Talk:Stasimon

The odos to avoid of a contradiction

Stastimon is the 'stationary' choral song and the opposite to parodos, the entrance song. Stasimon does not mean that the chorus could not move at all, it means only that it stayed in the orchestra while singing (therefore the etymology). Olorulus (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the current version of the article is trying to say all of this, but is not doing it very well. For example, "performed by the chorus on the orchestra" ought to read "performed by the chorus in the orchestra", but even that will be misleading to the average reader without explaining what the orchestra actually is (without such an explanation, they are bound to suppose it means a large group of instrumentalists—especially as there is no currrent Wikipedia article on the meaning of the word in Ancient Greek theatre). I see that there is another problem in the article with which you may be able to help: On the one hand, the LSJ entry "stasimos" is cited, which reads "Act. stopping; Pass. standing, stationary." On the other hand, someone had inserted an unreferenced footnote claiming "it means literally, 'dancing space'". This is confusing because it could be understood to refer to the word "stasimon", though it must have been meant as a definition of "orchestra". LSJ can be cited for this definition of "orchestra", but does not confirm an etymology of "literally, 'dancing space'". Can you perhaps clarify (preferably with a source) the derivation and component parts of ὀρχήστρα?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, then it is worth writing a small separate article on 'orchestra', and remove all unnecessary (and confusing) info from the current one (about orchestra and parodos etc.) as it has been already done in German and Russian (there btw even larger and more detailed) W-pedias. As for etymology of "orchestra", it clearly comes from ὀρχέομαι 'to dance'. But you understand surely that the meaning of Greek (and later Roman) 'orchestra' does not boil down to 'dancing floor'. As for etymological reference, Chantrain's dictionary (p.830) would be standard and sufficient. Olorulus (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, thank you. It had not occurred to me to check the other Wikipedias for articles on "orchestra" in this sense. I do of course know that ὀρχέομαι is the stem meaning "to dance". It is the suffix portion, -τρα, that I was having trouble with. I should probably check the OED to see what etymology is given there, but thank you also for the reference to Chatrain, which is a source I am not familiar with. It does seem to me that the first step is to create an article "Orchestra (Greek drama)" or something similar, since this is a critical term here and also would help a number of other articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate article on "orchestra (architecture)" (as the Italian Wikipedia calls it) is not necessary after all. A bit of language-jumping brought me back to the English Wikipedia article Theatre of ancient Greece, which has a section on Characteristics of the buildings that seems to cover the subject satisfactorily. I have added a link to this, and removed that contradictory sentence confusing "parodos" and "stasimon". I suppose that word "stationary" is still misleading, even if etymologically suitable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the contradiction persists. :)) "concluding chorus of a tragedy is divided into two parts, first the parodos (Greek: πάροδος) (para + hodos road) and then the stasimon". In fact, Aristotle talks about kinds of 'chorikon' (choral song) which are parodos, stasimon and kommos (the latter is rendered thru chorus+actors-singers, like a finale in the Verdi opera :) ). And certainly stasimon has nothing to do with the "concluding part of a tragedy". As I already said, the parodos is entrance song, the stasimon is any choral song performed while staying in the orchestra (main part of tragedy). Olorulus (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that a stasimon can never occur in the concluding part of a tragedy? If this is the case, then there is a serious problem here, which must have to do with someone (perhaps the translator, William Hamilton Fyfe, or perhaps an editor reading that translation) misinterpreting that passage from Aristotle's Poetics 145b23. If on the other hand the concluding part of a tragedy can include a stasimon, then the only problem is that the quotation is presented in such a way as to suggest that it belongs only there, which of course it does not. I do not understand why you think the article confuses the parados with the stasimon. It says quite clearly that they are distinct from one another: "divided into two parts, first the parodos … and then the stasimon". Apparently I was the editor who added the Aristotle quotation, so perhaps I should go back and read it more carefully, in light of your comments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OMG, I didn't ever say that stasimon could not occur in the concluding part, I just said that the statement logically is false. "Concluding chorus is divided into two parts, first parodos, then stasimon". This is false. Olorulus (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank goodness! I thought I was beginning to lose my marbles. OK, though of course I shall have to check this somewhat dubious source (Aristotle).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me, please, give you an advice. Check Mathiesen's fundamental book, the section "Music in the theatre". This might quickly eliminate misunderstanding which could arise due to my bad command of English. Olorulus (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good advice, as always. Mathiesen usually goes straight to the heart of the matter but, because his subject is music theory, it did not occur to me to look there. Thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)