Cf. Clinton Fast. Hellen. ii. p. 175. Siebel. ad Philoch. Fragm. p. 3. Bœckh. Publ. Econ. of of Ath. i. 327, falls into an extraordinary error respecting the age of Philochoros, “who was a youth,” he says, “when Eratosthenes was an old man.” This he states on the authority of Suidas. But, as Siebelis has already remarked, in exposing the erroneous imputations of Vossius and Corsini, Suidas was himself mistaken, or his text is corrupt; for Philochoros, to have obtained the important office of Hieroscopos in 306, B.C., must have been then at least twenty years old. Now Eratosthenes was born B.C. 275, Clint. Fast. Hellen. iii. 5, so that it seems he was a youth when Philochoros was an old man. ----- With respect to the number of persons blind, old, sick, maimed, or otherwise disabled, who received maintenance from the state, no exact computation can be made. Bœckh,[291] imagining that Meursius had reckoned them at five hundred, after remarking that the assumption is founded on a false reading in Suidas, accepts the number as the least that can be adopted. But Meursius,[292] in the passage referred to, assumes nothing; he does not even allude to the number at all. And, in fact, it will be evident, at the first glance, that no conjecture can hope to approach the truth where circumstances were constantly varying, adding to, or taking from, the number of those who required relief. This was chiefly affected by the general poverty of the state, which augmented rapidly towards its decline, when the number of the aged and infirm, not possessing three minæ, or twelve pounds sterling, per annum, must, no doubt, have been considerable. On the other hand, having no longer to defend its freedom, which was gone for ever, the children of citizens falling in battle were comparatively few, and, accordingly, the gain on this item went to balance the loss on the other. ----- Footnote 291: Pub. Econ. of Athens, i. 327. Footnote 292: Lect. Att. vi. 5. -----