To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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.
The third chapter focuses on the way in which Isocrates frames himself within this intellectual tradition and how he becomes conceptualized as a representative of a philosophical-rhetorical tradition that sees itself as separate from (though not necessarily opposed to) the kind of rhetoric epitomized in the figure of Lysias. Isocrates is an author and teacher of the elite, a writer rather than performer, a philosopher rather than entertainer.
While most scholars regard Isocrates as a staunch rival of Plato, Aristotle and other Socratics, it is productive to regard Isocrates together with his contemporaries as trying to negotiate the Socratic legacy while developing his own unique approach to education and philosophy. This perspective will show that Isocrates’ reflection of Socrates was more combative and critical than what has thus far been proposed.
This article looks at the complexity of the thought processes that lead Seneca's Oedipus to choose the mors longa of blindness as punishment for his crime (in his blindness, he is to live in a kind of ostracism, separately from both the living and the dead). It offers an analysis of the consolation of this existence on the threshold between life and death, notably with reference to the end of the Oedipus, but also of the sorrow of this liminal existence. The latter is described in Seneca's Phoenissae, which suggests an escape, by death stricto sensu, from the threshold represented by blindness, by which Oedipus now feels trapped.
By examining these three topics, the article shows how the threshold between life and death which Oedipus chooses at the end of Seneca's Oedipus and experiences in the Phoenissae mirrors the ambivalence and the errors of his life before he blinded himself. Ultimately, it also illustrates Oedipus’ continuing failure to achieve self-knowledge.
This article deals with Calchas’ prophecy and Diomedes’ and Ulysses’ interventions during the mustering of the Greeks at Aulis in Statius’ Achilleid (1.514–52). It will be argued that Calchas and Ulysses embody two different approaches to the generic tensions of the new epic which Statius’ poem represents. Calchas, the old uates of the Homeric tradition, seems unable to fully understand the ‘poetics of illusion’ enacted by Thetis and Achilles in disguise, as is clear from his vision. His point of view is skilfully complemented by Ulysses, who turns out to be the true uates, as well as the perfect leader for Achilles’ rescue. As the only figure who can face the fluid and ambiguous reality of the poem and its literary dynamics as well, Ulysses also stands as a poetic voice himself; through his speech, Statius reflects upon the tensions of his epic and the poetic effort needed to channel the narrative from the peaceful setting of Scyros to the martial horizon of Troy.