Note 465 — Chapter III · THE THEATRE (continued 2)

[The discussion is continued by Bethe, Hermes, 1898, pp. 313 ff., and Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1898, pp. 326 ff.; 1903, pp. 424 ff. The latter admits that the Hellenistic stage corresponds better in depth with Vitruvius’ rule, and his further arguments in support of his theory are very unconvincing. (As regards some of them, see pp. 158 ff.) In various other details the Hellenistic and Asiatic theatres nearly all deviate from the exact figures given by Vitruvius, though the approximations are in most cases close. One theatre corresponds in one point with the figures given, one in another, as one would expect: and in most points, other than those above mentioned, neither the Hellenistic nor the Asiatic type has much advantage over the other in respect of precise correspondence. (See Noack, Philologus, lviii, pp. 9 ff.) The clearest result of Dörpfeld’s controversy with Bethe, and later with Puchstein, is that theatres of both types varied much more than most writers have allowed. Why should they not have done so? At the same time, Vitruvius’ rules are as nearly in accordance with the general features of the Hellenistic type as general rules can be reasonably expected to be.]