ἁπάντων. The sense of this sentence seems to be rightly understood by Tyrwhitt (who is here only following Goulston): 'Atque hae quidem communes sunt tragoediarum omnium; propriae vero quarundam sunt e scena cantus et κόμμοι, sive planctus.' For the neuter ἁπάντων comp. πᾶν in 6, 1450b 13 and ἐξ ἄλλου εἰς ἄλλο in 18, 1456b 31. Hermann with less probability supposes χορευτῶν to be understood (comp. Haigh, Tragic Drama of the Greeks p. 361 ). Others, understanding δραμάτων, imagine Comedy as well as Tragedy to be meant.

ταῦτα. It is not clear whether this refers to all the parts mentioned, or only to the two chorica, the πάροδος and στάσιμον. I incline to the second alternative, notwithstanding the arguments that have been urged against it ( Klein, De partibus formisque quibus tragoediam constare voluerit Aristoteles p. 5 ). Aristotle is thinking primarily of the parts sung; and by a very natural association of ideas he passes from the parts sung by the chorus first to the lyrical passages sung by an actor (or actors), and then to the dirges sung by an actor (or actors) and the chorus in conjunction.

τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς, the solos ( μονῳδίαι), duets, and trios sung by the characters on the stage. These dramatic lyrics are recognized in Probl. 19. 15, 918b 26 , and contrasted with the songs of the chorus: τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς οὐκ ἀντίστροφα, τὰ δὲ τοῦ χοροῦ ἀντίστροφα· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὑποκριτὴς ἀγωνιστὴς καὶ μιμητής, ὁ δὲ χορὸς ἧττον μιμεῖται (see also Probl. 19. 30, 920b 8-18, 922b 16 ). Comp. Suidas Μονῳδία· ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς ᾠδὴ ἐν τοῖς δράμασι. καὶ μονῳδεῖν τὸ θρηνεῖν, μονῳδία λέγεται ὅταν εἷς μόνος λέγῃ τὴν ᾠδὴν καὶ οὐχ ὁμοῦ ὁ χορός.

12.3 Et ce dernier ſe partage encore en trois parties, qu'on appelle Parodos, Staſimon & Commoi.] ¹

12.3 THE COMMOI ARE FOUND IN SOME ONLY.

The Greek says . Here, the , and the , are represented as distinct things. But in the definition afterwards, appears to be the name given to the joint lamentation of the chorus and the actors. . Victorius states this difficulty, but without giving any satisfactory solution. And indeed I see no way of reconciling these passages, unless we suppose Aristotle to have expressed himself very loosely and inaccurately, and to have meant, that was the name appropriated to that part of the which joined or alternated with one or more of the — — i. e. the actors; so that by, , we are to understand only, that was that or lamentation of the chorus, in which the actors, alternately, took part; as if the Greek had been thus : — . And so, would only mean, the of the chorus with the — that is, mixed with the lamentation of the actors, or persons of the drama.

But it seems more for the credit of our philosophical critic, to give up the first of these passages as corrupt, and to adhere to the plain sense of the definition. I have, therefore, taken no notice of the words, , in my version. Nothing is lost by the suppression. The sense of the word is left, like that of the other terms, to be fixed by its definition.

Tragoediae quantitatis ratione inita quattuor partes inveniuntur, prologus episodium exodus choricum. chorici partes sunt parodus et stasimum; accedunt ex scena cantica et commi. Bene sane factum est quod quae iam sequuntur, quamvis et loco alieno collocata et verbis mirum in modum expressa, ad nostram notitiam pervenerunt: inde enim et melius et plenius quam aliunde discimus, in quas partes antiqui grammatici tragoediam discreverint, discretas quibus nominibus appellaverint. nihilo minus haec, quibus pretium suum derogare nolo, Aristoteli abiudicanda esse censeo. tria sunt quae ut sic statuam mihi suadent. primum egregia illa fabulae ( τοῦ μύθου) explicatio hisce interiectis absurde interpellatur, neque ullus toto libro locus inveniri potest, ubi haec apte sedem sibi vindicent. scilicet de fabula exposuit Aristoteles inde a capite 7. usque ad c. 11, 5., reditque ad eandem c. 13., et ita redit ut in disputatione continuo sequente partes illae c. 12. enumeratae omnino negligantur 1). itaque haec partium tragoediae enumeratio ineptissimo loco posita est. secundum quo interpolator se prodit signum hoc est, quod nonnisi nuda nomina exhibentur, quorum descriptio non ex fine tragoediae proposito, non ex interna eius forma et constitutione, id quod deceret philosophum, sed ex habitu illius externo petitur. ulna utitur qui haec scripsit, ulna et norma unice gaudet, id quod alienum est a disputandi ratione Aristoteli probata et a genuinis huiusce operis reliquiis. quo igitur consilio haec doceantur dici nequit, vel potius inane scribenti consilium hoc fuit, edito doctrinae suae specimine curare ut lectores quorundam nominum ad tragoediam pertinentium significationem addiscerent. tertium vero indicium ad detegendum interpolatorem omnium est manifestissimum quippe homo iste, auctorem suum quantum potuit imitaturus, in enarrationis suae aridissimae initio ponit formulam, cui similes sane multae ad transitum faciendum admissae in libris Aristotelis reperiuntur: μέρη δὲ τραγῳδίας, οἷς μὲν ὡς εἴδεσι δεῖ χρῆσθαι, πρότερον εἴπομεν· κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποσὸν καὶ εἰς ἃ διαιρεῖται κεχωρισμένα, τάδε ἐστι. haec non male, sed cum idem ille propter ingenii sterilitatem nonnisi de externa tragoediae forma perpauca proferre potuisset, statim, scilicet ne parum videretur attulisse, explicationem 1) Contra aliquis moneat respici quae hoc capite exponantur infra c. 18, 2. τραγῳδίας δὲ εἴδη εἰσὶ τέσσαρα· τοσαῦτα γὰρ καὶ τὰ μέρη ἐλέχθη. sed haec ipsa non esse Aristotelis suo loco ostendetur.suam ita conclusam exhibuit: μέρη δὲ τραγωδίας, οἷς μὲν δεῖ χρῆσθαι, πρότερον εἴπομεν, κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποσὸν καὶ εἰς ἃ διαιρεῖται κεχωρισμένα, ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν. nimirum hac formula a se laboriose ac feliciter inventa ita iste gaudebat, ut quo minus brevissimo intervallo bis ea uteretur sibi temperare non posset. ad singula iam accedamus. μέρη δὲ τραγῳδίας, οἷς μὲν ὡς εἴδεσι δεῖ χρῆσθαι, πρότερον εἴπομεν: partes tragoediae prius enumeratas intelligit illas, quae a vero Aristotele c. 6, 7. μέρη, καθ' ἃ ποιά τις ἐστὶν ἡ τραγῳδία, designantur, μῦθος ἤθη λέξις διάνοια ὄψις μελοποιία. Hermannus et qui hunc sequitur Graefenhanius πρότερον εἴπομεν ad proxime praegressa (c. 11, 6), h. e. ad περιπέτειαν et ἀναγνώρισιν et πάθος spectare opinantur. illic vero non tragoediae partes sed fabulae ( τοῦ μύθου), neque cuiusvis fabulae partes sed unius implexae a personato auctore enumeratae sunt. ipsum πρότερον huic explicationi repugnat. κοινὰ μὲν ἁπάντων ταῦτα, ἴδια δὲ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ κόμμοι. nomen ἁπάντων quo referatur quaerunt ambiguntque interpretes, et iure quidem dum ambigunt, nonnulli δραμάτων supplent, alii omnes poetas intelligunt, alii omnes chori personas, neque ulla ex his interpretationibus non obnoxia est gravi dubitationi, sed ea culpa non est interpretum sed auctoris obscure vitioseque scribentis. nam obscure ille locutus est, quia vocem tam incertam ( ἁπάντων) dedit, qua multa et varia consignari possunt, vitiose, quia omnibus non opposuit nonnullos ( ἐνίους s. ἔνια) vel aliud pronomen quod omnibus apte responderet. mihi verisimile videtur interpolatorem per ἁπάντων omnia dramata intelligi voluisse, eisque opposita cogitasse cantica ex scena et planctus quae non in omnibus reperirentur, sed ne certi quidquam decerni de hac re possit, prohibet obscura negligenter scribentis elocutio. τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς ab actore quodam ex scena, non a choreutis ex orchestra, decantantur. haec cantica, si chorus non respondet, μονῳδίαι vocantur, quibus Euripidem prae ceteris studuisse constat. vid. Aristophan. Ran. v. 849. 014. 1330. conf. Thesmophor. v. 1077. Pacis v. 1012. Photius in lexico: μονῳδία, ἡ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς ᾠδὴ ἐν τοῖς δράμασι, καὶ μονῳδεῖν τὸ θρηνεῖν· ἐπιεικῶς γὰρ πᾶσαι αἱ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς ᾠδαὶ ἐν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ θρῆνοί εἰσι. idem: μονῳδία λέγεται, ὅταν εἶς μόνος λέγῃ τὴν ᾠδὴν, καὶ οὐχ ὁμοῦ ὁ χορός. eadem hace paulo aliter disposita Suidas habet s. v. μονῳδεῖν et μονῳδία. conf. Hesychius s. v. μονῳδεῖ et lex. a Bachmanno editum p. 303. de commis paulo post dicemus.