the plan of the theatre so far as excavated.

In the publication of the ancient remains of the theatre it was my
intention to avoid, as far as possible, for the present, the drawing of
conclusions directly implying acceptance of the main views of either
of the parties which now stand opposed in the hypothetical reconstruc-
tion of the Greek stage, and to limit our publication to the simple and
exact statement of the facts we had brought to light. This reticence
i thought called for, because, though what may be called the " ortho-
dox" view of the Greek stage has had adequate exposition, the new
views of Dr. Dorpfeid have not yet been supported by a full and
systematic account of the numerous data collected by that eminent
archaeologist in support of his theories. Pending this publication it
did not appear to me wise for archaeologists who had not access to all
the material at the disposal of Dr. Dorpfeid either to accept his views
unconditionally, or to oppose them.