Despite its title, V.'s monograph hardly consists of a comprehensive history of rhetoric or rhetorical theory in antiquity. Rather, as the publisher's blurb makes explicit, the book builds on a quadrangulation: it examines the presence of Lysias and Isocrates in the rhetorical and philosophical discourse of Plato and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. A selection of this kind is in and of itself noteworthy: does the reception of Lysias and Isocrates suffice to draw broader conclusions about the history of rhetorical thought as a whole? Besides Demosthenes (see below), the reception of Aeschines in the rhetorical tradition is, as it happens, pointedly concerned with rhetoric and style (cf. J.F. Kindstrand, The Stylistic Evaluation of Aeschines in Antiquity [1982]). Be that as it may, the book succeeds in vindicating the importance of the reception of Lysias and Isocrates for the general development of rhetorical theories in the Greek and Roman worlds – most notably in their association with philosophical thought. In other words, while V. focuses on two specific moments in the reception of these two authors, readers are left with a far-reaching discussion of how critical junctures within the legacy of Lysias and Isocrates have shaped the whole rhetorical discourse of antiquity.

The book is unevenly divided into two sections. The first and larger part (Chapters 1–5) considers Lysias and Isocrates in their contemporary context. As to the former, V. acknowledges the difficulty of addressing Lysias’ historical persona based on his speeches. She is therefore interested in drawing a picture of Lysias’ rhetorical persona – or, to put it differently, how he was re-imagined in the contemporary rhetorical and philosophical tradition. In this respect, the most outstanding case study is offered by Plato. Chapter 2 consists of a survey of the appearances of Lysias in the Platonic corpus: Lysias’ ostensible criticism of Socrates’ teaching methods in the Cleitophon (which V. regards as a fourth-century dialogue from the Platonic circle rather than as a later forgery); the beginning of the Republic; and, most crucially, the Lysianic dialogue that lies at the core of the Phaedrus. V. emphasises that the Platonic portrait of Lysias reads like an overturn of what must have been Lysias’ self-presentation in Athens: despite his wealth, Lysias strove to present himself as siding with the dēmos; whereas, in Plato's dialogues, we find him in aristocratic entertainments in the houses of politicians such as Cleitophon and Epicrates. We may wonder whether such a characterisation is truly intentional or if it is part of the general dramatic setting of Plato's dialogues.

V. also makes the interesting case that Lysias’ pro-democratic leanings (in so far as they emerge from the speech Against Eratosthenes) could have played a role in Plato's reception of Lysias. This element should also lead us not to downplay the development of this genre as a phenomenon inextricably entangled with contemporary Athenian democratic practice. Consider Alcidamas’ Against the Sophists, which V. carefully analyses. The opuscule's argument that impromptu speeches are superior to those written beforehand and revised tells us much about the intrinsically democratic significance of speech-delivering in the Assembly (cf. M. Canevaro, Annales HSS 74 [2019], 339–81).

V. holds that Lysias’ speech and the way in which he is presented in the Phaedrus heavily influenced the later reception of Lysias’ speech-writing. This is the case with his use of characterisation (ēthopoïia), which is considered a hallmark of Lysias’ style by ancient and modern critics alike. Less self-evident, albeit equally interesting, is the ‘anti-intellectualist’ component that V. detects in the Platonic Lysias. V. observes that Lysias never steps in or actively participates in the philosophical discussions of the dialogues. In turn, such reticence would testify to the wilful disengagement of Lysias from contemporary philosophical debates, as he did rather embrace a conception of rhetoric devoid of any philosophical côté.

Conversely, the section on Isocrates in the fourth century (Chapters 3–5) considers what the orator says in his own writings. V. is not interested in his historical persona but rather, as with Lysias, in the rhetorical self-elaboration emerging from Isocrates’ speeches. V.'s addresses some major themes within Isocrates’ work: his engagement (whether constructive – cf. Antidosis 46–7 – or oppositive) with the poetic tradition as to its educational value; Isocrates’ theories on prose style; and his approach to and conception of philosophia (taken with meanings as diverse as teaching practice or intellectual, albeit inherently pragmatical, activity). The last theme is significant since V. argues for a purely philosophical meaning of some Isocratean passages that scholars (most notably Y.L. Too) have been keen to see as to do solely with rhetorical theory. V. thus provides a much subtler portrait of Isocrates and his intellectual milieu. Yet, one remains unsure about the weight V. puts on the statement in the anonymous Life of Isocrates, in which we are told that he was a disciple of Socrates (the same is said about Aeschines in the anonymous Vita 3 Dilts, unmentioned). It turns out that the first half of the book hardly serves as a history of rhetoric in the fourth century. For instance, little is said about the (however puzzling) circulation and use of rhetorical handbooks (except for a rightful dismissal of the theory whereby Isocrates composed a technē) as a source of paradigms and stylistic devices. What it does provide, on the other hand, is an insightful analysis of the role that rhetoric held in fourth-century philosophical debates, in Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (Protecticus and Rhetoric).

Following an introductory chapter on the reception of Lysias and Isocrates in non-philosophical literature from the early Hellenistic period down to Philodemus and Cicero, the second half of the book reappraises the engagement with the two orators by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Chapters 7–8). An important theme is V.'s vindication of the methodological sophistication of Dionysius’ On Lysias (usually considered less refined than his later rhetorical opuscules), most notably in light of Dionysius’ elaborate discussions of Lysias’ ēthopoïia, charis and deinotēs. Likewise, V. convincingly rethinks Dionysius’ treatment of Isocrates, which is more concerned with the content and philosophical tenet of his work (and the paideia it conveys) than its prose style – thereby being modelled, once again, on the (sketched) portrait of him in Plato's Phaedrus.

Therefore, despite its relatively narrow focus, the book delivers a rounded and provocative disquisition on key moments in the ancient rhetorical tradition. There is, to be sure, an elephant in the room that V. explicitly avoids discussing, namely Demosthenes. That the reception of Demosthenes is crucial for a thorough understanding of the history of rhetoric is testified to by the fact that he is, inter alia, the most common orator in Egyptian papyri. Crucially, however, V. opportunely envisages the early reception (third–first century bce) of Demosthenes as inherently political and only marginally concerned with the establishment of a rhetorical tradition rotating around Demosthenes.

Despite some quibbles (e.g. allusions to the ‘publication’ of Lysias’ speeches – a controversial theme that cries out for clarification) and the fairly narrow subject in contrast to its title (confined as it is to the reception of two out of ten canonical orators), the book casts new and fresh light not merely on some understudied texts (such as Dionysius’ rhetorical opuscules), but also on the history of rhetoric in a broader sense. Readers are provided with a comprehensive survey of the elaboration and reception of rhetoric and oratory in decisive stages of the scholarly tradition. The clarity of the prose makes the argument consistently engaging and clear, even when V. goes through abstract rhetorical concepts (particularly with Dionysius). Conveniently available in open access format on Cambridge Core, the book is a welcome addition, for students and scholars alike, to the flourishing debate about rhetoric as a fundamental component of Greek and Roman cultural history in the longue durée.