Aeschines

Aeschĭnes, is, m., = Αἰσχίνης.

• A disciple of Socrates, Cic. Inv. 1, 31; Quint. 5, 11, 27.—But more celebrated,
• II The orator Aeschines, rival to Demosthenes, Cic. de Or. 2, 23; 3, 56; Quint. 2, 1, 17; 10, 1, 22. —
• III A physician of Athens, Plin. 28, 4, 10, § 44.

Aeschinēs, is u. ī, Akk. em u. ēn, m. (Αἰσχίνης), Äschines, I) aus Athen, Philosoph, Schüler des Sokrates, dah. gew. der Sokratiker gen., Cic. de inv. 1, 51. Quint. 5, 11, 27. – II) aus Neapel, Schüler des Karneades u. ein Lehrer der neuen Akademie zu Athen, Cic. de or. 1, 45. – III) der berühmte Redner zu Athen (geb. 389 v. Ch.), Gegner des Demosthenes, Cic. Tusc. 3, 63; de opt. gen. 14 (wo Genet. -ini). Quint. 10, 1, 77. Iul. Val. 2, 18, 5 (wo Genet. -ini). – IV.) aus Milet, ein asiatischer Redner, Zeitgenosse Ciceros, Cic. Brut. 325. – V) ein Arzt in Athen. Plin. 28, 44.

Æschĭnēs, is, m. , ¶ 1 Eschine [disciple de Socrate]: Cic. Inv. 1, 31 ¶ 2 [orateur rival de Démosthène] : Cic. Tusc. 3, 63 ¶ 3 médecin dʼAthènes : Plin. 28, 44 ¶ 4 philosophe de la nouvelle Académie, élève de Carnéade : Cic. de Or. 1, 45 ¶ 5 orateur asiatique, contemporain de Cicéron : Cic. Br. 325.

Ae'schines

(Αἰσχίνης), the orator, was born in Attica in the demus of Cothocidae, in B. C. 389, as is clear from his speech against Timarchus (p. 78), which was delivered in B. C. 345, and in which he himself says that he was then in his forty-fifth year. He was the son of Tromes and Glaucothea, and if we listen to the account of Demosthenes, his political antagonist, his father was not a free citizen of Athens, but had been a slave in the house of Elpias, a schoolmaster. After the return of the Athenian exiles under Thrasybulus, Tromes himself kept a small school, and Athenias in his youth assisted his father and performed such services as were unworthy of a free Athenian youth. Demosthenes further states, that Aeschines, in order to conceal the low condition of his father, changed his name Tromes into Atrometus, and that he afterwards usurped the rights of an Athenian citizen. (Dem. De Coron. pp. 313, 320, 270.) The mother of Aeschines is described as originally a dancer and a prostitute, who even after her marriage with Tromes continued to carry on unlawful practices in her house, and made money by initiating low and superstitious persons into a sort of private mysteries. She is said to have been generally known at Athens under the nickname Empusa. According to Aeschines himself, on the other hand, his father Atrometus was descended from an honourable family, and was in some way even connected with the noble priestly family of the Eteobuladae. He was originally an athlete, but lost his property during the time of the Peloponnesian war, and was afterwards driven from his country under the tyranny of the Thirty. He then served in the Athenian armies in Asia and spent the remainder of his life at Athens, at first in reduced circumstances. (Aesch. De fals. Leg. pp. 38, 47.) His mother, too, was a free Athenian citizen, and the daughter of Glaucias of Acharne. Which of these accounts is true, cannot be decided, but there seems to be no doubt that Demosthenes is guilty of exaggeration in his account of the parents of Aeschines and his early youth.

Aeschines had two brothers, one of whom, Philochares, was older than himself, and the other, Aphobetus, was the youngest of the three. Philochares was at one time one of the ten Athenian generals, an office which was conferred upon him for three successive years; Aphobetus followed the calling of a scribe, but had once been sent on an embassy to the king of Persia and was afterwards connected with the administration of the public revenue of Athens. (Aesch. De fals. Leg. p. 48.) All these things seem to contain strong evidence that the family of Aeschines, although poor, must have been of some respectability. Respecting his early youth nothing can be said with certainty, except that he assisted his father in his school, and that afterwards, being of a strong and athletic constitution, he was employed in the gymnasia for money, to contend with other young men in their exercises. (Dem. De Coron. p. 313; Plut. Vit. x orat. Aesch. p. 840.) It is a favourite custom of late writers to place great orators, philosophers, poets, &c., in the relation of teacher and scholar to one another, and accordingly Aeschines is represented as a disciple of Socrates, Plato, and Isocrates. If these statements, which are even contradicted by the ancients themselves, were true, Aeschines would not have omitted to mention it in the many opportunities he had. The distinguished orator and statesman Aristophon engaged Aeschines as a scribe, and in the same capacity he afterwards served Eubulus, a man of great influence with the democratical party, with whom he formed an intimate friendship, and to whose political principles he remained faithful to the end of his life. That he served two years as περίπολος from his eighteenth to his twentieth year, as all young men at Athens did, Aeschines (De fals. Leg. p. 50) expressly states, and this period of his military training must probably be placed before the time that he acted as a scribe to Aristophon; for we find that, after leaving the service of Eubulus, he tried his fortune as an actor, for which he was provided by nature with a strong and sonorous voice. He acted the parts of τριταγωνιστής but was unsuccessful, and on one occasion, when he was performing in the character of Oenomaus, was hissed off the stage. (Dem. De Coron. p. 288.) After this he left the stage and engaged in military services, in which, according to his own account (De fals. Leg. p. 50), he gained great distinction. (Comp. Dem. De fals. Leg. p. 375.) After several less important engagements in other parts of Greece, he distinguished himself in B. C. 362 in the battle of Mantineia; and afterwards in B. C. 358, he also took part in the expedition of the Athenians against Euboea, and fought in the battle of Tamynae, and on this occasion he gained such laurels, that he was praised by the generals on the spot, and, after the victory was gained, was sent to carry the news of it to Athens. Temenides, who was sent with him, bore witness to his courage and bravery, and the Athenians honoured him with a crown. (Aesch. De fals Leg. p. 51.)

Two years before this campaign, the last in which he took part, he had come forward at Athens as a public speaker (Aesch. Epist. 12), and the military fame which he had now acquired established his reputation. His former occupation as a scribe to Aristophon and Eubulus had made him acquainted with the laws and constitution of Athens, while his acting on the stage had been a useful preparation for public speaking. During the first period of his public career, he was, like all other Athenians, zealously engaged in directing the attention of his fellow-citizens to the growing power of Philip, and exhorted them to check it in its growth. After the fall of Olynthus in B. C. 348, Eubulus prevailed on the Athenians to send an embassy to Peloponnesus with the object of uniting the Greeks against the common enemy. and Aeschines was sent to Arcadia. Here Aeschines spoke at Megalopolis against Hieronymus an emissary of Philip, but without success; and from this moment Aeschines, as well as all his fellow-citizens, gave up the hope of effecting anything by the united forces of Greece. (Dem. De fals. Leg. pp. 314, 438; Aesch. De fals. Leg. p. 38.) When therefore Philip, in B. C. 347, gave the Athenians to understand that he was inclined to make peace with them, Philocrates urged the necessity of sending an embassy to Philip to treat on the subject. Ten men, and among them Aeschines and Demosthenes, were accordingly sent to Philip, who received them with the utmost politeness, and Aeschines, when it was his turn to speak, reminded the king of the rights which Athens had to his friendship and alliance. The king promised to send forthwith ambassadors to Athens to negotiate the terms of peace. After the return of the Athenian ambassadors they were each rewarded with a wreath of olive, on the proposal of Demosthenes, for the manner in which they had discharged their duties. Aeschines from this moment forward was inflexible in his opinion, that nothing but peace with Philip could avert utter ruin from his country. That this was perfectly in accordance with what Philip wished is clear, but there is no reason for supposing, that Aeschines had been bribed into this opinion, or that he urged the necessity of peace with a view to ruin his country. (Aesch. in Ctesiph. p. 62.) Antipater and two other Macedonian ambassadors arrived at Athens soon after the return of the Athenian ones, and after various debates Demosthenes urgently advised the people to conclude the peace, and speedily to send other ambassadors to Philip to receive his oath to it. The only difference between Aeschines and Demosthenes was, that the former would have concluded the peace even without providing for the Athenian allies, which was happily prevented by Demosthenes. Five Athenian ambassadors, and among them Aeschines but not Demosthenes (De Coron. p.. 235), set out for Macedonia the more speedily, as Philip was making war upon Cersobleptes, a Thracian prince and ally of Athens. They went to Pella to wait for the arrival of Philip from Thrace, and were kept there for a considerable time, for Philip did not come until he had completely subdued Cersobleptes. At last, however, he swore to the peace, from which the Phocians were expressly excluded. Philip honoured the Athenian ambassadors with rich presents, promised to restore all Athenian prisoners without ransom, and wrote a polite letter to the people of Athens apologizing for having detained their ambassadors so long. (Dem. De fals. Leg. pp. 394, 405.) Hyperides and Timarchus, the former of whom was a friend of Demosthenes, brought forward an accusation against the ambassadors, charging them with high treason against the republic, because they were bribed by the king. Timarchus accused Aeschines, and Hyperides Philocrates. But Aeschines evaded the danger by bringing forward a counter-accusation against Timarchus (B. C. 345), and by showing that the moral conduct of his accuser was such that he had no right to speak before the people. The speech in which Aeschines attacked Timarchus is still extant, and its effect was, that Timarchus was obliged to drop his accusation, and Aeschines gained a brilliant triumph. The operations of Philip after this peace, and his march towards Thermopylae, made the Athenians very uneasy, and Aeschines, though he assured the people that the king had no hostile intentions towards Athens and only intended to chastise Thebes, was again requested to go as ambassador to Philip and insure his abiding by the terms of his peace. But he deferred going on the pretext that he was ill. (Dem. De fals. Leg. p. 337.) On his return he pretended that the king had secretly confided to him that he would undertake nothing against either Phocis or Athens. Demosthenes saw through the king's plans as well as the treachery of Aeschines, and how just his apprehensions were became evident soon after the return of Aeschines, when Philip announced to the Athenians that he had taken possession of Phocis. The people of Athens, however, were silenced and lulled into security by the repeated assurances of the king and the venal orators who advocated his cause at Athens. In B. C. 346, Aeschines was sent as πυλαγόρας to the assembly of the amphictyons at Pylae which was convoked by Philip, and at which he received greater honours than he could ever have expected.

At this time Aeschines and Demosthenes were at the head of the two parties, into which not only Athens, but all Greece was divided, and their political enmity created and nourished personal hatred. This enmity came to a head in the year B. C. 343, when Demosthenes charged Aeschines with having been bribed and having betrayed the interests of his country during the second embassy to Philip. This charge of Demosthenes (περὶ παραπρεσβείας) was not spoken, but published as a memorial, and Aeschines answered it in a similar memorial on the embassy (περί παραπρεσβείας), which was likewise published (Dem. De fals. Leg. p. 337), and in the composition of which he is said to have been assisted by his friend Eubulus. The result of these mutual attacks is unknown, but there is no doubt that it gave a severe shock to the popularity of Aeschines. At the time he wrote his memorial we gain a glimpse into his private life. Some years before that occurrence he had married a daughter of Philodemus, a man of high respectability in his tribe of Paeania, and in 343 he was father of three little children. (Aesch, De falss. Leg. p. 52.)

It was probably in B. C. 342, that Antiphon, who had been exiled and lived in Macedonia, secretly returned to the Peiraeeus with the intention of setting fire to the Athenian ships of war. Demosthenes, discovered him, and had him arrested. Aeschines denounced the conduct of Demosthenes as a violation of the democratical constitution. Antiphon was sentenced to death; and although no disclosure of any kind could be extorted from him, still it seems to have been believed in many quarters that Aeschines had been his accomplice. Hence the honourable office of σύνδικος to the sanctuary in Delos, which had just been given him, was taken from him and bestowed upon Hyperides. (Demosth. De Coron. p. 271.) In B. C. 340 Aeschines was again present at Delphi as Athenian πυλαγόρας, and caused the second sacred war against Amphissa in Locris for having taken into cultivation some sacred lands. Philip entrusted with the supreme command by the amphictyons, marched into Locris with an army of 30,000 men, ravaged the country, and established himself in it. When in 338 he advanced southward as far as Elatea, all Greece was in consternation. Demosthenes alone persevered, and roused his countrymen to a last and desperate struggle. The battle of Chaeroneia in this same year decided the fate of Greece. The misfortune of that day gave a handle to the enemies of Demosthenes for attacking him; but notwithstanding the bribes which Aeschines received from Antipater for this purpose, the pure and unstained patriotism of Demosthenes was so generally recognised, that he received the honourable charge of delivering the funeral oration over those who had fallen at Chacroneia. Ctesiphon proposed that Demosthenes should be rewarded for the services he had done to his country, with a golden crown in the theatre at the great Dionysia. Aeschines availed himself of the illegal form in which this reward was proposed to be given, to bring a charge against Ctesiphon on that ground. But he did not prosecute the matter till eight years later, that is, in B. C. 330, when after the death of Philip, and the victories of Alexander, political affairs had assumed a different aspect in Greece. After having commenced the prosecution of Ctesiphon, he is said to have gone for some time to Macedonia. What induced him to drop the prosecution of Ctesiphon, and to take it up again eight years afterwards, are questions which can only be answered by conjectures. The speech in which he accused Ctesiphon in B. C. 330, and which is still extant, is so skilfully managed, that if he had succeeded he would have totally destroyed all the political influence and authority of Demosthenes. The latter answered Aeschines in his celebrated oration on the crown (περί στεφάνου. Even before Demosthenes had finished his speech, Aeschines acknowledged himself conquered, and withdrew from the court and his country. When the matter was put to the votes, not even a fifth of them was in favour of Aeschines.

Aeschines went to Asia Minor. The statement of Plutarch, that Demosthenes provided him with the means of accomplishing his journey, is surely a fable. He spent several years in Ionia and Caria, occupying himself with teaching rhetoric, and anxiously waiting for the return of Alexander to Europe. When in B. C. 324 the report of the death of Alexander reached him, he left Asia and went to Rhodes, where he established a school of eloquence, which subsequently became very celebrated, and occupies a middle position between the grave manliness of the Attic orators, and the effeminate luxuriance of the so-called Asiatic school of oratory. On one occasion he read to his audience in Rhodes his speech against Ctesiphon, and when some of his hearers expressed their astonishment at his having been defeated notwithstanding his brilliant oration, he replied, " You would cease to be astonished, if you had heard Demosthenes." (Cic. De Orat. 3.56; Plin. Nat. 7.30; Plin. Ep. 2.3; Quinctil. 11.3.6.) From Rhodes he went to Samos, where he died in B. C. 314.

The conduct of Aeschines has been censured by the writers of all ages; and for this many reasons may be mentioned. In the first place, and above all, it was his misfortune to be constantly placed in juxtaposition or opposition to the spotless glory of Demosthenes, and this must have made him appear more guilty in the eyes of those who saw through his actions, while in later times the contrast between the greatest orators of the time was frequently made the theme of rhetorical declamation, in which one of the two was praised or blamed at the cost of the other, and less with regard to truth than to effect. Respecting the last period of his life we scarcely possess any other source of information than the accounts of late sophists and declamations. Another point to be considered in forming a just estimate of the character of Aeschines is, that he had no advantages of education, and that he owed his greatness to none but himself. His occupations during the early part of his life were such as necessarily engendered in him the low desire of gain and wealth; and had he overcome these passions, he would have been equal to Demosthenes. There is, however, not the slightest ground for believing, that Aeschines recommended peace with Macedonia at first from any other motive than the desire of promoting the good of his country. Demosthenes himself acted in the same spirit at that time, for the craftiness of Philip deceived both of them. But while Demosthenes altered his policy on discovering the secret intentions of the king, Aeschines continued to advocate the principles of peace. But there is nothing to justify the belief that Aeschines intended to ruin his country, and it is much more probable that the crafty king made such an impression upon him, that he firmly believed he was doing right, and was thus unconsciously led on to become a traitor to his country. But no ancient writer except Demosthenes charges him with having received bribes from the Macedonians for the purpose of betraying his country. He appears to have been carried away by the favour of the king and the people, who delighted in hearing from him what they themselves wished, and, perhaps also, by the opposition of Demosthenes himself. Works Orations

Aeschines spoke on various occasions, but he published only three of his orations, namely, against Timarchus, on the Embassy, and against Ctesiphon. As an orator, he was inferior to none but Demosthenes. He was endowed by nature with extraordinary oratorical powers, of which his orations afford abundant proofs. The facility and felicity of his diction, the boldness and the vigour of his descriptions, carry away the reader now, as they must have carried away his audience. The ancients, as Photius (Phot. Bibl. 61) remarks, designated these three orations as the Graces, and the nine letters which were extant in the time of Photius, as the Muses. Letters ascribed to Aeschines

Besides the three orations, we now possess twelve letters which are ascribed to Aeschines, which however are in all probability not more genuine than the so-called epistles of Phalaris, and are undoubtedly the work of late sophists. Sources for the Life of Aeschines

The principal sources of information concerning Aeschines are: 1. The orations of Demosthenes on the Embassy, and on the Crown, and the orations of Aeschines on the Embassy and against Ctesiphon. These four orations were translated into Latin by Cicero; but the translation is lost, and we now possess only an essay which Cicero wrote as an introduction to them: De optimo genere Oratorum. 2. The life in Plutarch's Vitae decem Oratorum. 3. The life of Aeschines by Philostratus. 4. The life of Aeschines by Libanius. 5. Apollonius' Exegesis. The last two works are printed in Reiske's edition, p. 10, foll. The best modern essay on Aeschines is that by Passow in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopädie, ii. p. 73, &c. There is also a work by E. Stechow, De Aeschinis Oratoris Vita, Berlin, 1841, 4to., which is an attempt to clear the character of Aeschines from all the reproaches that have been attached to it; but the essay is written in exceedingly bad Latin, and the attempt is a most complete failure. Editions

The first edition of the orations of Aeschines is that of Aldus Manutius in his Collectio Rhetorum Graecorum, Venice, 1513, fol. An edition with a Latin translation, which also contains the letters ascribed to Aeschines, is that of H. Wolf, Basel. 1572, fol. The next important edition is that by Taylor, which contains the notes of Wolf, Taylor, and Markland, and appeared at Cambridge in 1748-56 in his collection of the Attic orators. In Reiske's edition of the Attic orators Aeschines occupies the third volume, Lips. 1771, 8vo. The best editions are those of I. Bekker, vol. iii. of his Oratores Attici, Oxford, 1822, 8vo., for which thirteen new MSS. were collated, and of F. H. Bremi, Zurich, 1823, 2 vols. 8vo. Translations

The oration against Demosthenes has been translated into English by Portal and Leland. [L.S]

Ae'schines

(Αἰσχίνης), an Athenian philosopher and rhetorician, son of a sausage-seller, or, according to other accounts, of Lysanias (D. L. 2.60; Suidas, s. v. Ἀισχίνης), and a disciple, although by some of his contemporaries held an unworthy one, of Socrates.

From the account of Laertius, he appears to have been the familiar friend of his great master, who said that " the sausage-seller's son only knew how to honour him." The same writer has preserved a tradition that it was Aeschines, and not Crito, who offered to assist Socrates in his escape from prison.

The greater part of his life was spent in abject poverty, which gave rise to the advice of Socrates to him, "to borrow money of himself, by diminishing his daily wants." After the death of his master, according to the charge of Lysias apud Athen. xiii. p. 611e. f.), he kept a perfumer's shop with borrowed money, and presently becoming bankrupt, was obliged to leave Athens. Whether from necessity or inclination, he followed the fashion of the day, and retired to the Syracusan court, where the friendship of Aristippus might console him for the contempt of Plato. He remained there until the expulsion of the younger Dionysius, and on his return, finding it useless to attempt a rivalry with his great contemporaries, he gave private lectures. One of the charges which his opponents delighted to repeat, and which by association of ideas constituted him a sophist in the eyes of Plato and his followers, was that of receiving money for his instructions. Another story was invented that these dialogues were really the work of Socrates ; and Aristippus, either from joke or malice, publicly charged Aeschines with the theft while he was reading them at Megara. Plato is related by Hegesander (apud Athen. xi. p. 507c.) to have stolen from him his solitary pupil Xenocrates. Works Dialogues attributed to Aeschines

The three dialogues, Περὶ ἀρετῆς, εἰ διδακτόν, Ἐρυξίας ἤ περὶ πλούτου, Ἀξίοχος ἤ περὶ Θανάτου, which have come down to us under the name of Aeschines are not genuine remains : it is even doubted whether they are the same works which the ancients acknowledged as spurious. Editions

They have been edited by Fischer, the third edition of which (8vo. Lips. 1786) contains the criticisms of Wolf, and forms part of a volume of spurious Platonic dialogues (Simonis Socratici ut videtur dialogi quatuor) by Böckh, Heidel. 1810. Genuine Dialogues

The genuine dialogues, from the slight mention made of them by Demetrius Phalereus, seem to have been full of Socratic irony. Assessment

Hermogenes, Περὶ Ἰδεῶν, considers Aeschines as superior to Xenophon in elegance and purity of style. A long and amusing passage is quoted by Cicero from him. Further Information

De Invent. 1.31; Diogenes Laertius, 2.60-64, and the authorities collected by Fischer. [B.J]

Ae'schines

(Αἰσχίνης), a contemporary of Cicero, and a distinguished orator in the Asiatic style of eloquence. He is said by Diogenes Laertius to have written on Politics. He died in exile on account of having spoken too freely to Pompey. (Cic. Brut. 95; D. L. 2.64 ; Strab. xiv. p.635; Sen. Controv. 1.8.)

Ae'schines

(Αἰσχίνης), of Neapolis, a Peripatetic philosopher, who was at the head of the Academy at Athens, together with Charmades and Clitomachus about B. C. 109. (Cic. de Orat. 1.11.) Diogenes Laertius (2.64) says, that he was a pupil of Melanthus the Rhodian.

Ae'schines

(Αἰσχίνης), an ancient physcian, who lived in the latter half of the fourth century after Christ. He was born in the island of Chios, and settled at Athens, where he appears to have practised with very little success, but acquired great fame by a happy cure of Eunapius Sardianus, who on his voyage to Athens (as he tells us himself, in vita Proaeres. p. 76, ed. Boisson) had been seized with a fever of a very violent kind, which yielded only to treatment of a peculiar nature. An Athenian physician of this name is quoted by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 28.10), of whom it is only known, that he must have lived some time before the middle of the first century after Christ. [W.A.G]

Aeschĭnes

(Αἰσχίνης). (1) A great Athenian orator, born in B.C. 389, the son of Atrometus, a schoolmaster, and Leucothea. The statements of Demosthenes in regard to the disreputable character of his parents are probably groundless. After some experience as a soldier he entered upon the profession of a public clerk, which, however, he soon left to become an actor of indifferent success. But his real talents, aided by his experience of public life gained as a clerk, soon made him prominent when he turned his attention to a political career. In B.C. 348, after the fall of Olynthus, he attracted attention by advocating a general council of the Greek States to concert measures against King Philip. But the failure of the embassy to Arcadia, which he undertook in pursuance of this plan, seems to have so discouraged him that he immediately changed sides, and was thenceforth an adherent of the peace party. In this capacity he played a conspicuous part as a member of the famous embassy to Philip in b. c. 346, preliminary to the peace of Philocrates. The complicated details of these negotiations need not be given here. (See Demosthenes; Philip II.) It is sufficient to say that Aeschines was won over by Philip's flattery (there is no proof that he was actually bribed, beyond the partisan statement of Demosthenes), and became convinced that a close alliance with the Macedonian king was the safest course for Athens. Almost immediately after the conclusion of the peace, he was indicted by Timarchus, an adherent of Demosthenes, for treasonablc conduct, but was triumphantly acquitted. A second accusation, brought by Demosthenes himself in b. c. 343, was more nearly successful, and Aeschines narrowly escaped conviction, after an able defence, in which he was aided by the intercession of Eubulus and Phocion. Aeschines next appears as one of the representatives of Athens at the Amphictyonic Council at Delphi in b. c. 339. Here, as he tells us, he was so enraged by an unjust complaint which the delegates from Amphissa brought against Athens, that he in turn made a vehement counter-attack on the Amphissians for their occupation of the sacred plain of Cirrha. So infuriated were the Amphictyons by his invective that, after burning the buildings of the offending Amphissian settlers, they voted to hold a special meeting of the council to consider what further punishment should be inflicted. Athens and Thebes refused to send delegates to this assembly, and thus became involved in war with Philip and the rest of the Amphictyons—a war which resulted in the fatal battle of Chaeronea and the downfall of Athenian independence.

In stirring up this new conflict, Aeschines certainly played into the hands of Philip, who was awaiting an opportunity for armed interference in the affairs of Central Greece; but here, too, the charge of bribery rests on the unsupported testimony of his bitterest enemy. After the battle of Chaeronea, the party of Aeschines naturally fell into disfavour. He does not figure prominently in public affairs again till B.C. 330, when he made a final effort to defeat his hated rival. An obscure politician named Ctesiphon had in b. c. 336 brought in a bill proposing to confer a golden crown upon Demosthenes for his services to the State. Aeschines raised objection to this on the score of illegality. The case did not come to trial till six years had elapsed, and then each of the orators exhausted every effort to crush his opponent. But Aeschines was the weaker, both in genius and in merit, and, not receiving the fifth part of the votes of the court, he was fined one thousand drachmas, and lost the right of appearing before the people in a similar capacity again. He left Athens and went first to Ephesus and afterwards to Rhodes, where he is said to have opened a school of oratory. He outlived his great opponent and died at Samos at the age of seventy-five.

Only three orations of Aeschines have been preserved, and all of these bear, directly or indirectly, on his quarrel with Demosthenes. Their titles are: (a) Against Timarchus, (b) On the Dishonest Embassy, (c) Against Ctesiphon. The occasion and subject of each have been noticed above. The second of them is generally considered to be the best. In natural gifts of oratory Aeschines was inferior to Demosthenes alone among his contemporaries. He excelled particularly in brilliant narrative, and was also one of the first to win a reputation for extemporaneous speech. He was less careful in his composition than Demosthenes, and was inferior to him in vigour and moral earnestness.

The editions of Schultz (Leipzig, 1865) and Weidner (Berlin, 1872) are among the most important. Richardson's edition of Weidner's Against Ctesiphon may be recommended to American readers.

(2) A philosopher of Athens, a pupil of Socrates, after whose death he became a perfumer, but, meeting with little success, went to Sicily and stayed at the court of the tyrant Dionysius until that ruler was expelled. Returning to Athens, he taught philosophy in private for a fee. Besides orations and epistles, he wrote Socratic dialogues on temperance and the other virtues. None of these dialogues remains. Three others that exist and that are ascribed to Aeschines are spurious. They treat (a) of Virtue, (b) of Riches, (c) of Death. Aeschines pretended to have received his dialogues from Xanthippé, the wife of Socrates.

Aeschines

Aeschines (c. 390-c.322 BC) was an Athenian political figure, three of whose orations survive. Early in his career he worked with Demosthenes to resist the expanding power of Philip of Macedon, but after the failure of an embassy to Philip in 346 BC, in which both Aeschines and Demosthenes participated, the two men became bitter enemies. Their rivalry culminated in the famous trial in 330, when Aeschines delivered Against Ctesiphonand Demosthenes responded with On the Crown. The verdict went overwhelmingly against Aeschines, and he was forced to leave Athens. History has not treated him well, and his inferiority to Demosthenes as an orator and politician is generally taken for granted.

life and Works

We know little of Aeschines’ family or early life besides what we are told by Demosthenes, whose bias is obvious, but it is probably fair to say that he came from a poor but respectable family. We have no evidence that he formally studied rhetoric, or wrote speeches for others; rather he seems to have been a politician first and an orator only from necessity. He served in the army and had a career as an actor before becoming involved in politics. In 347/6 he served on the Council (with Demosthenes). The main issue facing Athens at this time was how best to stop the advance of Philip into Greece. After several strategies failed, the Athenians sent an embassy to Philip to negotiate peace. Both Aeschines and Demosthenes were members of the embassy, but in the process of dealing both with Philip and the Athenian assembly the two men became more and more hostile to one another, with Demosthenes opposing the eventual peace treaty and Aeschines supporting it.

Relations between the two men over the next fifteen years are marked by three trials, which account for all three of Aeschines’ surviving speeches. He must have spoken often in the assembly, but no deliberative speech of his survives; perhaps none was ever published. In all three cases Demosthenes supported the other side, and in two of these we have his speech. The legal disputes began in 346/5, when the ambassadors underwent an accounting for their actions on the embassy. Timarchus, a politician allied with Demosthenes, charged Aeschines with treason, but Aeschines responded with a countersuit, claiming in Against Timarchus (1) that Timarchus was unfit to prosecute because he had been a prostitute, which was illegal for an Athenian citizen. This speech has traditionally been neglected, but recently there has been increased interest in it as a source for Athenian views of homosexuality (Dover 1978). Aeschines won the case against Timarchus, and the prosecution for treason was postponed until 343, when Demosthenes delivered On the False Embassy (19) and Aeschines responded with On the Embassy (2). Aeschines was narrowly acquitted of the charges, but his career suffered.

The most famous episode in Aeschines’ life came after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), when Philip decisively defeated Athens and its allies. In 336 Ctesiphon proposed in the assembly that Demosthenes be awarded a crown for his service to the city. On the basis of some relatively minor (though probably valid) legal points, Aeschines then charged Ctesiphon with making an illegal proposal. When the case was finally tried in 330, Aeschines (in Against Ctesiphon) raised his legal objections but devoted most of his speech to attacking the career and person of Demosthenes. The latter responded in On the Crownwith an impassioned defense of himself and his service to Athens and a virulent attack on Aeschines’ family, character and policies. The verdict was so one-sided that Aeschines was fined and went into exile. He finished his life teaching rhetoric on the island of Rhodes.

Significance

The speeches of Aeschines, especially On the Embassyand Against Ctesiphon, have been read and studied primarily by those interested in the opposing speeches of Demosthenes, and indeed Aeschines’ entire career has been relegated to the shadow of that of his more famous opponent. With regard to rhetorical skill this is a fair assessment, for although Aeschines is skilled at attacking his opponents and arguing relatively minor points, he does not have Demosthenes’ ability to sound grand and noble themes or to raise larger issues of policy. As a result, his speeches often appear petty and mean. Because of his rhetorical inferiority, however, Aeschines’ political views may be unfairly judged. Since he never presents a comprehensive defense of his positions in the context of the overall goals of Athenian policy, most have judged his views inferior to Demosthenes’, but it is arguable that his policy of a less strident opposition to Philip and greater cooperation with Athens’ allies was the better one. In any case, it is unlikely that anyone could have stopped Philip in the end, and Aeschines seems to have been as honest as Demosthenes in his proposals. As is usually the case, however, claims of patriotism on one's own part and accusations of treason on one's opponent's, even if grossly misleading (at best), were politically opportune. Aeschines’ career ended in failure, but a balanced judgment would see him as a well-meaning and partially successful politician but a second-rate speaker, who had the misfortune to be pitted against one of the most brilliant orators the world has ever known.

Blass, Friedrich, Die attische Beredsamkeit.. 3rd ed. vol. 3.2 Leipzig 1898. Dover, Kenneth J. Greek Homosexuality.London 1978. Kennedy, George, The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton 1963. Kennedy, George, “Oratory” in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature I: Greek Literature. Ed. by P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox (Cambridge 1985), pp. 498-526. Kindstrand, Jan Fredrik, The Stylistic Evaluation of Aeschines in Antiquity. Uppsala 1982. Michael Gagarin

• Demosthenes
• Dinarchus
• Hyperides

Aeschines (2), a leading Eretrian

• Hdt. 6.100

Aeschines(3), an Argive

• father of Epiteles: Paus. 4.26.7

Aeschines(4), an Elean

• Olympic victor: Paus. 6.14.13