Aeschines biography definition

Home / Historical Figures / Aeschines biography definition

In conclusion, he proposed a law, according to which the introducers of illegal resolutions and their opponents would be forbidden to buy, so that the judges would not be misled.

Demosthenes responded with his “Upon Ctesiphon on the Crown” speech, which was described as “the greatest speech of the greatest orator in the world.” He too addressed the Athenians and not the judges.

Despite his eventual exile, his works influenced subsequent generations of orators and remained central to rhetorical education in antiquity.

His ability to cite Athenian laws and precedents with precision made his speeches not only effective in the courtroom but also valuable historical documents. Though his legacy is often framed by his rivalry with Demosthenes, Aeschines’ contributions to rhetoric and his insights into the political struggles of his time ensure his enduring significance in the history of ancient Greece.

Who were Aeschines’ parents, and what was their background?

Aeschines’ father, Atrometus, was a school teacher, while his mother, Glaukothea, assisted in religious rites for the poor.

Photius knew of nine letters by him which he called The Nine Muses; the twelve published under his name (Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci) are not genuine.[1]

Editions

Gustav Eduard Benseler [de] (1855–1860) (trans. He also held administrative positions, including clerkships like serving in the Boule, Athens’ council.

Which military campaigns did Aeschines participate in?

Aeschines participated in the campaigns at Phlius (368 BC), the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), and a campaign in Euboea (349 BC) under the Athenian general Phokion.

How did Aeschines transition into politics?

Aeschines entered politics after the fall of Olynthus in 348 BC.

He began diplomatic missions, including an embassy to rally the Peloponnesian states against Philip II of Macedon’s growing influence.

What role did Aeschines play during the peace negotiations with Philip II in 347 BC?

Aeschines was part of an Athenian delegation to negotiate peace with Philip II.

He attempted to counter accusations against him by emphasizing Philip’s “Greekness,” which stirred controversy in Athens.

What was the nature of Aeschines’ rivalry with Demosthenes?

Aeschines and Demosthenes were political opponents. He not only defended the accused but also launched a terrible political attack against the supporters of peace with Macedonia.

He brought back to the memory of the Athenians the gloomy impression caused by the news of the sacking of Elateia by Philip (an event that led to the battle in Chaeronea) and described the situation prevailing in Greece at that time.

He emphasizes his loyalty to Athens and his efforts to secure the best possible terms under difficult circumstances.

Aeschines systematically refutes the specific allegations of corruption and treason. Aeschines’ prosecution of Ctesiphon was not only a legal maneuver but also a political strategy aimed at discrediting his formidable rival, Demosthenes.

This case, formally known as the “Crown Case,” was emblematic of the intense political rivalries and factionalism that characterized Athenian democracy in the late 4th century BCE.

The outcome of the trial had significant implications for the careers of both Aeschines and Demosthenes, as well as for the political landscape of Athens.
Background of the Case

The immediate cause of the trial was the proposal by Ctesiphon to crown Demosthenes with a gold crown for his services to the city, particularly his efforts to resist the expansion of Macedonian influence under Philip II and later, Alexander the Great.

15&16.

(Against Timarchus (C. and notes)
Andreas Weidner (1872)
Friedrich Blass (Teubner, 1896)
Thomas Leland, Weidner (1872), (1878), G. A. Simcox and W. H. Simcox (1866), Drake (1872), Richardson (1889), G. Watkin and Evelyn S. Shuckburgh (1890).
Teubner ed. After assisting his father in his school, he tried his hand at acting with indifferent success, served with distinction in the army, and held several clerkships, amongst them the office of clerk to the Boule.[1] Among the campaigns that Aeschines participated in were Phlius in the Peloponnese (368 BC), Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), and Phokion's campaign in Euboea (349 BC).

The fall of Olynthus (348 BC) brought Aeschines into the political arena, and he was sent on an embassy to rouse the Peloponnese against Philip II of Macedon.[1]

In spring of 347 BC, Aeschines addressed the assembly of Ten Thousand in Megalopolis, Arcadia urging them to unite and defend their independence against Philip.

The speech can be broadly divided into several key sections:

Aeschines begins by outlining the legal framework for his accusation. Early pseudepigraphic letters attributed to Aeschines, circulating by the 1st century BC, indicate active scholarly engagement with his persona as a foil to Demosthenes, portraying him as the principled "other" orator in Athenian debates.^[38] Overall, ancient reception balanced admiration for his substantive, character-driven rhetoric against the narrative of his courtroom losses, prioritizing technical merits over political outcomes.

Modern Historical Debates and Assessments

Modern scholarship evaluates Aeschines as a proficient orator whose three surviving speeches offer critical insights into Athenian legal procedures, moral norms, and diplomatic negotiations during the mid-fourth century BCE, particularly in contrast to the more voluminous corpus of Demosthenes.^[39] While ancient traditions, preserved largely through Demosthenes' influence, portray Aeschines as opportunistic and less eloquent, contemporary historians emphasize the speeches' evidentiary value for reconstructing events like the Peace of Philocrates (346 BCE) and the moral-legal standards applied in public prosecutions, such as the scrutiny of personal conduct in Against Timarchus (346 BCE).^[9] This reevaluation counters the historiographical bias inherent in surviving sources, which privilege the victors in rhetorical contests and complicate factual recovery from biased accounts of recent history.^[40]Key debates revolve around Aeschines' rhetorical strategies and their effectiveness relative to Demosthenes.

Despite their limited means, his parents ensured he had a stable upbringing. The first, Against Timarchus (345 BC), prosecutes the politician Timarchus under a statute barring individuals who had engaged in prostitution from addressing the assembly or seeking public office, arguing that such conduct evidenced moral unfitness and undermined civic discourse.^[15] Aeschines enumerates specific allegations of Timarchus' sexual relations with older men for gain during his youth, including encounters at symposia and with figures like Misgolas, framing these as violations of Athenian norms against passive homosexuality in adult males and excessive self-indulgence.

He cites specific Athenian laws regarding the awarding of public honors and the venues for such ceremonies, establishing a legal foundation for his case.

Aeschines then launches into a detailed critique of Demosthenes’ political career. First of all, Demosthenes’ term as mason had not yet ended, so it was not possible to evaluate his offer.

pp. 4. Aeschines presents evidence and examples to support his claims, aiming to undermine Demosthenes’ reputation and credibility.

Aeschines argues that Ctesiphon’s proposal to crown Demosthenes is not only illegal but also unjustified. His speech, Against Ctesiphon, accused Demosthenes of corruption and incompetence in his dealings with Macedon.

Demosthenes responded with his masterful oration, On the Crown, which not only refuted Aeschines’ charges but also passionately defended his own political career and vision for Athens.