Hollmann, Alexander. 2011. The Master of Signs: Signs and the Interpretation of Signs in Herodotus' Histories. Hellenic Studies Series 48. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_Hollmann.The_Master_of_Signs.2011.
Appendix: The Formality Hypothesis
Aeschines fatuously stakes his claim on a supposedly archaic statue of Solon,  and the other texts he cites (the more or less identical Aristotle Constitution of the Athenians 28.3 and Plutarch Life of Nicias 8.6) are, as Dover acknowledges, “unsatisfactory” evidence for ancient decorum; but he does regard them as “good evidence for the existence of an ideal by which the actual could be (polemically) judged” (1997:66). As I see it, even the myth of a dignified speech style does not tell us much about the history of the genos dikanikon. All the figures supposedly paradigmatic of a restrained style are leading politicians whose best-known speeches would have been largely or exclusively political, not dicanic, and Aeschines refers to them as rhêtores, a term that would not apply to the obscure Athenians who found themselves needing to speak in court.