C 759 ] 
that the additional firings could not be ventured 
upon in that mode, though in the reft they were 
admitted. 
The laft paflage is that, which I have mentioned 
above to have been cenfured by Meibomius : we 
ftiall fee here, that the author is exprefly arguing for 
confining harmonic within its proper fphere, and not 
fuft'ering it to encroach on melopoeia, by engaging 
with the rules of propriety, in the ufe of the ele- 
ments ; fo that it both justifies and explains the di- 
ftindtion I have made above, between the two fci- 
ences, and turns the cenfure of Meibomius upon 
himfelf, who feems, indeed, without excufe, unleis 
we fuppofe him to mean only, that Plutarch, in 
giving the Ariftoxenian divifion, ought not to have 
funk any part of it : which remark would have been 
juft, if Plutarch had given the divifion as fuch ; 
but he does not name the fchool, though he adopts 
their diftribution of the fcience as far as the fix di- 
vifions he approved 5 fo that no inconfiftence can be 
charged upon him. The latter part of this paflage 
alfo confirms the diftindtion I have made between 
the two dodtrines, and their ufe in the two fciences ; 
fo that it aflifts moil of the preceding arguments and 
proofs : and here I fhall therefore reft this point, 
which will fcarce be thought to need farther fup- 
port. 
For it is evident, that the immediate obiedls of 
harmonic are genera, viz. thofe of the hermofme- 
non, intervals, fyftems, founds, tones, and fyftematic 
mutations ; and farther than this it cannot go : fo 
that we ought not to expect it fhould determine how 
far the poet, in his mufic, has properly affirmed the 
Hypo- 
