1452b14 Bernays ( Zwei Abhandl. p. 167) and Bernhardy ( Gr. Litt. 2. 2 a p. 236), as well as most of the recent editors of the Poetics, agree with Ritter in rejecting chapter 12 as an interpolation. The reasons advanced by Ritter against it are threefold:—(1) that it breaks the continuity of the main discussion; (2) that it gives us a string of names and definitions of the external accidents of Tragedy, which it was not at all necessary for Aristotle's purposes to consider—' non nisi 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'; (3) that the form of the conclusion, a mere repetition of the opening sentence, betrays the hand of an interpolator. These arguments, however, which are hardly so conclusive as has been supposed, ignore a good many points which have to be taken into account in the general balance of probabilities. (1) There is the mark of style; the terminology in κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν καὶ εἰς ἃ διαιρεῖται κεχωρισμένα is Aristotelian, and the brevity of these clear-cut definitions can hardly be said to be un- Aristotelian. (2) Aristotle may very well be conceived to have felt that the parts κατὰ τὸ ποσόν were not only of great technical importance but also too obvious arid too recognized to be passed over in silence; and further that, as certain of them ( πρόλογος and ἐπεισόδιον) had been already mentioned in the book, a short note explaining what they were might be expected. (3) Besides this, it has to be borne in mind that the very term 'parts', in the present sense of the word, had actually appeared in the definition of Tragedy in 6, 1449 b 25

ἡδυσμένῳ λόγῳ χωρὶς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰδῶν ἐν τοῖς μορίοις

. In the analysis also of Tragedy in 6, 1450 a 7

ἀνάγκη οὖν πάσης τραγῳδίας μέρη εἶναι ἕξ, καθ᾽ ἃ ποιά τις ἐστὶν ἡ τραγῳδία

, the only motive for the qualifying clause καθ᾽ ἃ ποιά τις ἐστὶν ἡ τραγῳδία is to distinguish the parts under consideration from another series of parts of a different kind—the μέρη κατὰ τὸ ποσόν of the present chapter. It is clear that Aristotle was already thinking of these latter; and the clause added prepares us, as it were, for a more formal recognition of them. The doubt as to the genuineness of this chapter is often supposed to be confirmed by the difficulty of reconciling one or two of its definitions with the known facts of the Drama as seen in the works of the three great tragedians. If we look at the structure of our surviving Greek tragedies, certain of these definitions are either inadequate or untrue, 'It is not true to say that the stasimon is distinguished from the parodus by the absence of anapaests and trochaics. Anapaests are far from being universal in the parodus, while they occur not uncommonly at the beginning of stasima... and in the Medea one of the stasima (1081-1115) is anapaestic throughout. Again, the ordinary trochaic metre is frequently found in stasima, while trochaic tetrameters are equally unknown both to the stasima and the parodi of tragedy' ( Haigh, Tragic Drama of the Greeks p. 356; comp. Westphal, Prolegomena zu Aeschylus Tragödien p. 57). The question, however, on which so much ingenuity has been expended, admits of another answer if one remembers Aristotle's purpose in writing. His work is, in intention at any rate, a practical treatise, an Art of Poetry, not a record of learned research; and it was written for the benefit of the men of his own day, and with reference to the theatrical conditions of the time. Although he thinks that in certain particulars the existing practice of the stage should be reformed by a return to that of the older dramatists, the general assumption in the Poetics is the theatre as it was in the middle of the Fourth Century. One of the chief difficulties a student of the older Drama finds in this chapter is in a point relating to the Chorus. We do not know much of the economy of the later Tragedy; but one thing is fairly ascertained, that the chorus was no longer what it had been in the age of Sophocles and Euripides. Aristotle himself tells us ( 18, 1456 a 25 ) that its songs, instead of forming a more or less integral part of the play, had degenerated into mere lyrical intermezzi ( ἐμβόλιμα). This, however, can hardly have been the only change it had undergone. The probability is that the dramatic dance also had been curtailed, and that, when once in its place in the orchestra, the chorus simply sang its pieces without any accompanying dance. What the comic poet Plato ( fr. 130 Kock) said of the choruses of his day: ὥστ᾽ εἴ τις ὀρχοῖτ᾽ εὖ, θέαμ᾽ ἦν· νῦν δὲ δρῶσιν οὐδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἀπόπληκτοι στάδην ἑστῶτες ὠρύονται, was presumably as true of those of Tragedy as of the rest in Aristotle's age. If it was true of Tragedy, however, the new state of things would naturally imply a new technique in the treatment of the χορικά; the so-called στάσιμα would be what their name in fact suggests, stationary songs, as opposed to the πάροδοι or entrance-songs; and there would accordingly be no place in them for verses in a metre of movement. The definition of the στάσιμον, therefore, as a μέλος ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου may not be quite so paradoxical as it seems at first sight ( comp. Westphal l. c. p. 64). The difficulty we find in this instance seems to be really due to the grammarians having transferred the word στάσιμον from the later to the earlier Tragedy, where the position of the 'sung parts' (as Aristotle calls them) was the same, though their structure and dramatic importance were not the same. This conclusion is confirmed by the way in which the ancients dealt with this chapter. The explanations of πάροδος, στάσιμον, etc., in the grammarians (to be seen in Westphal l. c. and elsewhere) reproduce the definitions in the text, but with modifications manifestly due to a desire to re-shape them into conformity with the actual facts of the great Drama, that of Sophocles and Euripides. ' Duodecimi capitis circumscriptio cum haud quaquam ad omnes tragoedias quadraret, pars eorum qui postea id genus tractarunt eam additis aliis notionibus amplificare, pars eam vocibus accuratius terminatis emendare, pars eam aliquo modo varietati rerum quae apud poetas obversatur adaptare studuerunt, unde haud paucae dissensiones manarunt' ( L. Schmidt, De parodi et stasimi nominibus p. viii). This may perhaps be taken as evidence not only for the antiquity of the definitions in this chapter ( comp. Consbruch, Comm. in honorem Gu. Studemund p. 223), but also for their having made their appearance in a work of considerable authority at the time.

πρότερον: in chap. 6.

εἰς ἃ διαιρεῖται: Metaph. Δ 25, 1023b 12 μέρος λέγεται ἕνα μὲν τρόπον εἰς ὃ διαιρεθείη ἂν τὸ ποσὸν ὁπωσοῦν.

12.1 Prés avoir expliqué les parties qui conſtituent la forme & la qualité de la Tragedie.] ¹

12.1 Il faut parler de celles qui conſtituent ſa quantité, & qui ſubſiſtent ſeparément.] ²

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.