that it was Aeschines, not Crito, who advised Socrates in the prison about making his escape,? but that Plato put the words into the mouth of Crito because Aeschines was more attached to Aristippus than to himself. It was said maliciously—by Menedemus of Eretria in particular—that most of the dialogues which Aeschines passed off as his own were really dialogues of Socrates obtained by him from Kanthippe. Those of them which are said to have no beginning (aKedador) are very slovenly and show none of the vigour of Socrates ; Pisistratus of Ephesus even denied that they were written by Aeschines. Persaeus indeed attributes the majority of the seven to Pasiphon of the school of Eretria, who inserted them among the dialogues of Aeschines. Moreover, Aeschines made use of the Little Cyrus, the Lesser Heracles and the Alcibiades of Antisthenes as well as dialogues by other authors. However that may be, of the writings of Aeschines those stamped with a Socratic character are seven, namely Multiades, which for that reason is somewhat weak; then Calhas, Axiochus, Aspasia, Alcibiades, Telauges, and Rhinon. They say that want drove him to Sicily to the court of Dionysius, and that Plato took no notice of him, but he was introduced to Dionysius by Aristippus, and on presenting certain dialogues received gifts from him. Afterwards on his return to Athens he did not venture to lecture owing to the popularity of Plato and Aristippus. But he took fees from pupils, and subsequently composed forensic speeches for aggrieved clients. This is the point of Timon’s reference to him as “ the might of Aeschines, that not unconvincing writer.’ They say that Socrates,