His natural gifts place him above Lycurgus, though our insight into the latter’s high character gives him a powerful claim to our consideration. Blass ranks him below Hyperides, but a study of the lighter passages in Aeschines leads us to believe that, had he turned his attention to private cases, he might have equalled or surpassed that polished orator on his own chosen ground. The unanimous judgment of ancient and modern times places him far below Demosthenes, who stands apart without a rival; but in one quality, at least, he surpasses the paragon. Demosthenes, according to the opinion of Longinus, is apt to make his hearers laugh not with him but at him;[294] Aeschines never turns the laugh against himself. Aeschines is perhaps less read than he deserves; he has suffered from historical bias, and the prevalent contempt for his qualities as a statesman has led to an undue disregard of his virtues as an orator. There is nothing unfamiliar in this judgment; other orators have suffered in the same way at the hands of prejudiced historians.[295] It is interesting to read the account of Aeschines in Blass’ _Attische Beredsamkeit_; the gifted scholar apparently starts with a strong prejudice against his author, and is almost too ready to insist on his faults; but time after time he is obliged to admit the existence of positive merits, and in the end he seems, almost against his will, to have been forced to modify his judgment; while the care and impartiality with which he has detailed all points, good and bad alike, provides material for a more favourable estimate such as that of Croiset. § 6. _Contents of Speeches_ A short account of the subject-matter of the three speeches may conclude this chapter. 1. _Against Timarchus._ The speech begins (§§ 1-2) with a statement of the prosecutor’s motives; § 3 states the position which he intends to assume—that Timarchus, by breaking the laws, has made the bringing of this action inevitable. Laws relating to the matter are read and fully discussed (§§ 4-36). This preliminary legal statement, apart from the particular case, puts the prosecution on a sounder footing than if the speech had begun at once with the narrative. §§ 37-76. _The first charge_ (immorality). Narrative of the private life of Timarchus, interspersed with evidence and argument as to his political disabilities. §§ 77-93. Examples of disability imposed on other grounds. Precedents for a verdict in accordance with general knowledge even when the evidence is defective. §§ 94-105. _The second charge._ Timarchus is a spendthrift. Narrative and evidence about his prodigality. §§ 106-115. _The third charge._ His corruptness in public life. § 116, recapitulation. §§ 117-176, anticipation of the defence.