λέξις ὅλη. Ever since Twining's time there has been a tendency to press the meaning of λέξις, and distinguish it from μέλος ( comp. K. O. Müller, Kleine deutsche Schriften 1 p. 510 ); it is supposed to stand for recitative, or to be a general term including recitative and song. This interpretation is hardly reconcileable with the language of the adjacent definitions. (1) The definition of the στάσιμον, as a

μέλος ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου

, presupposes the possibility of a μέλος with anapaests and trochaics; (2) the definition also of ἐπεισόδιον, as that which is

μεταξὺ ὅλων χορικῶν μελῶν

, will not apply to the first ἐπεισόδιον, if the parodus which precedes it is not to be regarded as a μέλος ( comp. Westphal l. c. p. 58 ). λέξις ὅλη is to be compared with the

μέρος ὅλον

in the preceding definitions of πρόλογος, ἐπεισόδιον and ἔξοδος. The traditional reading λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ involves a distinction between the entire chorus and individual χορευταί, which would probably have had very little meaning in Aristotle's day, when the chorus had practically ceased to take a serious part in the action of the play.

12.7 Le Parodos eft le premier discours de tout le Chœur.] ¹

12.7 THE PARODE IS THE FIRST SPEECH OF THE WHOLE CHORUS. —Though , in its proper signification, is mere speech, yet it appears to have been occasionally extended to such melody as imitated speech, and to have answered nearly to the modern term, recitative. [See NOTE 46

, and particularly the passage from Plutarch at the end of it.] And such, I have no doubt, is the sense in which it is here used, to distinguish the melody of the Parodos from that of the regular choral odes; which I suppose to have been a more varied, measured, and, as we may, not improperly, term it, a more musical melody. For want of understanding this distinction, the commentators have made strange confusion, by taking , either in its literal sense of mere speaking, or in a sense absolutely synonymous with , as Dacier does. ¹ But it is hardly to be imagined, that Aristotle would use the word without any reason; and, that the could not be mere speech, or declamation, such as that of our stage, seems evident enough from the expression, . A number may sing together, in a kind of measured recitative, or simple chanting; but they cannot well speak together, without intolerable confusion. This would be that very , which Demetrius mentions as a thing absurd and unheard of ² .

There is a singular passage in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, which affords, I think, a strong confirmation, both of the sense which I have here given to the word , and of the propriety of its application in that sense to the choral . In the 11th section of his treatise De Struct. Orat. in order to shew, how little prosody was regarded by the composers of the Tragic melodies, he criticises the melody of the following lines from the Orestes of Euripides:

Σίγα, σιγα, λευκον ίχνος ἀρβυλης
Τιθείτε, μη κτυπειτε
Αποπροβατ᾿ ἐκεισ᾿, ἀποπροθι κοιτας.

v. 140. Now it is remarkable, 1. that he calls this, , and yet represents it as said by Electra: —2. That the melody, to which these words were set, was the simplest possible; a kind of chanting recitative. The three first words, for instance, were set to one note. —and in other words too, the same tone, as this author clearly informs us, was frequently repeated ³ . This may be regarded as somewhat of a musical curiosity. For it is an authentic, though indeed a very scanty and imperfect specimen, of one part of the dramatic choral music of the Greeks.

3dly, This very melody was probably that of the of this Tragedy. Dionysius, indeed, gives these words to Electra; but in all the editions of Euripides which I have seen, the two first lines are given to the chorus; with more propriety, I think, if we attend to what goes before. Electra had just said to the chorus, on their coming in while Orestes was sleeping;

Ω φίλταται γυναικες, ἡσυχῳ ποδι
Χωρείτε, μη ψοφιτε, μηδ' ἔσω κτυπα

v. 134. The words, therefore, which Dionysius, quoting probably by memory, attributes to Electra, would seem to come more naturally from the mouths of the choral virgins, repeating to each other the caution she had given them. But whether this be so or not, yet, that this was the first entry of the chorus upon the stage, is clear from the preceding speech of Electra: and the Lyric part, which follows that speech, if it does not begin with, probably contains, at least, the ; being all in the regular choral form of Strophe and Antistrophe, and, in all probability, set throughout to melody of the same kind.

Perhaps the whole chorus might not begin to sing, till the third Strophe, —If, as Victorius contends, this be not the Parodos, it cannot begin before, v. 316. But, the very application of the word , which properly signifies the entry, or arrival of the chorus, to the , or first speech of the whole chorus, shews, I think, sufficiently, the close connection of the two things ⁴ ; and that we are never to look for that first speech, at such a distance from the first entrance of the chorus.

But, it may, perhaps, be objected to the distinction I understand here between and , that it will expose us to the very difficulty mentioned in the last Note: it will make Aristotle's enumeration of the parts into which Tragedy is divided, incomplete; because, if we admit it, the part between the and the first or regular Ode, will want a name. For, if any thing, it must be ; but this, it may be said, it cannot be, because it will not be, according to Aristotle's definition, ; the Parode being not , but .—It seems a sufficient answer to this objection, to observe, that , here, is not opposed to in general, but only to a particular species of . Strictly speaking, the simplest chant, or even such recitative, as approaches the nearest to common speech, is yet as much , melody, music, as the most refined Opera song. It is called , only comparatively. Nay, the word is sometimes, in a wider sense, applied even to speech itself. And so, above, we have . ⁵ Aristotle, therefore, in the expression , may be supposed, without any inconsistence, to include, what, afterwards, in the particular definition of , where distinction was necessary, he denominates .

It must be owned, that Aristotle's parsimonious brevity has left some confusion in this subject; but, in the illustrations of his commentators, it is "confusion worse confounded." And this has arisen from their applying to the Greek drama, without the slightest foundation, the Roman division into five acts. It is now, I believe, pretty well understood, that such an idea is totally inapplicable to the Greek Tragedy ⁶ . If we must talk of acts, it would be more proper to say they had three; forming our division upon the three parts, which, according to Aristotle, were essential to every drama, the , the , and the ; not upon the number of choral odes, which is different in different dramas. In the Trachiniæ, for example, there are not fewer than six choral odes. If these are to determine the number of acts, as Dacier contends, this Tragedy will consist of seven. Brumoy, to divide this piece into five acts, is reduced to admit an entire ode in the middle of his first act; so that the Episode, which Aristotle defines to be that part which is , begins in the , and before the , which, according to Brumoy, must be the second ode. Another ode he is obliged to admit in the middle of his last act; contrary to Aristotle's definition of .—Dacier makes the prologue of the Oedipus Coloneus consist of 700 verses ⁷ . Nothing can be more improbable, or more inconsistent with Aristotle's idea of its purpose. [See NOTE 40

.] But he was forced into this absurdity, only by the supposed necessity of reducing the intervals between the odes to three, and, consequently, the acts, (adding the prologue and exode,) to five. For if the true parode be at v. 118, ( ) as I doubt not it is, there will then be four such intervals, and, consequently, six acts. He repeats the same mistakes in dividing the Phœnissæ, in which there are five regular odes, as in many other of the Greek Tragedies. In the Oedipus Tyrannus he makes the ode, , (v. 1096,) come in the middle of an act ⁸ ; and then, because he chose to place it so, is forced to deny that it was sung, though it is in the most regular Lyric form.

The expression, , seems to imply, that other choral parts, beside the Parode, were also ; i. e. were sung by the whole chorus in the same sort of chanting and simple melody. But who will undertake to distinguish these parts, and to tell us, exactly, what was Air, and what Recitative? what was sung by the whole choir, and what was, ? ⁹ —I will not bewilder my reader and myself in a labyrinth without a clue.

The scholiast upon the Phœnissæ (v. 212.) says, that the was sung by the chorus, "as they entered upon the stage." — , &c. And, indeed, in the example he here gives from the Orestes, the entrance of the choral troop is clearly marked by what precedes. Electra says—

Αἰδ᾿ οὖν ΠΑΡΕΙΣΙ τοις ἐμοις θρηνημασι
Φίλαι συνῳδοι.

v. 132. And this is frequently the case. Thus, in the Phœnissæ, that the —v. 212, (not, —v. 651, as Dacier makes it,) is the true Parode, as, indeed, it is expressly called by the author of the Greek argument prefixed to the Persæ of Æschylus, is confirmed by this passage, announcing the entry of the choral virgins, in the preceding Iambics, where the old attendant desires Antigone to retire:

ὄχλος γαρ, ὡς ταραγμος εισῆλθεν πόλιν,
ΧΩΡΕΙ [is coming] γυναικων προς δομους τυραννικους.

v. 206. Thus too, in the Oedipus Coloneus, the first appearance of the chorus is thus announced by Antigone:

Σίγα· ΠΟΡΕΥΟΝΤΑΙ γαρ ΩΔΕ δη τινες
Χρονῳ παλαιοι

v. 111. And the immediately follows, v. 117. In the Iphigenia in Tauris, the arrival of the choral women is marked by themselves:

ΧΟ. —ΕΜΟΛΟΝ τι νεον ; &c.

v. 137. See also, v. 65. .

The Parode is not less distinctly marked in the Medea, v. 131. in the Heraclidæ, where the chorus is called in by Iolaus, v. 69:—in the Helena, v. 179:—in the Hercules, v. 107, &c.

When the attendant spirit, in Comus, "opens the business of the drama to a solitary forest, without an audience," he does no more than Venus ¹⁰ , and the ghost of Polydorus ¹¹ , and Iphigenia ¹² , and many others, in the Tragedies of Euripides, had done before him. The learned and ingenious editor of Milton's Occasional Poems says, that, "in a Greek Tragedy, this objection would have been obviated by the chorus, which was always present ¹³ ;" but I am afraid the want of "recollection" must be transferred from Milton to himself. There are not, I think, more than three or four Greek Tragedies, in which the chorus is present from the beginning ¹⁴ .

This , or entry of the chorus, probably made one of the most splendid and popular parts of the , or shew, of the antient Tragedy. It is mentioned by Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, as a custom of the Megarians, who were a luxurious and ostentatious people, to be at the expence of furnishing purple dresses for the even of their comic stage ¹⁵ . It appears, however, from a curious fragment of Menander, to have been a practice, not uncommon with the Greek Managers, to place mutes among their choral singers, in order to complete the visible number requisite:

— ὥσπερ των χορων
Οὐ παντες ἀδουσ᾿, ἀλλ᾿ ἀφωνοι δυο τίνες
ἢ τρεις παρεστηκασι, ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΕΣΧΑΤΟΙ,
Ἐις τον ἀριθμον —και τοῦθ᾿ ὁμοιως πως ἔχει
Χωραν κατεχομεν, ζωσι δ᾿ οἷς ἔστιν βιος.

Menand. and Philem. Reliq. ed. Clerici, p. 221.

As in a chorus
All do not sing, but, in the hindmost ranks,
Some two or three stand mute to make a number,
So is it here;—we serve to fill a place;
They only live, who have the means of living.

ἔστι δὲ πρόλογος μὲν μέρος ὅλοντρα - γῳδίας τὸ πρὸ χοροῦ παρόδου: iam incipit ulna sua uti et sic disputare, ut missa interna tragicae poesis natura curet, ne forte quo nomine singulae tragoediarum particulae vocandae sint lectores nesciant. prologus est igitur tota tragoediae pars quae posita est ante chori carmen parodicum. nomen πάροδον h. 1. non de chori in orchestram ingressu sed de tragoediae parte quadam intelligendum esse definitio παρόδου quae statim sequitur ostendit. Aristophanes tragoediae initium, h. e. primam orationem eius qui primum inducitur, πρόλογον appellavit in Ranis v. 1119., ubi Euripidem Aeschyli tragoedias exagitantem haec dicere fecit: καὶ μὴν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς τοὺς προλόγους σοι τρέψομαι, ὅπως τὸ πρῶτον τῆς τραγῳδίας μέρος πρώτιστον αὐτοῦ βασανιῶ τοῦ δεξιοῦ. ibidem cum Aeschylo imperatum esset ut πρόλογον ἐκ τῆς Ὀρεστείας recitaret, ille dicto audiens tres versus qui primi sunt in Choephoris ac deinde quartum et quinti dimidiam partem ex oratione Orestis protulit. verus Aristoteles in Rhetoricis III, 14 init. cuiusvis carminis exordium πρόλογον vocat: τὸ μὲν οὖν προοίμιόν ἐστιν ἀρχὴ λόγου, ὅπερ ἐν ποιήσει πρόλογος καὶ ἐν αὐλήσει προαύλιον· πάντα γὰρ ἀρχαὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἰσί, καὶ οἷον ὁδοποίησις τῷ ἐπιόντι. haec significatio nomini plane convenit: πρόλογος enim ea est oratio quae ceteris prius admittitur. sed si ὁ λόγος opponitur τῷ μέλει, prologus ea complectitur quae ante chori adventum in scena peraguntur, h. e. quae prius dicuntur quam cantus inchoatur. hoc intellectu πρόλογον dictum accepit scriptor anonymus apud Küsterum ante comoedias Aristophanis p. XIV (apud Bekkerum p. XII): πρόλογος τὸ μέχρι τῆς εἰσόδου τοῦ χοροῦ μέρος. conf. Tzetzae Versus de tragica poesi editi a Dübnero in Museo Rhen. philolog. vol. IV. p. 403. πρόλογος μέν ἐστι τὸ μέχρι χοροῦ τῆς εἰσόδου. nec vero haec significatio multum immutatur, si quando chorus ante adest quam histriones' in scenam ingressi sunt, quod factum videmus in Aeschyli Persis et Supplicibus atque in Rheso Euripidis: tum enim πρόλογος continet illa quae ante a coryphaco recitantur quam totius chori canticum incipit, quae unius choreutae recitatio et λόγος et λέξις appellari potest. itaque in Persis prologus continetur v. 1-64., in Supplicibus v. 1-40., in Rheso v. 1-22. longius autem in prologo definiendo a significatione vocis πρόλογος recessit technicus hic noster, dum quae primam λέξιν totius chori praecedunt eo nomine complectitur. secundum hanc sententiam dimidia paene Oedipi Colonei pars (v. 1-667) ingenti prologo occupatur, sed ea culpa non est praestantissimi poetae: immo in culpa sunt technici notiones suas ex vagis notis componentes. cur ὅλον μέρος, non μέρος simpliciter, scripserit et hic et paulo post ubi episodium et exodus definitur, id in tali scriptore non curiose quaerendum existimo. fortasse significari voluit prologi ambitum plerumque satis magnum esse, item episodii exodique. ἐπεισόδιον δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ μεταξὺ ὅλων χορικῶν μελῶν: quae ab histrionibus inter duo chori cantica aut inter semet ipsos aut inter ipsos et choreutas peraguntur, ἐπεισόδιον efficiunt. nomen inde factum est, quod actorum colloquia nascentis artis tragicae aetate canticis choricis tamquam quoddam alienum vel secundarium interserebantur. ὅλα μέλη chori quae circumdant ἐπεισόδιον, aut parodus et stasimum aut duo stasima esse possunt. conf. anonymus apud Küsterum 1. c. ἐπεισόδιον τὸ μεταξύ δύο χορικῶν μελῶν. Tzetzes 1. c. ἐπεισόδιος δέ ἐστιν... λόγος μεταξὺ πλὴν μελῶν χορῶν (lege χοροῦ) δύο. ἔξοδος δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγωδίας μεθ' ὃ οὐκ ἔστι χοροῦ μέλος: accuratius scripsisset ὅλου χοροῦ μέλος. in ipsa enim exodo singuli choreutae in κόμμοις interdum respondent canticis ab histrionibus ex scena fusis, et minora singulorum choreutarum carmina decantari et anapaesti coryphaei recitari possunt. ceterum vel sic definitio accommodari nequit ad omnes tragoedias, si quidem Aeschyli Supplices totius chori cantico concluduntur, et Eumenides in fine novi chori carmine instructae sunt. scriptor anonymus (apud Küsterum p. XIV) comoediae exodum a nostro tehnico discedens sic definivit: ἔξοδος τὸ ἐπὶ τέλει λεγόμενον τοῦ χοροῦ. huic consentit scholiasta Aristophanis ad Vespas v. 270., Pollux IV, 108., Hesychius s. v. ἐξόδιοι νόμοι. imperite Tzetzes 1. c. vers. 24. ἡ δ' ἔξοδός τις τυγχάνει χοροῦ λόγος, μεθ' ὃν χοροῖς οὐκ ἔστι τι λέγειν μέλος. πάροδος μὲν ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ: si nomen παρόδου (Einzug) premis, quae chorus canit vel coryphaeus recitat, dum choreutae in orchestram sive a dextra sive a sinistra parte per apsides ingrediuntur, ea voce consignantur. id fere fecerunt grammatici, ut scholiasta Euripidis ad Phoeniss. v. 210 (202): πάροδος δὲ ἐστιν ᾠδὴ· χοροῦ βαδίζοντος ἀδομένη ἅμα τῇ εἰσόδῳ. item scholiasta Aristophanis ad Vespas v. 270., qui coryphaei exhortationem inter chori in orchestram adventum (230-247) enuntiatam πάροδον appellavit. alios grammaticorum de parodo locos collectos attulit G. C. W. Schneiderus de Re scenica Atheniensium pag. 205 sq., quibus iam addendus est I. Tzetzae definitio in Versibus de tragica poesi v. 35-42. a Dübnero evulgatis in Museo Rhen. philologico t. IV. p. 403. eiusmodi vero parodus multis tragoediis omnino deest, Sophocliis quidem omnibus, excepta Aiace, deest. hoc cum alios tum Pseudo - Aristotelem videtur impulisse, ut aliam definitionem parodi excogitarent. nam hic noster nonnisi totius chori primum carmen ( πρώτην λέξιν iste dixit) nomine parodi intelligi voluit, eodemque intellectu eandem vocem a Plutarcho acceptam fuisse patet ex illius quaestione an seni sit gerenda res publica c. 3. p. 785 A (IV. I. p. 152. apud Wyttenb.): Σοφοκλῆς δὲ λέγεται μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν υἱῶν παρανοίας δίκην φεύγων ἀναγνῶναὶ τὴν ἐν Οἰδίποδι τῷ ἐπὶ Κολωνοῦ πάροδον, ᾗ ἐστιν ἀρχὴ εὐίππου ( ν. 668), ξένε, τᾶσδε χώρας.” quae sint huiusce definitionis τῆς παρόδου incommoda, neuter eorum videtur vidisse vel curavisse. iam enim, ut ante notavimus, dimidia fere Oedipi Colonei pars prologus est. porro idem huius fabulae carmen (v. 668 sqq.) non minus pro stasimo quam pro parodo haberi potest. nam quia omnes chori personae hic demum canere incipiunt, parodus est. sed idem canticum stasimum est, quia neque anapaestorum neque trochaeorum systemata admixta sunt. idem dici potest de primo carmine chorico Oedipi Regis v. 151 - 215. aliisque pluribus. his expositis, dicendum restat cur λέξιν ὅλου χορού h. 1. legamus, ubi μέλος exspectamus. hoc ego technico nostro parum caute scribenti excidisse puto, quemadmodum apud Photium et Suidam legimus μονῳδία λέ γεται, ὅταν εἶς μόνος λέγῃ τὴν ᾠδήν. conf. Argumentum Persarum Aeschyli τῶν δὲ χορῶν τὰ μὲν ἐστι παροδικά, ὡς ὅτε λέγει δι' ἣν αἰτίαν πάρεστιν, ὡς τὸ “ Τύριον οἶδμα λιποῦσα,” h. e. primum carmen choricum Phoenissarum Euripidis v. 202 sqq. Tzetzes 1. c. ὅλου χοροῦ λέξις τε πρώτη τυγχάνει· ᾠδὴν ὁ Εὐκλείδης δέ, λέξιν οὐ λέγει. accuratius igitur Euclides locutus est de parodo quam ceteri technici solebant. de iis qui parodum λέξιν et qui αδὴν nominabant, Tzetzes v. 42. monet, et recte monet, ut mihi videtur, ταυτὸν τάχα λέγοντες ἐν πολλοῖς λόγοις. Hermannus et Müllererus, ille in Commentariis ad h. 1. pag. 142., hic in Museo Rhenano philolog. t. V. p. 362., existimant λέξιν, non ᾠδήν, consulto ab Aristotele positam esse, ne systemata anapaestica 2), quae ab uno coryphaeo recitata esse, non a toto choro cantata, certum est, a parodo excluderentur. sed ita 2) Nobile exemplum anapaestorum ab uno coryphaeo recitatorum et strophis intersertorum praebet parodus Antigonae Sophocliae v. 100 - 161.auctor personatus sibi ipse non constabit, cum parodum totius chori λέξιν esse dicit et nihilo minus unius coryphaei anapaestos recipere voluit, aut ille hoc ignoravit, anapaestos non cani a choro sed recitari a coryphaeo. accedit quod ὅλου χοροῦ λέξις nihil nisi carmen esse potest: totus enim chorus nunquam loquitur, sed semper canit. hoc recte monuit Tyrwhittus. diligenter et docte, ut solet, Odofr. Müllerus nuper de parodo disputavit in Museo Rhenano philolog. t. V. p. 360 sqq., sed virum aequissimum sententiam suam aliqua ex parte immutaturum esse, ubi haec legerit, confido. στάσιμον δὲ μέλος χοροῦ τὸ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου: τὸ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου τo consilio addita esse puto, ut, si quando stasimo coniuncta essent systemata anapaestica vel trochaica, haec ad ipsum stasimum non pertinere moneretur. sic in Sophoclis Aiace post prologum (v. 1-133), dum chorus in orchestram ingreditur, primum sex systemata anapaestica a coryphaeo recitantur (v. 134-171), iisque parodus absolvitur, tum sequitur carmen a choro stante ( στάσιμον) decantatum (v. 172 - 200). dum anapaesti illi recitantur, chorus non stat sed in orchestrae mediam partem ingreditur. aliud exemplum ex Aeschyli Agamemnone petere licet. chorus ingredi orchestram incipit a versu 40., et hinc usque ad v. 103. novem systemata anapaestica a coryphaco recitantur, et haec τὴν πάροδον efficiunt; continuo sequitur stantis chori carmen ( στάσιμον) a versu 104. usque ad 257. in eiusdem Supplicibus statim ab initio chorus ingreditur, quod dum fit, coryphaeus decem systemata anapaestica (v. 1-40) recitat, quo facto stantis chori carmen inchoatur. eiusmodi igitur systemata a carmine chorico excludi technicus voluit. sed idem cur etiam ἄνευ τροχαίου addidit ? scilicet τροχερός est numerus trochaicus et ad saltandum aptus, non ad standum, ideoque cantica ex trochaeis continuis composita ex stasimis eximenda putavit. fortasse cogitavit eiusmodi carmina quae apud Aeschylum in Eumenid. v. 997-1002. leguntur: χαίρετ' ἀστικὸς λεώς, ἴκταρ ἥμενοι Διός, παρθένου φίλας φίλοι σωφρονοῦντες ἐν χρόνῳ. Παλλάδος δ' ὑπὸ πτεροῖς ὄντας ἅζεται πατήρ. baec et similia a saltante choro cantata esse dubitari nequit. conf. eiusdem fabulae v. 1014 - 1020. Prometh. v. 415-417. 420-422. Hermannus olim (in Comment. ad h. 1.) stasima inde dicta putabat, quod carmina essent perpetua sive systematis anapaesticis trochaicisve non interrupta, sed hanc sententiam ab ipso iam improbari credo. nam perpetuus Graece dicitur non στάσιμος sed συνεχής. stasima recte tradunt grammatici Graeci dicta esse propterea quod canerentur a stantibus choreutis, quamquam modicos ac decoros motus ne ab his quidem carminibus remotos fuisse verisimile videtur. locos grammaticorum de στασίμοις exponentium collectos posuit Schneiderus in Re scenica Atheniensium p. 207. conf. Odofr. Müllerus ad Aeschyli Eumenides p. 95. illis locis iam accedit Tzetzes 1. c. vers. 51 sqq. ἄλλοι δὲ τὸ στάσιμον χοροῦ φασὶν μέρος (1. μέλος) ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου τῶν μέτρων· πάλιν ὁ Εὐκλείδης δέ φησιν σιν ὧδέ πως · ὅταν χορὸς στάς τι κατάρχεται λέγειν. in versu postremo λέγειν negligenter dictum esse pro άδειν memineris. Tzetzes illam priorem definitionem et alteram Euclidis non re sed verbis differre pronuntiat ( καὶ ταῦτα πολλοῖς ἓν τελοῦσι τοῖς λόγοις), et recte pronuntiat, quoniam, dum illa systemata anapaestica recitantur, choreutae in mediam orchestrae partem procedunt, itemque non stantes sed saltantes trochaica systemata decantare solent. itaque μέλος χοροῦ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου idem est atque μέλος ὃ χορευταὶ στάντες ἄδουσιν. κόμμος δὲ θρήνος κοινὸς χοροῦ καὶ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς: nomen κόμμοι inde factum est, quod plerumque unus vel alter canentium sese plangebat doloris ostentandi causa.mira est huius technici etiam h. 1. sive dicendi brevitas sive negligentia. debuit saltem κόμμος δὲ θρήνος κοινὸς τοῦ χοροῦ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ σκηνῆς, sed articulum saepius hoc capite omisit, ubi verus Aristoteles haud dubie illum positurus erat. de commo absurda quidem Tzetzes attulit, sed quae contemnere nobis non licet, propterea quod ex eius verbis patet, huius technici definitionem ignotam ei non fuisse: scribit igitur 1. c. vers. 64 sqq. οὗτος δ᾽ ὁ κόμμος τοῦ χοροῦ τελῶν μέρος ὑποκριταῖς ἦν ὡς πολὺ συνηγμένος, κόμμος δὲ θρήνου πενθικώτερος πλέον. ὁ θρῆνός ἐστιν ἠρεμέστερον μέλος. κόμμον πάλιν ἄλλος δέ τις θρῆνον λέγει, κοινὸν χοροῦ σκηνῆς τε τυγχάνει λέγων.