The debates between Aeschines and Demosthenes

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written as an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2005, during a period when the author’s academic skills were still developing. Although the quality of this article does not match that of later examples of the same author’s work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information for 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, 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 readers consult the web for additional information on any unfamiliar words or specialised vocabulary.

The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, as required for an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work into 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 led the anti-Macedonian and pro-Macedonian factions, respectively, dominated Athenian political life in 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, other textual sources indicate that Aeschines lost the trial; therefore, modern researchers can evaluate the arguments and 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 orators. 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 cause their legal struggles. The second section discusses the rhetoric of personal attacks (diavoli = διαβολή) to which the two opponents resort and identifies the main points of accusation they level 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 alongside the ideological significance of his arguments. The final section concludes with the political context of the above dispute and the verdict of the Athenian jury on the conflict between the two orators.

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 their city represented (Alexiou 2001, 429).

When they returned to Athens, Demosthenes composed a speech for Timarchus, via whom he accused Aeschines of ambassadorial misconduct (parapresveia = παραπρεσβεία). In court, Aeschines delivered his speech Against Timarchus and proved his innocence. In 343 BC, Demosthenes brought charges against Aeschines for the second time in court; he delivered his accusation speech, On the False Embassy, but, as before, 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, led by his greatest opponent, Aeschines. Demosthenes and the anti-Macedonian faction managed to convince the Athenian People’s Assembly to resist the Macedonians, resulting in a disastrous defeat at Chaeronea in 338 BC (Alexiou 2001, 429).

The Athenian defeat confirmed Aeschines’ original predictions; however, the conflict between the two orators continued even after the 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 unclear reasons, a trial was held six years later, in 330 BC (Alexiou 2001, 431). Although the dispute between 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 secure his final victory over the anti-Macedonian faction and to destroy his political opponent's reputation forever. 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 an important role in Athenian trials during antiquity, as the jury always co-examined the arguments of the opponents alongside their personal character, particularly their moral reputation.

Aeschine’s original argument against Demosthenes is legal. He suggests that Ctesiphon’s proposal to crown Demosthenes violates a previously passed law. This process in the Athenian judicial system is known 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 on 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 to harm rather than protect 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 is 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-disciplined and frugal in his private daily life” (Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 170) in order not to accept bribes; 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 father's 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 underage. Aeschines employs irony to accuse his opponent that, due to his thoughtless spending, instead of becoming a Trierarch (commander and maintainer of a trireme warship), he ended up 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 of using his body and his reproductive 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 an incident in which 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 more sophisticated style of personal attacks than his opponent. Demosthenes was highly educated and had studied rhetoric alongside his teacher and professional orator, Isaios, who helped him become a professional speechwriter and 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 the beginning till the present (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 256). Demosthenes gives a flashback of Aeschines’ life, addressed to the jury, to help them compare the two opponents' lives. By looking at the differences in how they were brought up, the jury is meant to realise Aeschine’s poor social status, and understand his reasons for 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 is incapable of understanding a different language. This way, Demosthenes wishes to stress that he is not really a slanderer, 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 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 Trierarch, 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 many benefits to the city of Athens by paying his contributions to the state and performing charitable acts 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 well known that schoolteachers in Classical Athens earned little, as tuition was paid by the richest parents; therefore, Demosthenes describes an ironic scene in which Aeschines is the slave boy of his own father, who is suffering from 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 accomplice to these scams but also a man of low dignity.

Aeschines was renowned 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 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 cleverly and contrast the opposite experiences the two opponents have 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 had previously accused him of failure. Demosthenes clarifies that although it was he who played the most crucial part in the events of the Athenian-Macedonian 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 do not target him, but they undermine the decision and the sound judgment of the Athenian people. He says that if, this time, the people decide that Aeschines is right, it would be as if they were admitting that the defeat at Chaeronea was their own mistake.

Furthermore, Demosthenes is cleverly avoiding responsibility for the defeat in Chaeronea, both for himself 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 the Macedonians; therefore, the defendant in the trial is not just him, but the entire Athenian Demos, including the jury. This way, he forges a bond of sympathy and underscores the political consensus between him and the court. Secondly, by attributing the defeat at Chaeronea to bad luck, he presents the outcome of the war as the result of divine intervention; therefore, neither he nor the Demos can be criticised or held responsible.

Demosthenes praises the jury and emphasises that it is impossible for the Athenian Demos to have been 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 emphasises the Athenian Euphebic Oath, under which young soldiers pledged to protect the country at all costs. 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 renowned in the 4th century BC and were still praised by Simonides’ 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 at Marathon and Simonides’ epigram were also used by Lycurgus in his speech Against Leocrates, in which Leocrates fled Athens after the defeat in Chaeronea (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 Persians from marching further into the Greek mainland (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 208).

Demosthenes cites the ancestors of the Athenians who fought successfully against the common enemy at Marathon, Salamis, Artemisia, 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 performed with equal bravery as if the battles had been won (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 208). Here, Demosthenes speaks of the dead Athenians who fought in the Peloponnesian War and 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 earlier decision to fight the Macedonians deserves recognition and reward, regardless of the outcome. As Demosthenes inspired this decision in the past, he too deserves recognition and reward; therefore, he should be offered the city’s golden crown. To erase any feelings of guilt, he stresses that the Athenian defeat was independent of human decisions and actions and was determined by the gods, who determine the destiny of all humans (Demosthenes, On the Crown, 208). Demosthenes holds that human decisions should be judged by human morality; however, their outcomes are determined only by divine judgment.

Conclusions

The debate between the two Athenian Orators discussed above offers a characteristic corpus of judicial speeches delivered 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 regarding the general morality of the two opponents.

Aeschines, who had not studied rhetoric and was less educated than Demosthenes, launched a direct attack, accusing the latter of cowardice, immorality, anti-democratic behaviour, and damage to the public good resulting from his political decisions. Demosthenes, on the other hand, defended himself in a sarcastic manner, employing a sophisticated rhetorical style that 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 the right thing to do to be worthy descendants of the Marathon fighters. He suggested that the Athenians decided to resist the Macedonians to preserve justice and freedom for all Greeks. Such deeds should have been recognised and honoured by the state, regardless of the war's outcome.

From a political point of view, although Aeschines represented the winning side in the trial, he did not achieve his final victory over 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 into exile. What Demosthenes and the anti-Macedonian faction failed to achieve at 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 Périclète, translated 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