From these circumstances we may learn, that the Athenian government was by no means penurious in its appropriation of those funds which the contributions of the wealthier citizens placed at its disposal. On the amount of the daily allowance writers are not agreed, some pretending it was three oboli, others two, and others an obolos. The truth, probably, is, that, originally, it exceeded not a single obolos, but that, as prices augmented, or, rather, as the coin deteriorated in value, it was found necessary to double the amount.[285] Whether it was ever raised to three oboli seems doubtful; the affirmation of the Scholiast on Æschines[286] may be a mistake; but the mere fact that this was the pay of the dicasts is no reason at all for calling the testimony of the grammarian in question.[287] Be this, however, as it may, in the time of Lysias,[288] one obolos only was bestowed, and Bœckh has attempted, with much ingenuity, to determine the date of the increased allowance. It had not taken place, according to Harpocration, in the time of Aristotle; but Philochoros, the next writer who touches on the subject, observes, that it was nine drachmæ a month, or fifty-four oboli,[289] which, omitting the fractions, is equal to two oboli a day. The year in which Aristotle composed his treatise on the Athenian government is not exactly known; it was probably, however, after his return from Macedon, 334 B.C. Philochoros was Hieroscopos at Athens in the year of Corœbos, 306 B.C. He did not, however, publish his Atthis till about the year 260 B.C., at which time the poor allowance had been raised to two oboli. The date of the increase, therefore, falls somewhere within the preceding seventy years.[290] ----- Footnote 285: That this allowance was not very scanty may be inferred from the fact, that when the people of Trœzen publicly received the wives and parents of the Athenians on their retreat from the city during the Persian invasion, they allowed each individual only two oboli a day. Plut. Themist. § 10. Footnote 286: Ap. Taylor ad Lys. Orat. Att. t. ii. p. 537. Dobs. Footnote 287: Bœckh’s over-acuteness has, probably, misled him on this point. i. 325. Footnote 288: Pro Impot. §§ 4. 8. Footnote 289: Philoch. Fragm. p. 44, seq. with the notes of Lenz and Siebelis. Conf. Harpocrat. v. ἀδύνατ. cum not. Gronov. et Vales. Petit, Legg. Att. 558, seq. Footnote 290: