^{page 68 note 1} Jebb, R. C., The Attic Orators, 2nd ed., 1893, introd. to vol. i, p. lxxi.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 2} i.e. demegoric speeches actually delivered in the as opposed to the ‘literary’ speeches of Isocrates and others. The term ‘political speeches’ does not translate . The Greek terra is used in a much wider sense and may include epideictic and forensic as well as demegoric speeches: v. Anaximenes, Rhet. ad Alex., ch. i ad init. and Walberer, G., Isokrates imd Alkidamas, pp. 4–12, Hamburg, 1938.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 3} Plat. Phaedr. 275 D.

^{page 68 note 4} Alcid. De Soph, passim.

^{page 68 note 5} Plat. Phaedr. 276 B-E; Alcid. De Soph. 35.

^{page 68 note 6} Isocr. Ad Phil. 29.

^{page 68 note 7} e.g. v. Alcid. De Soph. 12; Isocr. Antid. 62; Aristot. Rhet. 3.1. 7.

^{page 68 note 8} Isocr. Ad Phil. 4, 25; Ep. 1. 2–3.

^{page 68 note 9} Paneg. 13. Isocr. refers here, not to political speakers, but to composers of epideictic

^{page 68 note 10} v. Alcid. De Soph. 13.

^{page 68 note 11} Volkmann, R., Rhet. d. Griechen u. Romer, 1885.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 1} Die att. Beredsamkeit, i², p. 27.

^{page 69 note 2} Aristoph. Eq. 347–50.

^{page 69 note 3} Plat. Phaedr. 261 B. This passage has been variously translated and interpreted. The significant point is the omission of in the second arm of the sentence. must certainly be understood with the second clause is pointless. is clearly accusative plural, not genitive singular, as the meaning of the preposition shows and the parallelism of the two arms requires. The in is common enough, cf. Homer, Iliad 1. 251 Specialists in rhetoric from W. H. Thompson (v. his edition of the Phaedrus ad loc.) onwards have taken to refer to oral and verbal instruction and take the passage to mean that lectures and rhetorical treatises relate chiefly to forensic oratory, some of the former including demegoric oratory. But is the usual word for delivering a speech and is unlikely to mean ‘instruct’ or ‘lecture’, particularly in a rhetorical context, while (‘according to systematic rules’) refers to the composition of the actual speech, not of lectures or treatises about speaking.

^{page 69 note 4} Plat. Phaedr. 257–8; cf. ibid. 277 D, 278 c.

^{page 69 note 5} It is significant that this word, apart from its general meaning of ‘prose-writer’, came to be applied in a specialized sense to writers of forensic (not political) speeches.

^{page 69 note 6} Cf. Plut. Per. 8. 4 (of Pericles) Thuc. I. 145 quotes the substance of a Periclean As this is in the narrative we may assume it is in accordance with the text, which was probably known to Thuc. The ‘literary’ speech, which Thuc. ascribes to Pericles (1. 140–4), is probably based in part on this There is also a reminiscence of it in an earlier ‘literary’ speech, 1. 78. 4. For the conception of laws as cf. Isocr. Antid. 79–83, where Isocr. describes the advantages of his own ‘literary’ speeches over laws.

^{page 70 note 1} Thuc.8.68. i.

^{page 70 note 2} As, for example, Wilcox, S. does in his article ‘The Scope of Early Rhetorical Instruction’, HS.C.Ph. liii (1942), p. 132.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 3} Ps.-Plut. Vit. Ant. 4 (Thalheim, Ant., p. x). The passage goes on to state that speech-writing was not customary at this time and that Themistocles, Aristides, and Pericles did not write speeches, although they had the ability and every inducement to do so. Since I wrote this article my attention has been drawn to Ant's, own words in his defence— (Thalh., fr. 1, col. 2), which again suggest A. wrote only forensic speeches.

^{page 70 note 4} Cic. De Or. 2. 93. According to the MS. reading in Cic. Brut. 46 Cicero quotes a statement of Aristotle that before Corax and Tisias de scripto plerosque dicere. Eberhard's emendation discripte, however, should probably be read. In any case the statement probably refers to forensic speeches.

^{page 70 note 5} Quint. 3. 1. 12.

^{page 70 note 6} Plut. Per. 8. 4.

^{page 70 note 7} Plat. Phaedr. 257–8.

^{page 70 note 8} Suid. s.v.

^{page 70 note 9} Eup. Dem., fr. 94 (Kock).

^{page 70 note 10} Cic. Brut. 44.

^{page 70 note 11} Plat. Phaedr. 261 B. as was argued above, must be repeated in the second arm of the sentence.

^{page 70 note 12} Plut. Alc. 10. 3.

^{page 70 note 13} 3. 38.

^{page 70 note 14} Cf. Thuc. 8. 68.1: the reason for Antiphon's unpopularity is his

^{page 70 note 15} Cleon himself was more given to: he relied on voice and gesture to compensate for his lack of rhetorical training: v. Aristot. Ath. Pol. 28. 3 and Plut. Nic. 8. 3.

^{page 70 note 16} 3. 42. 3.

^{page 70 note 17} 3. 44. 4–5–

^{page 71 note 1} De Soph. 13.

^{page 71 note 2} Ibid. 24.

^{page 71 note 3} Ibid. 11.

^{page 71 note 4} Strictly speaking Isocr.'s speeches do not fall into any of the usual three categories (v. infra), but they would have been generally regarded as and it certainly suited Alcid. to regard them as such.

^{page 71 note 5} e.g. Paneg. 188; Antid. i, 46; Panath. 1–2, 271.

^{page 71 note 6} This clearly refers to political speeches. Isocr. contrasts his own willingness to censure Athens for her mistakes, as he did in the De Pace, with the political speakers' desire to please their audience; cf. De Pace 9

^{page 71 note 7} S. Wilcox makes this abundantly clear both in the article referred to above and in his article ‘Criticisms of Isocrates and his , T.A.Ph.A. lxxiv (1943).

^{page 71 note 8} De Soph. 33, cf. ibid. 18.

^{page 71 note 9} Soph. El. 34.183_b36.

^{page 72 note 1} Blass (op. cit. i², p. 27), treating Attic oratory in general, thinks that at an intermediate stage, before it became customary to write out the whole speech beforehand, passages on common topics were artistically written out and memorized in order that they might be introduced verbatim into an otherwise extempore speech. There is little evidence to support this, and the resulting speech would have been very uneven, as the statement from Alcidamas (De Soph. 14), which B. quotes to support his theory, suggests. It is far more likely that the passages to which B. refers here were those so taught by the rhetorical schools that the commonplaces, etc., could be adapted and re-phrased to suit the needs of the moment.

^{page 72 note 2} Brut. 46–7.

^{page 72 note 3} Rhet. ad Alex., ch. 2 ad init.

^{page 72 note 4} Ibid., chs. 29–34.

^{page 72 note 5} See Jebb, , op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 76–80.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 6} I have discussed this point in C.Q. xliii, 1949, pp. 68–9.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 7} Ad Phil. 81; Panath. 10–n; Ep. 8. 7.

^{page 72 note 8} Isocr. is at pains to point out that his speeches are not particularly those in which he borrows some of the conventions of epideictic oratory; v. Paneg. 17, Ad Phil. 17, 25, 93; Panath. 233; Bus. 44. He is also anxious to disclaim any connexion with forensic oratory; e.g. Paneg. ii, 188; Antid. passim; Panath. 11, 271.

^{page 72 note 9} Diels, , Vorsokr.⁵ ii, pp. 321–4.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 10} Lys. Orat. 34.

^{page 73 note 1} Isocr. Ep. 6. 8.

^{page 73 note 2} Contra Soph. 16.

^{page 73 note 3} Alcid. De Soph. 33.

^{page 73 note 4} Thuc. 1. 22. 1.

^{page 73 note 5} I have discussed the composition of Thucydidean speeches more fully in C.Q. xlii, 1948, pp. 76–81.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 6} Plut. Dem. 8. 2.

^{page 73 note 7} Ibid. 3.

^{page 73 note 8} Ibid. 4.

^{page 73 note 9} I agree with the general conclusions of a recent article by Dorjahn, A. P., ‘On Demosthenes' Ability to Speak Extemporaneously’, T.A.Ph.A. lxxviii (1947), pp. 69–76.Google Scholar