Aeschines was what we call nowadays a self-made man.  The great faults of his life, his philippizing policy and his confessed corruption, arose, doubtless, from the results of youthful poverty:  a covetousness growing out of want, and a lack of principles of conduct which a broader education would have instilled.  As an orator he was second only to Demosthenes; and while he may at times be compared to his rival in intellectual force and persuasiveness, his moral defects—­which it must be remembered that he himself acknowledged—­make a comparison of character impossible.

His chief works remaining to us are the speeches ‘Against Timarchus,’ ‘On the Embassy,’ ‘Against Ctesiphon,’ and letters, which are included in the edition of G.E.  Benseler (1855-60).  In his ‘History of Greece,’ Grote discusses at length—­of course adversely—­the influence of Aeschines; especially controverting Mitford’s favorable view and his denunciation of Demosthenes and the patriotic party.  The trend of recent writing is toward Mitford’s estimate of Philip’s policy, and therefore less blame for the Greek statesmen who supported it, though without Mitford’s virulence toward its opponents.  Mahaffy (’Greek Life and Thought’) holds the whole contest over the crown to be mere academic threshing of old straw, the fundamental issues being obsolete by the rise of a new world under Alexander.

A DEFENSE AND AN ATTACK

From the ‘Oration against Ctesiphon’

In regard to the calumnies with which I am attacked, I wish to say a word or two before Demosthenes speaks.  He will allege, I am told, that the State has received distinguished services from him, while from me it has suffered injury on many occasions; and that the deeds of Philip and Alexander, and the crimes to which they gave rise, are to be imputed to me.  Demosthenes is so clever in the art of speaking that he does not bring accusation against me, against any point in my conduct of affairs or any counsels I may have brought to our public meetings; but he rather casts reflections upon my private life, and charges me with a criminal silence.

Moreover, in order that no circumstance may escape his calumny, he attacks my habits of life when I was in school with my young companions; and even in the introduction of his speech he will say that I have begun this prosecution, not for the benefit of the State, but because I want to make a show of myself to Alexander and gratify Alexander’s resentment against him.  He purposes, as I learn, to ask why I blame his administration as a whole, and yet never hindered or indicted any one separate act; why, after a considerable interval of attention to public affairs, I now return to prosecute this action....