The second chapter pays close attention to the perception and portrayal of Lysias amidst his contemporaries, and in particular in the dialogues of Plato which constitute our major source for Lysias as a writer. A pervasive thread in the ancient reception of Lysias turns out to be the fascination for his effective and enchanting style of writing, so much so that he becomes the primary representative of the kind of rhetoric that is concerned with stylistic features and their alluring associations with persuasion.

In order to better understand Isocrates’ sentiments regarding the intellectual climate of fourth-century BCE Athens, and the way his self-fashioned image resonated within this context, this chapter looks at writers close to his time, with whom he might have been in dialogue and who make references to his work. Three names emerge with particular acumen: Alcidamas, Plato and Aristotle.

The introduction offers a general background to, and a scholarly contextualization of, the ensuing investigation of the rhetorical tradition. By critically engaging with contemporary debates taking place around the concept of ‘tradition’, the Introduction sets the tone for the following examination of Lysias and Isocrates from Plato’s Phaedrus to the rhetorical writings of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

The first chapter gives a general overview of Lysias’ work and explains some of the difficult aspects about his scholarship. We will look at the corpus Lysiacum, discuss issues of authenticity and establish Lysias as a writer with very broad interests and skills.

This chapter will offer a fresh interpretation of the importance of Dionysius’ rhetorical essays and in particular of the importance of his essay on Lysias for his critical work more generally. It will also revisit the question of the development in Dionysius’ rhetorical essays and argue that instead of seeing the essays progressing from one orator to another as an advancement of the critical competences of the author, it appears much more appropriate to view the progress from the perspective of a potential student. Dionysius emerges, then, as a writer and a teacher who is much more sensitive to the interests and abilities of his students than perhaps granted thus far.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus was a close reader of Plato and his engagement with the Phaedrus occupies an important position in his rhetorical essays and in his treatment of Lysias and Isocrates in particular. Between Plato and Dionysius, however, were three centuries of thinking and writing about rhetoric, compiling and commenting on the works of Attic orators, speechwriters, philosophers. Hence, before looking at Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ rhetorical essays, a brief overview of the reception of Lysias and Isocrates in the centuries between Plato and Dionysius is in order, so as to gain a good insight into the background for Dionysius’ work and to better assess his contributions to ancient rhetorical theory. The following overview will proceed roughly along chronological lines, focusing primarily on more substantial evidence on Lysias and Isocrates that we have from Ps. Demetrius, Philodemus and Cicero.

Isocrates is another crucial pillar in Dionysius’ rhetorical edifice, whose influence extends primarily to his treatment of the educational and philosophical components of rhetoric. Dionysius gives the clearest account of the Isocratean flavour of his programme in his Isocrates, which is the second essay of the collection On the Ancient Orators. The structure of Isocrates is very similar to the previous work of the collection, Lysias, but in the course of the essay it becomes increasingly clear that Dionysius’ emphasis and interest in the orator are visibly different from the stylistic concerns which were such a prominent feature of the first essay. Dionysius sets up a new image of Isocrates, determined to show that he is not merely another orator on the list. We will see that Isocrates becomes a representative of the novel vision of education and rhetoric advocated by Dionysius and tailored to the particular political context of first-century BCE Rome.