Symbouleutic oratory receives little attention from F. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit (Leipzig: 1887-98) before Demosthenes (Vol.3.i). The remarks of R. C. Jebb, The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus 1 (London: 1893), pp. cxxviii-cxxxvii refer to no texts. G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: 1963), pp. 203-206, describes its early status succinctly, as does M. J. Edwards, The Attic Orators (Bristol: 1994), p. 4. S. Usher, Greek Oratory: Tradition and Originality (Oxford: 1999), examines deliberative speeches in chronological order at pp. 38, 42, 48-51, 68-69, 191-243. Isocrates’ subject-matter and the topoi he employs are the same as those found in symbouleutic oratory, but his discourses are epideictic, for he is a teacher and not a statesman. However, his relationship with Demosthenes is an important and relevant subject, and may provide the answer to the question of why Demosthenes decided to publish his most influential political speeches. It is sidelined in the main studies, such as J. R. Ellis, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London: 1976), G. L. Cawkwell, Philip ofMacedon (London: 1978)andR. Sealey, Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat (Oxford: 1993). M. M. Markle, ‘Support of Athenian Intellectuals for Philip: A Study of Isocrates’ Philippus and Speusippus’ Letter to Philip, JHS 96 (1976), pp. 80-99, gives useful background to their differences, but there is room for a thorough examination of these. Relevant to this chapter is Ian Worthington (ed.), Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator (London: 2000), especially R. D. Milns’ chapter ‘The Public Speeches of Demosthenes’ (pp. 205-223). Demosthenes’ oratory is sensitively analysed by L. Pearson, The Art of Demosthenes (Meisenheim an Glan:
1976; repr. Ann Arbor: 1981). G. Ronnet, Etude sur le Style de Demosthene dans les Discours Politiques (Paris: 1951), is still the best study of his style. A full study of his style awaits a scholar with the time and the expertise.
World History
