This section explores the discussion of oral speech and writing in Plato's Phaedrus and its influence on Western culture, noting that the logocentrism reflected upon by Derrida in Of Grammatology can be traced back to Phaedrus. The chapter emphasizes the rapid development of writing and the enduring influence of oral speech in the intellectual disputes of 4th-century BCE Athens, as well as the debates among intellectual elites over the merits of writing versus speech. These debates were not merely theoretical but also a stage for intellectual elites to vie for cultural dominance. The chapter mentions the differing views of Alcidamas and Isocrates on writing, pointing out the insufficient research on Isocrates in previous studies, the neglect of the issue of timing (kairos), and the lack of in-depth exploration of the three figures' interactions in the debate. The article aims to reinterpret Isocrates' texts, comparing the three figures' discourses and rhetoric on writing—particularly how they discussed the value and significance of writing in relation to timing—to reveal their competition for authority and their deeper engagement with the cultural context.

The Prevalence of the Concept of Timing and the Rise of Speech Writing

This section examines the Greeks' unique concept of time, kairos (καιρός), in contrast to linear time chronos (χρόνος), emphasizing critical moments and appropriateness. Kairos held universal importance in Greek society as the foundation of their temporal consciousness. By the 5th century BCE, with the development of democracy, oratorical competitions intensified, and sophists, catering to the needs of democratic city-states, promoted rhetorical education, making timing a key term. Gorgias considered kairos to encompass three critical moments, synonymous with rhetorical skill. However, innovations in material media gradually transformed the form of oratory, and the process of textualization posed a latent challenge to traditional oratorical standards. Beginning in the 5th century BCE, Athens experienced rapid growth in reading culture, with innovations in communication fostering prose composition and making written speeches increasingly common, thereby influencing oratorical style. The audience for written works was primarily the elite, conflicting with the populist principles of the city-state; writing could transcend geographical boundaries, becoming a Panhellenic medium of communication, which contradicted the city-state's localism. Intellectual elites with differing stances held varied attitudes toward the trend of textualization, profoundly affecting knowledge dissemination and educational models. The intellectual competition of the 4th century BCE remained fierce, with Plato, Isocrates, and Alcidamas as key figures in the cultural sphere. They each ran schools in Athens, all claiming to pursue "philosophy," yet their pedagogical approaches differed significantly, inevitably making them rivals. All three faced challenges to their identity and authority, needing to justify their lifestyles and the legitimacy of their educational offerings while responding to competing philosophical or rhetorical ideas. For intellectual elites aspiring to become leaders in thought and education, defending their preferred medium, asserting the authority of their discursive forms, and upholding the superiority of their educational models was an urgent task.

Painting and Play: Alcidamas on Written Speeches

In On the Sophists, Alcidamas criticizes written speeches as untimely, while extemporaneous speeches can seize kairos, swiftly deploying arguments and vocabulary to adapt to circumstances and audience expectations. He compares written speeches to images, appearances, and imitations of words—like bronze statues, stone carvings, or painted animals—pleasing to behold but of no practical use. Alcidamas also proposes that writing should be regarded as a form of play and a sideline, contrasting sharply with the competitive nature of assembly or courtroom oratory. Play is to competition what images are to reality. Through the metaphor of play, he highlights the deeper contradiction between writing and the competitive spirit of rhetoric, emphasizing that writing is an activity incapable of grasping kairos, suitable only for idle pastime. Alcidamas seeks to uphold the sophists' tradition of competitive rhetoric, championing practical oratorical skills in a democratic system, and by questioning the value of written speeches through the lens of timing, he challenges the wisdom and educational qualifications of writers.

Agriculture and the Gardens of Adonis: Plato on Timing

This section explores how Plato reshapes the authority of philosophical discourse by reinterpreting the tension between writing and timing. In Phaedrus, Plato adapts Alcidamas' views, presenting the diversity of soul types as key to grasping kairos and emphasizing that mastery of rhetoric depends on precise depiction and classification of souls. Socrates argues that knowing when to speak and when to remain silent is the hallmark of superior rhetorical skill, while other techniques are secondary. Plato dispels the mystique and uncertainty of kairos by invoking universal, eternal principles, asserting that philosophers understand critical moments better than orators. Socrates also employs the metaphor of painting, comparing written words to painted images, highlighting their inability to speak responsively or engage with specific souls, rendering them untimely. Plato further elaborates on the contradiction between writing and timing through the metaphor of the Gardens of Adonis, likening oral dialogue to serious agriculture and writing to the gardens of Adonis—suited for play and festivals. This metaphor suggests that written speeches possess an ornamental quality, fitting for ceremonial occasions but detached from kairos and thus from true rhetorical art. Plato stresses the importance of knowledge behind timing, arguing that only those who understand the principles of timing can truly grasp it and effectively transmit knowledge. By reworking Alcidamas' arguments, Plato denies the authority of written speeches and rhetorical education, positioning philosophical dialogue as the authoritative mode of knowledge transmission and establishing its primacy.

Isocrates' Ironic Rhetoric

Isocrates' ironic rhetoric reveals his nuanced perspective on the relationship between writing and timing. He constructs his identity through writing, emphasizing the centrality of timing in education while challenging Alcidamas and Plato's claims that writing cannot seize kairos. Isocrates frequently expresses concern for timing in his works yet deliberately violates the principle of timeliness to demonstrate his ability to prioritize higher principles over immediate appropriateness. He transforms the slowness of writing into proof of deliberation, contesting Alcidamas' normative view of timing. Isocrates also emphasizes the intellectual content of written speeches, urging audiences to focus on ideas rather than superficial pleasure and guiding them toward a style of rational thought. By flouting timeliness, he distinguishes himself from other orators, showcasing an alternative way of mastering timing—one that adapts audiences to his style rather than vice versa. Isocrates merges aesthetic, political, and ethical judgment, asserting that rhetorical timing is the same as the timing of action. He implies that principles of action transcend rhetorical norms and that written speeches, compared to extemporaneous ones, allow for more reliable judgment and are thus more timely. Isocrates suggests that the mastery of timing should not be sought in universal principles but acquired through practical training. He achieves this through literary training, incorporating political and civic education into his pedagogy and implying that true educational authority belongs to rhetoricians skilled in written composition. The discussions of Alcidamas, Plato, and Isocrates reveal an important dimension in how 4th-century Greek cultural elites viewed writing: timing. Their rhetoric reflects the contestation of different rhetorical and educational claims in the 4th century BCE, illuminating the distinct public personas they crafted. By aligning with or challenging the official discursive forms of the city-state, the three competed to prove the superiority of their modes of discourse and bolster their authority, constructing their legitimacy. This article underscores the importance of cultural context—only by deeply understanding the contemporaneous milieu and the arguments of others can we uncover the true meaning behind texts and the deeper motivations of their authors.