The debates between Aeschines and Demosthenes

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written in the form of an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2005, during a period when the author's academic skills were still under development. Although the quality of this article does not match the quality of later examples of the same author's work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information to nowadays students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.

The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based on, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author's best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that for any unknown words or specialised vocabulary, the readers should refer to the web for additional information.

The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, matching the requirements of an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work in English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.

Introduction

The conflict between Demosthenes and Aeschines, the Athenian orators who were the leaders of the anti-Macedonian and pro-Macedonian faction respectively, dominated the Athenian political life of the 4th century BC. It culminated in a legal dispute between them, on the occasion of Ctesiphon’s proposal to the Athenians, to honour Demosthenes with the city’s golden crown. Luckily, both speeches survive: Aeschines’ accusation speech (Against Ctesiphon) and Demosthenes’ defence speech in favour of Ctesiphon (On the Crown). Today, it is known through other textual sources that Aeschines lost the trial; therefore, modern researchers can evaluate the arguments and the rhetorical techniques of both orators in relation to their effectiveness.

This article examines the above speeches and discusses the rhetorical strategies followed by the two Athenian orator. The paper begins with an introductory section, which summarises the historical and ideological context of the dispute. It identifies the motives of the two opponents and the deeper reasons that causes their legal struggles. The second section discusses the rhetoric of personal attacks (diavoli = διαβολή) to which the two opponents resort and it identifies the main points of accusation that they produce against each other. The third section focuses on Demosthenes' arguments in his speech On the crown, through which he defends his political decisions and their results. The third section examines Demosthenes’ rhetorical techniques in conjunction with the ideological significance of his arguments. The final section concludes on the political context of the above dispute and the final outcome of the conflict between the two orators based on the verdict produced by the Athenian jury.

The Historical and ideological context of the dispute between Demosthenes and Aeschines

Although the dispute between Demosthenes and Aeschines received the form of a personal conflict, their deepest motives were political. The first official excuse was given in 346 BC, when Aeschines and Demosthenes were sent together as members of the Athenian embassy to King Philip II of Macedonia (Alexiou 2001, 431). Aeschines was a supporter of the Macedonian king and a member of the pro-Macedonian faction of the Athenians, which aligned with Philip’s interests. By contrast, Demosthenes was a member of the anti-Macedonian faction of the Athenians and stood against the policies of Philip II. He supported the resistance and armed conflict against the Kingdom of Macedonia, which was the only way for the Athenians to defend themselves and protect the ideals represented by their city (Alexiou 2001, 429).

When they returned back to Athens, Demosthenes composed a speech for Timarchus, via whom he accused Aeschines for ambassadorial misconduct (parapresveia = παραπρεσβεία). In court, Aeschines reacted by delivering his speech Against Timarchus and proved his innocence. In 343 BC, Demosthenes turned against Aeschines for the second time in court; he delivered his accusation speech On the False Embassy, but again, Aeschines proved his innocence (Alexiou 2001, 431).

In a series of other speeches, such as the three Philippics, the three Olynthiacs and the speech On the Chersonese, Demosthenes constantly attacked the pro-Macedonian faction of the Athenians, which was led by his greatest opponent, Aeschines. Demosthenes and the anti-Macedonia faction managed to convince the Athenian People’s Assembly to resist against the Macedonians, which resulted to a disastrous defeat in Chaeronea, in 338 BC (Alexiou 2001, 429).

The Athenian defeat verified Aeschines’ original predictions; however, the conflict between the two orators carried on even after Battle of Chaeronea. In 336 BC, Ctesiphon proposed to the People’s Assembly to honour Demosthenes for his services with the city’s golden crown, which was the city’s highest decoration for its beneficiaries. Aeschines reacted with the speech Against Ctesiphon, where he claimed that such honour for Demosthenes was irrational and meaningless. For reasons that are unclear, a trial was carried out six years later, in 330 BC (Alexiou 2001, 431). Although the dispute of the two opponents was fuelled by political motives, the speeches presented during that trial were overcharged with personal hatred.

From a political point of view, the trial of 330 BC was totally pointless as Athens was already under Macedonian rule (Alexiou 2001, 431). It appears likely that Aeschines planned the trial to claim his final victory against the anti-Macedonian faction and to destroy the reputation of his political opponent for ever. Demosthenes, on the other hand, was there to claim recognition from the Athenians for his previous political services; he once more declared his anti-Macedonian feelings and supported his original view that resisting the invaders was the right decision for the Athenians, regardless of the final outcome.

The rhetoric of personal attacks

The rhetoric of personal attacks, which is the effort of the two opponents to calumniate each other, forms the basis of the speeches Against Ctesiphon by Aeschines and On the Crown by Demosthenes. Such personal attacks played important role in Athenian trials during the antiquity, as the jury always co-examined the arguments of the opponents together with their personal characters, particularly their moral reputation.

Aeschine’s original argument against Demosthenes is legal. He suggests that Ctesiphon’s proposal to crown Demosthenes stands against a previously voted law. This process in the Athenian judicial system is know as Graphe Paranomon (γραφὴ παρανόμων), which is translated as “suit against someone for actions that contrast the existing laws” (Stephanopoulos 2002, 248). Even though Aeschines produces an argument of certain legality, which can stand in court, he then decides that a personal attack against his opponent through slandering, is more practical and effective. His attacks Demosthenes’ reputation in order to convince the jury of his dishonesty, his anti-democratic feelings and the lack of efficiency in his actions.

In his speech Against Ctesiphon, Aeschines portrays Demosthenes as a thoughtless oligarch who once acted against Democracy (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 168); therefore, his decisions aimed in harming instead of protecting the interests of the Demos. His speech is structured in a precise, almost mathematical manner, where he presents five characteristic attributes of a true democrat, which Demosthenes does not fulfil. According to Aeschines, a true democrat in a “born-free citizen from both father and mother” and “can demonstrate that his ancestors have offered some form of contribution to the democratic system” (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 169). He is “meant to be self-discipline and frugal in his private daily life” (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 170) in order not to accept briberies; he must “have sound judgement and be a competent public speaker” and “be brave enough not to abandon the Demos in difficult times and moments of danger” (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 170) .

Aeschines claims that Demosthenes is the exact opposite of all these attributes. His descent is not genuinely Athenian because he is a “Scythian, Greek-speaking barbarian” from his mother’s side (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 172). He is the grandson of a traitor, a coward and an anti-democrat; his grandfather “surrendered the city of Nymphaion (Crimea) in the Euxein Pontus (Black Sea) to the enemies” and he fled Athens when he was convicted to death (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 171). Aeschines portrays Demosthenes as a man without self-discipline, who thoughtlessly wasted his fathers fortune; however, he cunningly hides the fact that the poor management of Demosthenes’ resources after his father’s death was not due to him, but due to his commissioners who controlled these resources for the time Demosthenes was still under-aged. Aeschines employs irony to accuse his opponent that due to his thoughtless spending, instead of becoming a Trierach (commander and maintainer of a trireme war ship), he ended up a an unreliable speech-writer, a cunning speculative politician, and a corrupt man who was bribed with gold by the Persian king (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 173); hence, a double-traitor.

Aeschines admits his opponent’s oratorical skills but uses contradictory words to produce the opposite effect; he finally concludes that: “οἱ μὲν λόγοι καλοί, τὰ δ’ἔργα φαῦλα” (“his words are good but his actions are disgraceful”) (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 174). He then unravels his attack against Demosthenes’ morality by calling him obscene and accusing him for using his body and his reproduction abilities in a shameful manner (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 174). In his previous speech Against Timarchus, Aeschines had accused Timarchus of prostitution and proved in court that he was a prodigal and immoral person (Alexiou 2001, 431). In his speech Against Ctesiphon, he implies that Demosthenes, who was affiliated with Timarchus, is equally immoral. Furthermore, Aeschines refers to some incident where Demosthenes showed undoubted cowardice. According to the Laws of Solon, people who were cowards and deserters were not allowed admission to public places (the Agora, the temples and other public institutions) and were forbidden to be crowned; therefore, Demosthenes is not eligible to be offered the city’s golden crown (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 175-6).

In Aeschine’s speech, the reference to Demosthenes’ anti-democratic qualities is only the excuse to unfold a personal attack, which is more effective and damages the moral reputation of his opponent. Demosthenes is slandered in a direct manner and is called a barbarian foreigner, a traitor, an oligarch, a thoughtless spender, a corrupt and speculative person, an immoral and obscene character, and a coward. Demosthenes, on the other hand, uses a different and more sophisticated style of personal attacks compared to his opponent. Demosthenes was highly educated and had studied rhetoric next to his teacher and professional orator, Isaios, who helped him to become a professional speech-writer and a teacher (Alexiou 2001, 428). In his attack against Aeschines he is sarcastic, torrid and humorous; he implies certain things about his opponent’s character in a relatively discreet manner, which is different to Aeschines’ direct attacks.

In his defence speech On the Crown, Demosthenes suggests that Aeschines plots against him out of jealousy for his good fortune in life; therefore, he asks his opponent to consider his own fortune in life from beginning till present (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 256). Demosthenes performs a flash-back on Aeschines’ life, which is addressed to the jury for them to compare the lives of the two opponents. By looking at the differences on how they were brought up, the jury is meant to realise Aeschine’s poor social status, and understand his reasons of personal envy and hatred against Demosthenes. Demosthenes provokes Aeschines by stating that he plans to “drop down to his level” (ἐμπίπτειν ἀναγκαζομαι, in his own words), as his opponent in incapable of understanding a different language. This way, Demosthenes wishes to stress that he is not really a slander, but he is forced to defend himself by attacking Aeschines’s wickedness in the same manner (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 256).

In the following paragraphs, Demosthenes stresses the fortunate things he received in life. He received higher education and he did not have to do anything shameful out of need when he was a child. By contrast, when Aeschines was little, he used to help his mother to perform dark worship ceremonies, implying that she was a witch and he was her helper (Leski 1981, 838). Demosthenes sponsored functions of the state as a Trierach, where he maintained warships, and used to be a Choregus, where he sponsored theatrical plays; therefore, Demosthenes contrasts his contribution to the dramatic games as a rich sponsor with Aeschines’ role, who was just a poor and infamous actor (Leski 1981, 838). He then explains that he offered a lot of benefits to the city of Athens by paying his contributions to the state and by performing charities for his fellow citizens. He explains that he got involved in politics out of moral duty, and for this, he was crowned many times in the past (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 257); therefore, he should be crowned again now. Demosthenes’ political morality and contributions to the state contrasted with Aeschines’, who was known to have played a cunning role during the negotiations of the Delphic Amphictyony in 339 BC (Leski 1981, 839).

Further on, Demosthenes numbers the occasions of Aeschines’ ‘good fortune’ in an ironic and heavily sarcastic manner, dressed with a sense of black humour. Aeschines grew up in indescribable poverty and was his father's servant at school, essentially a slave boy who scrubbed the ink stains, cleaned the students’ benches and swept the classroom floors (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 258). It is know from various sources that schoolteachers in Classical Athens earned little money, which was tuition fees paid by the richest parents; therefore, Demosthenes describes an ironic scene where Aeschines is the slave boy of his own father, who is suffering of low income (Flacelière 2002, 121). Aeschines is accused of having participated in certain initiation ceremonies led by his own mother, which according to Demosthenes were unofficial religious scams. During such ceremonies, young Aeschines assisted his mother and undertook the humiliating task of smearing bran and mud on the initiates (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 259); therefore Aeschines is not only an accomplisher to these scams, but also a man of low dignity.

Aeschines was renown in Athens for the nice tone of his voice, which Demosthenes mocks with his sense of caustic irony. He calls Aeschines “...ὀλολύξαι σεμνυνόμενος...”, suggesting that his voice has the piercing pitch of a woman’s cry (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 260). He then mocks Aeschine’s deplorable professional career as he only managed to reach to the ‘honorary office’ of secretary and clerk. He then became an infamous third-actor in the theatre (τριταγωνιστής = third actor), who was paid in food instead of money (he was given figs, grapes and olives), and was often ‘rewarded’ by being beaten up by the angry spectators (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 262). Finally, Demosthenes mocks Aeschines’ political career, which he ironically describes as a ‘brilliant idea’. Aeschines prevailed in politics by wronging others, and since then he lives in fear (he lives "the life of a hare", which was thought to be a cowardly animal), knowing that one day the people he harmed will return to avenge him (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 263).

At the end of his accusation speech, Demosthenes summarises all the negative qualities of Aeschines and produces direct comparisons with himself. Such comparisons are done in a clever manner and contrast the opposite experiences that the two opponents had over the years. Demosthenes says that “you used to assist in teaching when I was doing the learning”; “you used to perform (scam) initiation rituals when I was an initiate (in the official rituals)”; “you played a minor role as a theatrical actor (third-actor) when I used to mock you as a member of the audience”; “you are just a slander while I have been proposed to be crowned” Demosthenes, On the Crown, 265-266). In the above final remarks, Demosthenes satirises Aeschines’ ‘good fortune’ in life by using a cunning causticity and a refined personal-attack style that is uncommon for Classical orators.

Demosthenes’ arguments in support of his political decisions

Demosthenes (On the Crown, 206-208) argues in favour of his past political decisions and their efficiency, for which Aeschines has previously accused him for failure. Demosthenes clarifies that although it has him who played the most crucial part in the events of the Athenian-Macedonia conflict, by contrast, the political decision to engage in this conflict was made by the Athenian Demos and the people who chose to be equally worthy as their forefathers (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 206). In that sense, Aeschines’ accusations are not targeting himself, but they undermine the decision and the sound judgement of the Athenian people. He says, if this time the people decide that Aeschines is right, then it would be as if admitting that the defeat in Chaeronea was their own mistake.

Furthermore, Demosthenes is cleverly avoiding responsibility for the defeat in Chaeronea, both for him and for the Athenian Demos. He suggests that the defeat was the result of bad luck, an unpredictable factor, for which one cannot simply hold him or the Athenian Demos responsible for failure (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 207).

To avoid any blame for his political decisions, Demosthenes follows an elaborate plan. He presents the Athenians as responsible for voting in favour of his political proposals to resist against the Mecedonians; therefore, the defendant in trial is not just him, but the entire Athenian Demos, including the jury of his trial. This way, he forges a bond of sympathy and stresses the consensus of political views between him and the court. Secondly, by attributing the defeat in Chaeronea to bad luck, he manages to present the outcome of the war as the result of divine intervention; therefore, neither him nor the Demos can be criticised and held responsible.

Demosthenes praises the jury and emphasises that it is impossible for the Athenian Demos to have mistaken. Their decision to act first and protect all the Greeks was the right thing to do, and this decision followed the example of their forefathers in similar situations in the past (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 207). Demosthenes places importance on the Athenian Euphebic Otah, with which young soldier pledged to protect the country at all cost. He then presents the Athenian soldiers who fought in Chaeronea as worthy descendants of those who fought in Marathon. The deeds of the Athenians in Marathon were renown in the 4th century BC and were still praised by Simonodes’ Epigram “Ἑλλήνων προμαχοῦντες Ἀθηναῖοι Μαραθῶνι χρυσοφόρων Μήδων ἐστόρεσαν δύναμιν” (“The Athenians, who fought for all of the Greeks in Marathon, destroyed the might of the gold-bearing Persians” - personal translation). The bravery of the Athenians in Marathon and Simonides’ epigram were also used as arguments by Lycurgus in his speech Against Leocrates, who fled Athens after the defeat in Chaeoronea (Lycurgus, Against Leocrates, 109). The general idea presented by Demosthenes is that the Athenian soldiers in Chaeronea stood against the Macedonian armies in order to protect all of the Greeks from Philip's march South, which is the same act of bravery as the deeds of the Athenian soldiers in the battle of Marathon, who prevented the Persian from marching further into the Greek mainland (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 208).

Demosthenes makes an example out of the ancestors of the Athenians who fought successfully against the common enemy in the battles of Marathon, Salamis, Artemision and Plataea. He stresses that the city of Athens honoured these men for their bravery and for performing their duties, and not because these battles were eventually won. In fact, the same honours were offered to men who fought in battles that were lost, only because such men preformed with equal bravery as if the battles had been won (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 208). Here, Demosthenes speaks about the dead Athenians who fought in the Peloponnesian War, who were honoured for their bravery by Pericles in his funeral oration, the date of which is nowadays unclear. By this comparison, Demosthenes stresses the similarities between the fallen soldiers of the Peloponnesian War and those of Chaeronea.

Demosthenes’ arguments aim to convince the Athenians that their old decision to fight against the Macedonians deserves recognition and reward regardless of the outcome of such decision. As Demosthenes was the person who inspired this decision in the past, he too deserves recognition and reward; therefore, he deserves to be offered the city’s golden crown. In order to erase any feelings of guilt, he stresses that the Athenian defeat was independent from human decisions and actions, but was determined by the gods, as the gods determine the destiny of all humans (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 208). Demosthenes’ view is that human decisions should be judged on the basis of human morality; however, the outcome of such decisions is only determined by divine judgement.

Conclusions

The debate between the two Athenian Orators discussed above offers a characteristic corpus of judicial speeches that were presented in Athenian courts during the 4th century BC. From a technical point of view, despite any rational arguments of the two opponents, personal attacks were essential to influence the jury in relation to the general morality of the two opponents.

Aeschines, who had not studied rhetoric and was not as educated as Demosthenes, attempted a direct attack and accused the latter of cowardice, immorality, anti-democratic behaviour and damage to the public good due to his political decisions. Demosthenes, on the other hand, defended himself in a sarcastic manner using a sophisticated rhetorical style, through which he demonstrated his higher education and social status. He accused his opponent of malice, envy and jealousy, and left behind sharp and mocking innuendos about Aeschines’ past. Further on, Demosthenes defended his political decisions and praised the Athenian Demos for following them, as this was the right thing to do in order to be worthy descendants of the Marathon fighters. He suggested that the Athenians decided to resist the Macedonians to preserve justice and freedom on behalf of all Greeks. Such deeds should have been recognised and honoured by the state regardless of the outcome of the war.

From a political point of view, although Aeschines represented the wining side of the Macedonians in the trial, he did not manage to see his final victory against his opponent, who represented the defeated anti-Macedonian faction of the Athenians. During the time when Alexander defeated the Persians in the Battle of Arbela in 331 BC, the people’s court in Athens announced Demosthenes’ victory against Aeschines. The Athenians not only offered Demosthenes the city’s golden crown, but they also voted Aeschines in exile. What was not achieved by Demosthenes and the anti-Macedonian faction in Chaeronea in 338 BC, was finally achieved in the Athenian courts eight years later. That was the final recognition of the political values represented by Demosthenes (Jaeger 1984, 232-235).

Bibliography

Alexiou, E., 2001, ‘Rhetoric in Classical antiquity’, in Melista, A. (ed.) Letters 1: Ancient Greek and Byzantine Philology, Volume 1, The Archaic and Classical Periods, Patra: Greek Open University, 411-444.
Flacelière, R., [1971]2002, Public and Private Life of the Ancient Greeks, originally titled La vie quotidienne en Grèce au siècle de Périclè, translate by G.D. Vandorou, Athens: Papadimas.
Jaeger, W., [1977]1984, Demosthenes, originally titled Demosthenes: The Origin and Growth of His Policy, translated by D. Karpouza-Karasavva, Athens: Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis.
Lesky, A., 1981, A History of Ancient Greek Literature, fifth edition, translated by A.G. Tsombanaki, Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros. SA.
Stephanopoulos, Th.K., Tsitsiridis, S., Antzouli, L. and Kritseli, G., 2002, Anthology of Ancient Greek Literature, second edition, Athens: OEDB.

Original Sources

Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon
Demosthenes, On the Crown
Lycurgus, Against Leocrates