Music and Philosophy in Damon of Oa

It is not easy to define Damon’s ‘true’ place in the history of Greek thought. Traditionally associated with the ancient relationship between music and philosophy, he dominates its entire history: even Martianus Capella (5th cent. AD) remembers Damon in his De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii.1 Damon was without a doubt an important personality of his period: he had close ties with Pericles and, as Hans von Arnim has observed, he was one of the first theorists of music.2 Nevertheless, Damon’s musical studies focused not only on theory, but also on ethical and political practice. In particular, he classified the influence of music and melody on human character and behavior. Therefore, we should agree with Maria Timpanaro Cardini in considering Damon a man of learning and action during Pericles’ age.3 Scholars have generally considered Damon to be a Pythagorean. But this vulgata should not be taken for granted, particularly in light of the fragmentary nature of the Pythagorean tradition.4 For this reason, Timpanaro Cardini rightly placed Damon within in a specific section of her collection of Pythagorean testimonia devoted to “Pythagorean resonances” (Risonanze pitagoriche) in antiquity. The Italian scholar divides this last group of testimonia into two parts: the first part is composed of doctrines that presuppose knowledge derived from Pythagorean speculation; the second part contains several Presocratic thinkers who unequivocally show their Pythagorean background.5 Epicharmus, Hippon, Hippodamus, and Damon belong to this latter section. The abovementioned label “Pythagorean resonances” allows us to prudently analyze the matter without holding any dogmatic position on the vexata quaestio of Damon’s Pythagorean background. Recently, Robert W. Wallace has totally denied such a background, yet without convincingly demonstrating his position; in the wake of Andrew 1 Mart. Cap. De nupt. Philol. et Merc. 9.926 (= 37 A 8 DK = B 8 Wallace). 2 Von Jan (1901). 3 Cf. Timpanaro Cardini (1973) 347. 4 Cf. Zhmud (1997). 5 Timpanaro Cardini (1973) 336 and 340. Note: This paper has been translated into English by Christian Vassallo with the cooperation of Leonardo Franchi. Aldo Brancacci, University of Rome Tor Vergata https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666106-008

Barker, he includes Damon (quite arbitrarily) among the Sophists.6 Instead, I believe that the following passage of Plato’s Alcibiades I establishes a clear relationship between Damon and the Pythagorean tradition: Πυθοκλείδης μουσικὸς ἦν, τῆς σεμνῆς μουσικῆς διδάσκαλος, καὶ Πυθαγόρειος, οὗ μαθητὴς Ἀγαθοκλὴς, οὗ Λαμπροκλῆς, οὗ Δάμων.7 Pythocleides was a musician, a teacher of serious music and a Pythagorean, who taught Agathocles, who taught Lamprocles, who taught Damon.8 The chronology of this succession, namely Pythocleides/Damon, is also confirmed by another passage from Plato’s Alcibiades I, where Pericles’ masters are explicitly ordered chronologically: [Alcibiades:] Yes, they say at any rate, Socrates, that [Pericles] became wise not by himself but by associating with many wise men including both Pythocleides and Anaxagoras. Even now, in spite of his age, he studies with Damon for this very purpose.9 The chronological anteriority of Agathocles in comparison with Damon is confirmed by a passage of Plato’s Laches as well, where Nicias relates him not to Lamprocles, but directly to Agathocles.10 This I too could tell you just as well as Laches, for to me quite lately [Socrates] recommended a music teacher for my son – Damon, a pupil of Agathocles and the most accomplished of men not only in music but in anything else you wish, a person worthy to spend time with young men of that age.11 According to the ps.-Plutarch’s treatise On Music, Pythocleides was a musician who was interested in theoretical questions: ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἱστορικοῖς † τοῖς Ἁρμονικοῖς Πυθοκλείδην φησὶ τὸν αὐλητὴν εὑρετὴν αὐτῆς γεγονέναι, αὖθις δὲ Λαμπροκλέα τὸν Ἀθηναῖον, συνιδόντα ὅτι οὐκ ἐνταῦθα ἔχει τὴν διάζευξιν ὅπου σχεδὸν ἅπαντες ᾤοντο, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύ, τοιοῦτον αὐτῆς ἀπεργάσασθαι τὸ σχῆμα οἷον τὸ ἀπὸ παραμέσης ἐπὶ ὑπάτην ὑπατῶν.12 6 Wallace (2015) 19–21 and passim. This work features a new (and welcome) collection of the pieces of evidence for Damon, along with a commentary. 7 Schol. in Pl. Alc. I 118c, p. 95 Greene (= 37 A 2 DK = A 3 Wallace). 8 Transl. by R. W. Wallace. 9 Pl. Alc. I 118c (= 37 A 5 DK = A 4 Wallace); transl. by R. W. Wallace. 10 Agathocles is also mentioned in Plato’s Protagoras (316e), where he is described as a great wise man. 11 Pl. Lach. 180c–d (= 37 A 2 DK = A 2 Wallace); transl. by R. W. Wallace. 12 Ps.-Plut. De mus. 1136d20–e2.

Before these lines, ps.-Plutarch had discussed the mixolydian as a poignant harmony befitting tragedy. He reminds his readers that Aristoxenus ascribed this harmonic invention to Sappho; then, under Sappho’s influence, the tragic poets combined this harmony with the Doric harmony (whose characteristics are magnificence and nobility).13 Unfortunately, at this point, ps.-Plutarch’s text presents a lacuna. Nevertheless, we can consider it derived from the same source of Aristoxenus. Here, Konrat Ziegler’s edition is conservative, but many scholars conjecture the word Ὑπομνήμασι next to Ἱστορικοῖς because a work with this title is ascribed to Aristoxenus.14 François Lasserre proposes this emendation: Ἱστορικοῖς <Ὑπομνήμασι λέγει ὅτι οἱ μὲν ἀκολουθήσαντες τοῖς Πυθαγορικοῖς> τοῖς Ἁρμονικοῖς. From such a reading of the text, a relationship between Pythocleides and Pythagoreanism emerges.15 Even if Ziegler considers this part of the text a locus desperatus, he agrees with the substitution of φασί for φησί, showing that, in his view as well, Aristoxenus is the most likely source for the author. But read without emendations, the text also informs us that Pythocleides was a musician and that he was well-versed in theoretical inquiries concerning musical harmonies. The text also confirms a connection between Pythocleides and Lamprocles, showing how inquiries and discussions occurred in a context that was chronologically and culturally contiguous. The word σεμνόν has an aesthetic meaning: it corresponds to our adjective “serious/austere” and could indicate many categories of music.16 It could also refer to a specific musical harmony, i.e. πολὺ τὸ σεμνόν ἐστίν ἐν τῇ Δωριστί.17 The expression τῆς σεμνῆς μουσικῆς διδάσκαλος was coined by Pythocleides, as he was interested in the aesthetic nature of music (in this case in the σεμνὴ μουσική). This stance may well have influenced many of the structural inquiries that Damon carried out. It is noteworthy that the determination of the mixolydian harmony is attributed to Lamprocles. Indeed, this fact confirms that this musical school also carried out (merely) theoretical research in this field. We can trust the scholium with regard to Pythocleides’ alleged interest in practical music 13 Ps.–Plut. De mus. 1136c–e, esp. d15–20 (= Aristox. frs. 81–82 Wehrli). 14 Cf. Diog. Laërt. 9.40 (= Aristox. fr. 131 Wehrli). 15 A more cautious solution than that proposed by Lasserre would read as follows: ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἱστορικοῖς <Ὑπομνήμασι λέγει ὅτι οἱ μὲν ἀκολουθήσαντες> τοῖς Ἁρμονικοῖς Πυθοκλείδην φασὶ τὸν αὐλητὴν εὑρετὴν αὐτῆς γεγονέναι (...). This proposal allows us to preserve the following φασί (that is, the lectio codicum), corrected by D. A. Wyttenbach with φησί. 16 Wallace (2015) 114 affirms that Aristoxenus (fr. 110 Wehrli = Ath. 14.14.621c) “characterizes the music of tragedy as semnos.” But this is not true, because, according Athenaeus, Aristoxenus maintains that the more austere hilarodia is a parody of tragedy, while the magodia spoofs comedies. 17 Ps.-Plut. De mus. 1136f14 (= Aristox. fr. 82 Wehrli).

instruction as well. Indeed, this interest seems to be confirmed by Aristotle’s testimonium handed down by Plutarch, which informs us that Pythocleides was the teacher of Pericles.18 Pythocleides’ interest in the aulos is the result of a shared characteristic of the Pythagorean circle: Athenaeus testifies that Euphranor, Archytas, Philolaus, and many other Pythagoreans played auletic music and that Euphranor and Archytas also wrote a treatise on the flute.19 For these reasons, we cannot agree with Wallace, who believes that the chronological data that emerge from the scholium “do not encourage” us to trust in the relationship between teacher/pupil. On the contrary, I think that these data are completely trustworthy. If Pythocleides was a teacher of Pericles, his activity should be dated to 480: therefore, it is also possible that he was the teacher of Agathocles, whose acme should be dated to the same period. Pythocleides, Agathocles, and Lamprocles were active earlier than Damon; therefore, Pythocleides could be the master of all three of these musicians. Indeed, this is not a diadoche of philosophers, an arrangement that could allow us to imagine differences of age between them as well as long-term apprenticeships. We have rather a succession of musicians: they could be almost equal in age, and their training could also be very short. As Timpanaro Cardini observes, the scholium is important for showing not only how Pythagoreanism developed theories concerning a mathematical line and the extension of harmony to a cosmological and ethical principle, but also how it developed a musical doctrine. Such a doctrine ranged over all artistic fields and encouraged the development of theories and models connected with musical practice.20 As for the Pythagoreanism of Pythocleides, Wallace maintains that “any implication about Pythagoreanism is also worthless.” But we do not find any demonstration of this stance in his volume. The scholar also seems to underestimate the diadoche: “Intellectual genealogies are a standard fabrication of the biographical genre.”21 But this stance is too general and devoid of any proof.22 We should rather follow the thesis of Jaap Mansfeld, who argues that a philosophical genealogy can only be established when it is possible to detect a clear theoretical affinity between 18 Plut. Per. 4 (= Αrist. fr. 364 Rose = 37 A 4 DK = A 9 Wallace: cf. infra): διδάσκαλον δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τῶν μουσικῶν οἱ πλεῖστοι Δάμωνα γενέσθαι λέγουσιν, οὗ φασι δεῖν τοὔνομα βραχύνοντας τὴν προτέραν συλλαβὴν ἐκφέρειν, <Ἀριστοτέλης> δὲ παρὰ Πυθοκλείδῃ μουσικὴν διαπονηθῆναι τὸν ἄνδρα φησίν (τὸν Περικλέα). Cf. ps.-Plut. De mus. 1136d–e. 19 Ath. 4.84.184e (= 47 B 6 DK). It is uncertain whether the mentioned treatise on the flute can really be ascribed to Archytas: cf. Huffman (2005) 31–32. 20 Timpanaro Cardini (1973) 346. 21 Wallace (2015) 112 and 114. 22 Cf. Von Kienle (1961); Mejer (1978); and Glucker (1978) 161 and 343–344, followed by Giannattasio Andria (1989) 15–28 and Mansfeld (2008) 23–25.

its members.23 Nevertheless, the fact that a tradition connects Damon to a Pythagorean does not imply that Damon was himself a Pythagorean. It means, rather, that we are able to place him within a specific cultural context. Therefore, we should not consider Damon’s doctrines as automatically Pythagorean, nor should we demolish a valuable piece of evidence on his cultural education without reason. According to Andrew Barker, “Damon belongs to the later 5th cent. BC: he has to be included among the Sophists.”24 But Barker does not demonstrate this thesis. In the 5th cent. BC, there were many intellectuals and politicians who were not Sophists. In their turn, the Sophists did not disappear in the 5th cent. BC but continued their activity into the 4th cent. BC and beyond (focusing their interests on rhetoric and other disciplines even more closely). Moreover, it is not certain that Damon belongs to the 5th cent. BC; we do not know his birth and death dates. As Wallace shows, in this regard we can formulate two hypotheses: according to the first, Damon was born at the beginning of the 5th cent. BC (perhaps in 500), became counselor of Pericles in 460, and was ostracized in 444/443. The other hypothesis, first proposed by Raubitscheck,25 places his birth a generation after 500, re-dating his ostracism approximately ten years later.26 However, Barker has recently reaffirmed his point of view, arguing that the portrait of Damon (Barker has Plato’s account, especially the Laches, in mind) is the portrait of a Sophist very similar to Protagoras, Prodicus, and Gorgias; therefore, it is quite possible that he really was a Sophist.27 But one could object that Plato does not represent Damon as a Sophist: he speaks of him with regard and deference. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates also praises a musical thesis of Damon. But in the whole course of the Republic, Socrates treats Damon as an auctoritas, often agreeing with him and referring to his expertise for detailed studies that cannot be examined in full in his own expositions. The Sophists mentioned by Barker receive the opposite treatment from Plato. For instance, Protagoras, in the homonymous dialogue and in the Theaetetus, is strongly rebuked for both epistemological and ontological reasons. In the Gorgias, Gorgias’ concept of rhetoric is the target of a harsh elenchos. Likewise, Prodicus’ theory of language is handled with sarcasm. Hippias, who is Plato’s principal target in two dialogues, receives the same treatment. On the contrary, in Plato’s Laches, Damon is considered a master of music and a polished man, and in the Republic, he is presented as a musician and his theories are highly praised. 23 Cf. Mansfeld (2008) 24. 24 Barker (1974) 168. 25 Raubitscheck (1991) 332–336. 26 On this question, see Wallace (2015) 186–193. 27 Barker (2005) 65.

There are many reasons that prevent us from considering Damon a Sophist. First of all, he does not appear in Philostratus’ canon, where all the genuine Sophists (i.e. Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiphon, Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasymachus, Critias, and so on) are listed. Furthermore, the Sophists were generally itinerant philosophers: they taught by travelling from one city to another, and their teachings were directed at young people. Damon, however, belongs to a different tradition: he is not an itinerant philosopher (we have no evidence of such a lifestyle). Moreover, the fact that in Plato’s Laches the general Nicias praises Damon as a great διδάσκαλος and affirms that he is “suitable to teach youths,” clearly shows that Damon was not a sophistic master of political virtue or πολυμαθία. Sophists generally were foreigners in Athens, while Damon was Athenian. Protagoras came from Abdera, Gorgias from the far Leontini, Hippias from Elis, and Prodicus from Ceos. Each philosopher practiced teaching in different cities: in particular, Hippias, who taught in Sparta and in Sicily, changed his teaching method to fit his location. As for Gorgias, we know that he had great success in both Athens and in Thessaly, while Protagoras taught in Athens and in Sicily. Damon, instead, always lived in Athens, and the only reason for his departure from the city was the ostracism arising from his relationship with Pericles. Finally, we should consider the fact that the Sophists imparted their teaching (ἐπάγγελμα) for a price (μισθός). Their lessons were public and directed at people who aimed to pursue a political career, which implies that a Sophist was not a διδάσκαλος in the strictest sense of the word. In Plato’s Protagoras, the Sophist maintains that his ἐπάγγελμα is the skill that makes a disciple gradually ready to reach “the best,” viz. the εὐβουλία in public and private affairs, but above all in politics28 – he makes the distinction between himself and teachers of music, poetry, and gymnastics very clear.29 The tradition ascribes none of these elements (μισθός, ἐπάγγελμα, and public teaching) to Damon. Nor is a crowd of disciples attested for him. We know that Damon had a disciple, Dracon, but, exactly like Damon, he was teacher of music, not a Sophist. The image of Damon as a Sophist is probably derived by a cursory reading of Plutarch. We have already cited the first part of this text. Now we should analyze it in its entirety: Pericles’ teacher in music, most writers agree, was Damon (whose name, they say, should be pronounced with the first syllable short), although according to Aristotle30 the man had a thorough musical training at the hands of Pythocleides. Damon appears to have been a sophist 28 Cf. Pl. Prt. 318e–319a. 29 Cf Pl. Prt. 328b. 30 Arist. fr. 364 Rose.

of the highest order, who hid behind the name of music, concealing his cleverness from the people; he associated with Pericles like a ‘rubber’ for an athlete of politics and a trainer. However, it did not escape notice that Damon was using his lyre as a screen, and he was ostracized as a schemer of great designs and lover of tyranny, and he became a target for the comic poets. At any rate Plato [the comic poet] makes one of his characters inquire of him:31 “First of all, the, tell me please / For you are the Cheiron, they say, who raised up Pericles.”32 Plutarch combines different sources in this passage. At the beginning, he mentions Aristotle, who is also cited in another section of the Life of Pericles.33 From Aristotle, Plutarch draws information concerning the relationship between Pythocleides and Damon. The end of the testimonium cites the comic poet Plato, who satirizes the reasons behind Damon’s ostracism, especially those concerning the relationship between Pericles and Damon.34 The core of the Plutarchean passage is composed of two parts. The first part is very similar to the sections of Plato’ Protagoras that allude to the ‘crypto-sophists,’ viz. those who masked their knowledge through dodges, whereas Protagoras first publicly declared it. Protagoras defines some ancient wise men, like Homer, Hesiod, Simonides, Orpheus, Musaeus, and some of his contemporaries, such as Iccus of Tarentum, Herodicus of Selymbria, and musicians like Agathocles, Pythocleides, and many others (καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί) as “masked Sophists.” It is quite possible that Plutarch was referring to Damon and to his ostracism in particular with this last phrase (“many others”).35 On the contrary, the second part of the core of Plutarch’s testimonium, where the relationship between Damon and Pericles and the vicissitudes of Damon’s ostracism are exposed, cannot derive from Plato’s Protagoras: indeed, Plato never mentions the allegations of μεγαλοπράγμων and φιλοτύραννος. Therefore, both Plato and Plutarch rely on a common source, which Olof Gigon identified as an earlier text of Protagoras. More precisely, Wallace identifies this source as a text belonging to the comical tradition, because it treats the figure of Damon and the cause of his ostracism ironically.36 Wallace’s thesis is convincing because it explains why the allusion to Damon has a negative nuance in Plutarch, while the accusation that he masked his knowledge through music does not indicate that Damon was a Sophist, but it means that he is portrayed as a conniving politician in order to justify his ostracism. Vice versa, Protagoras’ reference to wise men in the homonymous Platonic dialogue has a positive tone because it underlines 31 Pl. Com. fr. 207 PCG. 32 Plut. Per. 4 (= 37 A 4 DK = A 9 Wallace), transl. by R. W. Wallace. 33 Plut. Per. 9 (= 37 A 6 DK = A 10 Wallace). 34 On the comic Plato, see the accurate inquiry of López Cruces (2006–2007) 113–116. 35 On this topic, see Brancacci (2002) 11–32. 36 Gigon (1946); Wallace (2015) 122.

their knowledge. However, Protagoras does not consider them Sophists, because they did not reveal the political significance behind their teachings: this characteristic distinguishes the modern σοφιστής from the ancient σοφός. To sum up, Damon was not a Sophist but a member of Pericles’ circle. He was active in 462, when Anaxagoras arrived in Athens. The circle was composed of many thinkers, artists, and intellectuals, who introduced many innovative ideas in various fields of knowledge, developing new cultural themes. It is also well known that some members of the circle received roles from Pericles that allowed them to support his political action. Inside Pericles’ circle, Damon was the expert theorist of a new kind of music, founded on its ethical potential and on its ability to model humans’ souls. Pericles’ circle is chronologically and theoretically prior to the Sophistic movement. In the Athens of Pericles, the word σοφιστής most basically means teacher of τέχναι, as Antonio Capizzi observes. This notion covers a wide range of different types of people: “‘sophistes’ de la sculpture tels Phidias, aux ‘sophistes’ de la musique tels Pythoclidès et Damon, aux ‘sophistes’ de la mantique tels Lampon et, enfin, aux ‘sophistes’ de la médecine comme Hippon et Diogène d’Apollonie.”37 We could also add philosophers like Anaxagoras and Socrates to this list. Thanks to Pericles’ circle, Socrates knew Damon’s music, Anaxagoras’ physics, and Protagoras’ rhetoric. Nevertheless, Socrates did not adhere completely to a defined doctrine, nor did he agree with all the tendencies of the circle.38 At this period, there was no semantic and theoretical contrast between ‘sophist’ and ‘philosopher’ yet. Words like σοφοί and σοφισταί mean “expert” and “wise.” Only when Pericles’ circle dissolved and Protagoras gained prominency – the ‘official’ start to the Sophistic movement – did the verb φιλοσοφεῖν (and perhaps the terms φιλόσοφος and φιλοσοφία as well) begin to be used, probably by Socrates for the first time, with a different meaning from Thucydides’ usage of it.39 From Plato’s Laches, we learn about a relationship between Damon and Prodicus; it is a unicum in our tradition and, as Robert Mayhew argues,40 it shows the only strong connection that exists between music and logos in Greek culture of the 5th and 4th cent. BC. Damon’s theory on the formative and educational role of music in democracy gives a good justification for his relationship with Pericles. Indeed, Pericles was a statesman not only endowed with a concept of democracy consistent with Damon’s musical theory, but also educated in music by Pythocleides and then by Damon himself. 37 Capizzi (1986) 169. 38 Giannantoni (1971) 164–172. 39 Cf. Thuc. 2.40.1. 40 Cf. Mayhew (2011) 143.

It is natural to believe that Damon composed a work in order to explain his personal theories. In fact, it is not possible that the most innovative of Damon’s doctrines (they were admired by Plato and influenced late thinkers, i.e. Diogenes of Babylon), were not written in a treatise. It is also impossible to explain the long tradition of late thinkers who gleaned ideas from Damon and mentioned him, but without any reference to his work. In addition, we have unambiguous proof from an authoritative source of ancient tradition on the existence of this work: (…) num geometriam Euclide aut Archimede, nam musicam Damone aut Aristoxeno, num ipsas litteras Aristophane aut Callimacho tractante tam discerptas fuisse, ut nemo genus universum complecteretur atque ut alius aliam sibi partem, in qua elaboraret seponeret?41 (…) Or [do you really suppose] that geometry in the hands of Euclid or Achimedes, or music with Damon or Aristoxenus, or even literature with Aristophanes or Callimachus were such entirely separate subjects that nobody embraced the whole field but each one chose for himself a different area to work in?42 All scholars attribute a work that, according to Philodemus, could be entitled Areopagiticus to Damon. However, some scholars think that Damon wrote two works: one that contained his own ethico-musical doctrines, which we should identify as the Areopagiticus; the other, with more technical content, which deals with specific musical issues. The tradition of Damon’s musical and theoretical doctrines would then be derived from the latter.43 Wallace is the only scholar who totally rejects the idea that Damon wrote a book. His thesis again lacks proof, and it is founded on a misleading method that we could easily define as ‘sophism’! First he conducts a historiographic inspection of scholars’ theses and conjectures concerning the content of Damon’s book; then he criticizes all these theses in order to conclude that Damon’s book is a ‘construction’ of scholarship.44 In spite of his intent, Wallace succeeds only in demonstrating that the ‘reconstruction’ of Damon’s book is questionable, or not totally persuasive. But he never really proves that this book does not exist. After that, Wallace resurrects Bücheler’s thesis, which argues that a passage of Philodemus’ Περὶ μουσικῆς concerning Damon does not actually have Damon himself as a source but rather a dialogue of Heraclides Ponticus that staged Damon. In examining another passage of Περὶ μουσικῆς on Damon, Wallace observes how Damon speaks here about the three virtues of ἀνδρεία, σωφροσύνη, and δικαιοσύνη, which “are precisely the most 41 Cic. De or. 3.33.132 (= 37 B 1 DK = B 14 Wallace). 42 Transl. by R. W. Wallace. 43 Winnington-Ingram (1958) 21 maintains that it is not easy to determine whether “the Areopagiticus was the only publication of Damon.” Cf. Timpanaro Cardini (1973) 349. 44 Wallace (2015) 77–86.

important in Plato’s Republic” (but here one could object that the most important virtue in the Republic is σοφία) and argues that even this passage does not derive from Damon, but is “an elaboration of Damon’s teaching in the light of Plato’s ethics.”45 Nevertheless, Wallace’s and Bücheler’s conclusions do not agree: Bücheler admitted that a single book of Damon along with the supposed dialogue of Heraclides Ponticus probably existed. Wallace’s thesis also contrasts with that of Philippson, who supposed, as Bücheler did, that Philodemus’ Περὶ μουσικῆς derived not from Damon but from Heraclides, because Philippson denies the existence of Damon’s Areopagiticus as well. In conclusion, Wallace has no problem with affirming that, on one hand, everything we know about Damon from Philodemus is actually derived from the supposed dialogue of Heraclides (although its existence is not certain) and, on the other hand, that Damon’s Areopagiticus was never written. But, if Damon’s work did not exist, who was the Heraclides’ source on Damon? Following Wallace’s thesis, it seems that Heraclides, who in reality was a serious musician and chronicler,46 made all this up. But a thesis that destroys the whole tradition that it should explain is doomed to destroy itself! We must also consider the fact that Damon is never quoted in the surviving fragments of Heraclides Ponticus; therefore, the supposition that Heraclides wrote a dialogue dedicated to Damon is totally unfounded. Diogenes Laërtius transmits the list of Heraclides’ works:47 it contains a section of μουσικά, but none of these works refers to Damon. If Heraclides really spoke about Damon in his (supposed) work, he would have at least mentioned Damon’s name in the subtitle of that work. Furthermore, the existence of a work by Damon (it is not important for our purposes if this work was the Areopagiticus or something else) composed in the pre-Platonic age is attested by Plato, who remains our principal source on Damon. It is widely accepted that the pieces of information concerning Damon in Plato’s Republic stem from a work of Damon. Even Barker has recently considered it highly probable that Damon was Plato’s source with regard to the doctrine of the ἁρμονίαι laid out in the Republic.48 This passage of Plato’s Republic, grounded on the assumption that any introduction of a new kind of music represents an enormous danger for the polis, will illustrate our point: For styles of music are never changed without changing the most fundamental rules of the polis, as Damon says (ὥς φησί τε Δάμων) and I believe.49 45 Wallace (2015) 93. 46 See Barker (2009) 273–298. 47 Diog. Laërt. 5.86–88. 48 Barker (1974) 67. 49 Pl. Resp. 4.424c (= 37 B 10 DK = B 2 Wallace); transl. by R. W. Wallace.

Here Plato directly quotes Damon’s work, even if we are not entirely sure about the extent of the quotation, i.e. if it starts from the beginning of the sentence or with the second clause. Furthermore, Plato’s emphasis on this quotation helps us reject the unfounded hypothesis that Damon’s work did not exist. In this regard, Philodemus’ Περὶ μουσικῆς is another important source. Elsewhere50 I have already attempted to examine the following Herculanean piece of evidence, which I give here according to the reconstruction by Daniel Delattre: 35 40 42 5 καὶ πολλοὶ λέγουσι μηδὲν ἐπηνωρθῶσ]θ[α]ι κα[ὶ] το[ὺ]ς ὑεῖς – οὐδ’ ὑ[ε]ῖς ἡ[γ]οῦ[ν]ται – , πολλοὶ δ’, ὅτι νομίζ[ε]ται προσήκειν αὐτῆς μεταλαμβάνειν τοὺς ⟦π⟧ ⸌χ⸍αρί̲ ε̲ ντ]ας, καὶ μετειληφέναι ]π[]νον μο[ ]κ[]ν[]α[]ασι[]ωσ[ || καὶ Δά[μ]ων, εἰ τοιαῦτα πρὸς τοὺς ἀληθινοὺς Ἀρεοπαγε[ί]τας ἔλεγε, καὶ μὴ τοὺς πλαττομένους, ἐφενάκιζεν ἀτηρῶς. 51  (…) And many say that also their sons have in no way improved – nor do the sons [themselves] think it – and many that it is thought that the ‘nobles’ (vel ‘men of taste’) ought to engage in music, and to have been engaged in it (…) and Damon, if he said such things to actual Areopagites and not fictional ones, was deceiving them badly.52 Philodemus transmits several testimonia concerning Damon. A complete list of them is now available in the Index Praesocraticorum Philosophorum Herculanensis recently edited by Christian Vassallo.53 These texts provide the background for the account of Damon’s doctrines. In other terms, Plato’s evidence for Damon 50 Brancacci (2008) 9–11. 51 Phld. De mus. 4, PHerc. 1497, cols. 147.34–148.5 Delattre (2007) II, 309–310 (= 37 B 2 DK = B 13 Wallace = IPPH IX 30). 52 Transl. by R. W. Wallace (with a few changes). 53 IPPH IX 29–32. All the Herculanean texts will be collected and commented by Christian Vassallo in his forthcoming CPH (sub X. Damon Atheniensis).

acquires a deeper meaning if we relate it with this other body of evidence. We should also take the fact that Philodemus had a very wide cultural background, including not only philosophy, but also literature and music, into account. He knew musical philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Aristoxenus, and there’s nothing that prevents us from assuming that he had direct access to Damon’s work. Wilamowitz maintained that Philodemus knew Damon through Diogenes of Babylon’s On Music,54 as this work is the main polemic target in both Philodemus’ On Music and On Rhetoric. I am also convinced that Philodemus’ principal source was Diogenes of Babylon’s treatise: indeed, the Epicurean philosopher criticizes the thesis on the ethical influences of music, a thesis advocated by Diogenes’ work. But an accurate analysis of Book 4 of Philodemus’ On Music shows that the Epicurean was familiar with various fields of the philosophy of music, including the Academic (viz. Heraclides Ponticus) and the Peripatetic (viz. Chamaeleon) ones. Therefore, it is quite possible that Philodemus derived information on Damon from this vast tradition, even if that information is no longer available for us. Furthermore, we must remember that Damon is a figure that belongs not only to Plato’s dialogues, but also to Socratic literature as a whole, where we find several treatises Περὶ μουσικῆς (unfortunately we know no more than the titles of these works). Therefore, it is quite possible that (some of) these dialogues were about Damon and that Diogenes of Babylon was familiar with them,55 and that in turn, Philodemus knew them via Diogenes. In the fragment that I have quoted, the words ἔλεγε and πρὸς τοὺς ἀληθινοὺς Ἀρεοπαγε[ί]τας sound as if they were directed at someone, and precisely at Areopagites. Therefore, the scholar’s deduction that Philodemus was referring to Damon’s Areopagiticus in this passage seems perfectly reasonable. It is appropriate to remember that after Ephialtes’ reform of Areopagus (462 BC), the authority of Athens’ most ancient council was drastically reduced and relegated only to judging murders and controlling public customs. It is also true that the role of the Areopagus was originally not very broad and that it gained breadth after its usurpations of power; therefore, Ephialtes tried to limit the power of the Areopagus by bringing it back to its origins.56 54 Cf. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1921) 63, followed by Kemke (1884) xiv–xv, and Rispoli (1969) 253. 55 On the presence of Damon in the logoi Sokratikoi, cf. Lib. Declam. 1.157 (= A 25 Wallace = deest ap. DK). On the works On Music in Socratic literature, see G. Giannantoni’s Note 35 on Antisthenes ap. SSR IV. 56 Cf. De Bruyn (1995).

If we begin with this scenario, it is reasonable to suppose that Pericles intended to reform the paideia with Damon’s help (we should keep their relationship in mind) and to connect this reform with that of the Areopagus. If this hypothesis is reasonable, it is also reasonable to suppose that Damon’s Areopagiticus was the manifesto of Pericles’ plan. But we should also keep in mind that Damon could have begun his work independently from the collaboration between himself and Pericles, as he could have started before this joint effort: the uncertainty of Damon’s chronology forces us to be cautious at every single turn. Philodemus’ doubt – namely if the words of Damon’s Areopagiticus were spoken in front of the Areopagites in the flesh or in a figurative sense – reinforces the impression that Philodemus was more than superficially familiar with Damon’s works. In fact, it is quite possible that the work was a figment of his imagination and that it was never really delivered before the Areopagus (unless when it was orally published for the first time); nevertheless, this understanding of the work does not deprive it of its political and cultural value in the slightest. We have the same impression if we examine another reference to Damon in Philodemus’ On Music, namely the second of the four references to Damon contained in the work included in Vassallo’s catalogue. In this case as well, I rely on Delattre’s reconstruction: Δ]άμων [μ]ὲν τοίνυν []φονε[]ν εἶπεν ἐν [ τ]ὴ ν μ[ουσι]κὴν [εἰς 40 τὰς πλείσ]τας ἀρετὰς χρη[σιμεύειν, λ]έγων δεῖν ᾄδοντ]⌊α καὶ κιθ⌋αρίζοντα τὸν π]⌊αῖδα μὴ⌋ μόνον ἀνδρε[ιό⌊τερον γί⌋νεσθαι καὶ σώ⌊φρο⌋45 νέστερο]ν, ἀλλὰ καὶ δίκ͙[αι- || [ότερον57 57 Phld. De mus. 4, PHerc. 1578, cols. 100.37–101.1 Delattre (2007) II, 194–195 (= 37 B 4 DK = B 12 Wallace = IPPH IX 32). Delattre’s French translation reads as follows: “Quant à Damon assurément, c’est [par fanfaronade] qu’il a dit [publiquement] que la musique est [utile à la plupart des] vertus, arguant que, en chantant et en jouant de la cithare, l’enfant doit devenir non seulement [plus] courageux et [plus] tempérant, mais aussi [plus juste] (…).” Wallace, on the grounds of a partially different reconstruction of the Herculanean evidence, translates: “Damon however (…) said in (…) that (?) music (?) is useful [for all] the virtues (…) and that in singing or playing the kithara a boy ought not only [to (…)] courage and moderation, but also [justice].”

In l. 39, Delattre wisely suggests “la restitution en lacune de ἐν | [πᾶσι] (« devant tout le monde »), étant donné qu’il s’agit ici très probablement d’un renvoi à l’Aréopagitique de Damon, auquel Philodème fait d’ailleurs allusion en col. 148, 1–5.”58 I have already studied this piece of Philodemean evidence on Damon in depth.59 Here, I would like only to reiterate that in the previous lines, Philodemus hands down the opinion of a vaguely defined group of people, the πολλοί, who believe that people devoid of natural temperaments (τοὺς ἀ[φ]υεῖς) cannot be trained in music. In contrast to this opinion, Philodemus opposes those of the πολλοί who are mentioned later in the text. After this section, we find a lacuna of two lines. It is probable that in these lines, Philodemus expressed his own opinion, namely that music does not have this kind of usefulness in and of itself.60 Finally, we find that the second part of the fragment is related to the first: this second section mentions Damon’s name. There are no doubts that τοὺς χαρίεν[τ]ας is the key term of the passage: it designates people who are provided with a sensitive and refined intelligence by nature. Therefore, we should not understand the opposition between τοὺς ἀ[φ]υεῖς and τοὺς χαρίεν[τ]ας as a contrast between different social classes, as Lasserre has asserted,61 but as a distinction of natural dispositions.62 This is completely compatible with Pericles’ concept of democracy and encompasses it perfectly. Protagoras’ concept of ethics can help us understand this point. Protagoras admits that all citizens partake in the life of the polis, because everyone has the potential to be σύμβουλος. But not all citizens are σύμβουλοι in the same way, because some of them – the people whom Damon calls χαρίεντες – have to study more and more extensively than others during their paideia.63 The name χαρίεντες allows us to appreciate the accuracy of Plato, who used the same word in the passage of Laches cited above (Nicias on Damon: ἀνδρῶν χαριέστατον οὐ μόνον τὴν μουσικὴν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τἆλλα ὁπόσου βούλει ἄξιον συνδιατρίβειν τηλικούτοις νεανίσκοις).64 It is evident that Plato intentionally quotes a key word in Damon’s cultural project: this is another piece of evidence for Plato’s knowledge of Damon’s work. Now, Philodemus talks about a “baleful deceit”: what does this mean? From this question, we can determine the innovation that Damon brought to musical 58 Delattre (2007) II, 195 n. 1. 59 Brancacci (2008) 8–12. 60 Cf. Neubecker (1986) 116. 61 Lasserre (1954) 56. 62 Cf. Timpanaro Cardini (1973) 353. 63 Cf. Pl. Prt. 326c3–6. An analysis of this passage can be found in Kerferd (1981) 145 and Brancacci (2012) 84 n. 15; see also Vassallo (2012) 182–188. 64 Pl. Lach. 180d2–3 (= 37 A 2 DK = Α 2 Wallace).

paideia. I believe that Damon’s proposal was not limited to a generalized musical education. In Athens, musical learning had been already present since Ephialtes’ reforms, as the institution of χοροί in tragic contests shows (the training of χοροί required many skills and much musical knowledge from its citizens). Damon’s innovation consisted in recognizing the educational function of music not only as a project for its own sake or as a cultural endeavor, but also in determining the ethical possibilities and values of music. In other words, Damon’s theory makes him, in fact, a practicer of moral philosophy. The ethical value that Damon ascribed to music was well articulated with the principal political meaning of Pericles’ enlightened democracy, especially with the aim of propagating precepts, customs, and a particular lifestyle in order to create a cultured elite, the χαρίεντες, as an example for the other citizens.65 Damon’s way of thinking about music was the foundation of this project, not only because music had the crucial role of the basic training of this elite, but also because, inside the elite, every citizen educated in ethical values should be a part of an organic structure and a model for the other citizens. The whole democratic city, according to Protagoras,66 was conceived of as a model in a broad and absolute sense: the same sense that Pericles hinted at when, according to Thucydides, he defined Athens “the School of Hellas.”67 References Barker (1974): Andrew Barker, Greek Musical Writings, vol. 1: The Musician and his Art, Cambridge. Barker (2005): Andrew Barker, Psicomusicologia nella Grecia antica, ed. by Angelo Meriani, Naples. Barker (2009): Andrew Barker, “Heraclides and Musical History”, in: William W. Fortenbaugh and Elizabeth Pender (eds.), Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion, New Brunswick/London, 273–298. Brancacci (2002): Aldo Brancacci, “Protagora e la techne sophistike: Plat. Prot. 316d–317c”, in: Elenchos 23, 11–32. Brancacci (2008): Aldo Brancacci, Musica e filosofia da Damone a Filodemo, Florence. Brancacci (2012): Aldo Brancacci, “La pensée politique de Protagoras”, in: RPhA 30, 59–85. Capizzi (1986): Antonio Capizzi, “La confluence des sophistes à Athènes après la mort de Périclès et ses connexions avec les transformations de la société attique”, in: Barbara Cassin (ed.), Positions de la sophistique, Paris, 167–177. 65 Schachermeyr (1985) underlines this topic well. 66 Cf. Pl. Prt. 326c–328a. 67 Cf. Thuc. 2.41.1.

De Bruyn (1995): Odile De Bruyn, La compétence de l’Aréopage en matière de procès publics : Des origines de la polis athénienne à la conquête romaine de la Grèce (vers 700–146 avant J.-C.), Stuttgart. Giannantoni (1971): Gabriele Giannantoni, Che cosa ha detto veramente Socrate?, Rome. Giannattasio Andria (1989): Rosa Giannattasio Andria, I frammenti delle «Successioni dei filosofi», Naples. Gigon (1946): Olof Gigon, “Studien zu Platons Protagoras”, in: Id. (ed.), Phyllobolia: Für Peter von der Mühll zum 60. Geburtstag, Basel, 91–152 [= Id., Studien zur antiken Philosophie, ed. by Andreas Graeser, Berlin/New York 1972, 98–154]. Glucker (1978): John Glucker, Antiochus and the Late Academy, Göttingen. Huffman (2005): Carl A. Huffman, Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher and Mathematician King, Cambridge. Kemke (1884): Johannes Kemke, Philodemus: De musica, Leipzig. Kerferd (1981): George B. Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement, Cambridge. Lasserre (1954): François Lasserre, Plutarque : De la musique, texte, traduction, commentaire précédés d’une étude sur L’éducation musicale en Grèce antique, Lausanne. López Cruces (2006–2007): Juan L. López Cruces. “Plutarch, Pericles 4.4: Plato Comicus on Damon”, in: Ploutarchos 4, 113–116. Mansfeld (2008): Jaap Mansfeld, “Sources”, in: Keimke Algra, Jonathan Barnes, Jaap Mansfeld and Malcolm Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge, 3—30. Mayhew (2011): Robert Mayhew, Prodicus the Sophist: Texts, Translations, and Commentary, Oxford. Mejer (1978): Jørgen Mejer, Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background, Wiesbaden. Raubitscheck (1991): Anthony E. Raubitscheck, The School of Hellas: Essays on Greek History, Archaeology, and Literature, ed. by Dirk Obbink and Paul A. Vander Waerdt, New York/ Oxford. Rispoli (1969): Gioia M. Rispoli, “Il primo libro del Περὶ µουσικῆς di Filodemo”, in: Francesco Sbordone (ed.), Ricerche sui Papiri Ercolanesi, vol. 1, Naples, 23–286. Schachermeyr (1985): Fritz Schachermeyr, Pericle, transl. by Mauro Tosti Croce, Rome. Timpanaro Cardini (1973): Maria Timpanaro Cardini, Pitagorici: Testimonianze e frammenti, 3: Pitagorici Anonimi e Risonanze Pitagoriche, Florence. Vassallo (2012): Christian Vassallo, Filosofia e ‘sonosfera’ nei libri II e III della Repubblica di Platone, Amsterdam. Von Jan (1901): Karl von Jan, “Damon (17)”, in: RE IV, 2072. Von Kienle (1961): Walter von Kienle, Die Berichte über die Sukzessionen der Philosophen in der hellenistischen und spätantiken Literatur, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1921): Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Griechische Verskunst, Berlin. Wallace (2015): Robert W. Wallace, Reconstructing Damon: Music, Wisdom Teaching, and Politics in Perikles’ Athens, Oxford. Winnington-Ingram (1958): Reginald P. Winnington-Ingram, “Ancient Greek Music”, in: Lustrum 3, 5–57. Zhmud (1997): Leonid Zhmud, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion im frühen Pythagoreismus, Berlin.