melopceia (15). We have Plutarch alfo on our fide, 
who, in a paffage of his dialogue on mufic, which 
I fhall have occalion to cite, amongft other proofs, 
enumerates only the firft fix parts of harmoniac, 
leaving melopce'ia out of his divifion. For this Mei- 
bomius blames him (16), but too haftily ; for had 
the learned critic confidered the whole paflage, he 
muft have feen, that the omiflion was not through 
ignorance, but defign, the author being there ex- 
prefly arguing for the confining of harmonic within 
its proper bounds. However, whether the Arifto- 
ocenians were right or wrong, in including melopoeia 
in harmonic, my argument feems not materially af~ 
fedled by it j for they gave it only as a lafh divifion, 
to be taught after all the reft had been inculcated ; 
and they agreed in defining it to be the ufe of the 
harmonic elements, according to the propriety of 
each fubjedl (17): which is diftin&ion enough for 
the ufe I propofe to make of it. 
Having thus far juftified my dividing thefe fci- 
ences, I fhall now confider the fcope of each ; which 
(15) Tiif r 7 aZ£X (JLiAxi ItrirtiyXi 'vroWy.zpei xrin, ka) J'inpnyzvn( hi 
'srAiixi 'iS'iAi, f/A ay rivet dwffi vrro^aCtiv J'h, tvv dpyoviKnv kaKv[vav nr, 
tivai rt(^.yy.ar&AV, rrirz rot^m nrpdritv era v, zyerav rz J'vvay.iv roi- 
yjehS'A. Tvyydvet jS lira rzyurw rf'f drap tUincoV tav]a J 4 zriv Ira 
cwrzivzi ntpoi t ru>v rvrv.y-drav rz ka) r^vvy $‘coii AV. I Ifytfw k? t 
yxS'zv 'rvoppuTzpv risTcev ci'iiiv rrap aim rit r h pttyzytiv zyjn'l & orrrit- 
yxv' TiKO' y 6 TdTa 'zri f <m^.yy.Ar'ztAi tautm. Ariftox. p i. irut. 
(16) Plutarchus dialogo de Mufica fex tantum priores turbato 
etiam ordine recenfet, cum tamen crebrana p/.*A oirouAt mentionem 
injiciat, adeoque, non una ratione excufari illud poteft. Not. in 
Gaudientium, p. 30. 
(17) MzAo'zro/ia S'z in \isronziyzvuv tm dpy.oviKvi rspay- 
\j.areicLy <a y>os ro ont&ov ix-cirm Euclid. Introd, Harmon. 
