^{page 1 note 1} Blass, Friedrich, Die attische Beredsamkeit ii (1892), 549, n. 1Google Scholar; Wyse, W., The Speeches of Isaeus (1904), 513Google Scholar; Forster, Edward S., Isaeus (1927), 218Google Scholar; Roussel, Pierre, Isée, Discours (1960), 115.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 2} 21–4. Isaeus uses the word εἰσαγαγεῖν to describe the presentation of the son to the phratry. Commenting on another case, Andrewes, A., J.H.S. lxxxi (1961), 6, n. 20, saysGoogle Scholar, ‘εἰσ⋯γεν is perhaps ambiguous: the verb can be used of effective introduction (as I.G. ii².1237. 18–19), but in itself it means no more than “introduce”, “present”, and I imagine, though the instances are indecisive, that it could be used of the occasion when the meion was sacrificed, when father probably swore an oath (Dem. 57. 54 …) but there was no scrutiny or vote.’ Thus εἰσαγαγεῖν does not help in determining the time of the koureion.

^{page 1 note 3} viii. 107. The koureion was given by the father, the gamelia by the bridegroom. Pollux is not wrong about the wedding feast, pace Busolt-Swoboda, , Griechische Staatskunde (1926), 961, n. 1Google Scholar, and their objection to his date for the koureion is based merely on the accepted date for Timotheus' expedition, On the other hand, in the so-called Demotionid Decrees admission to the phratry shall occur in the year following the sacrifice of the koureion; cf. I.G. ii². 1237, 11. 26–9. Since there is no indication in these decrees that some of the phrateres are too young to participate in the group's affairs, it seems to me that young children cannot possibly be admitted and that we have here support for Pollux's testimony.

^{page 1 note 4} So Schaefer, A., Demosthenes und seine Zeit i (1856), 86, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 5} Cf. I.G. ii². 108.

^{page 2 note 1} This engagement is not otherwise known.

^{page 2 note 2} 29–33; note especially εὐθ⋯ς (31) and ⋯ν π⋯νυ ⋯λ⋯γῳ χρ⋯νῳ (33).

^{page 2 note 3} Wyse, op. cit. 488. The inscription is now I.G. ii². 2825.

^{page 2 note 4} Aeschines claims to be of the same age as Misgolas, who is in his forty-fifth year (i. 49). Since the date of the speech is 346/5 (cf. Blass, op. cit. iii. 2, 192–5), both Aeschines and Misgolas were born in 391/90. On the other hand, Aeschines says (109) that Timarchus served in the boule during the archonship of Nicophemus (361/60), which would mean that he must have been born in 391/90 or earlier. Yet Aeschines claims (49) that Misgolas is considerably older than Timarchus. D. M. Lewis, therefore, suggests that the numeral is corrupt and that Aeschines and Misgolas were perhaps fifty-four, not forty-five (cf. C.R. lxxii [1958], 108), but this seems unlikely in view of the appearance of Misgolas in a manumission document dated c. 330–310 (S.E.G. xviii. 36). Therefore, I propose as an alternative explanation a deliberate alteration in the name of the archon. Aeschines says (56) that Hegesandrus served as ταμ⋯ας with the general Timomachus in a campaign to the Hellespont, which we can date to 361/60 (cf. Dem. 1. 4, 12, and 14). After mentioning Timarchus' membership in the boule during the archonship of Nicophemus he adds (110) that ⋯π⋯ το⋯νυν το⋯ αὐτο⋯ ἄρχοντος, ὅθ' οὗτος ⋯βο⋯λευεν, ταμ⋯ας ἦν τ⋯ν τ⋯ς θεο⋯ Ἡγ⋯σανδρος. I do not believe that a treasurer of Athena would serve as quaestor on a campaign, for the sphere of his activities was probably limited to the acropolis. If so, then Hegesandrus' term in this office cannot have been during the archonship of Nicophemus. I would, therefore, suggest that Aeschines actually named a different archon and that one of the Hellenistic scholars, dating Timomachus' campaign to the year of Nicophemus, equated Hegesandrus' two stewardships and altered the name of the archon in the text of Aeschines to agree with the date of the Hellespontine expedition.

^{page 2 note 5} I.G. ii². 415. For its date cf. Dinsmoor, William Bell, The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age (1931), 16–28.Google Scholar Apart from the appearance here of an anagrapheus, the calendar equation in the inscription indicates that it is later than 341/40; cf. Pritchett, W. K. and Neugebauer, O., The Calendars of Athens (1947). 37.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 6} Hesperia xxxii (1963), 43–44, no. 52Google Scholar, where Callicratides is a partner of Philon of Rhamnus, who was born in 385/4, as we learn from I.G. ii². 1926, 1. 146.

^{page 3 note 1} The famous cavalry-man Dexileos, who was killed in the Corinthian War; cf. I.G. ii². 6217.

^{page 3 note 2} Dem. xl. 52, where he lent money for the funeral of his fellow demesman Mantias, who according to § 3 apparently died eleven years before the case came to trial. Blass, op. cit. iii. 328–9, dates the speech to 351/50 or the following year.

^{page 3 note 3} I.G. ii².2377; scholion on Aeschines i. 64.

^{page 3 note 4} Cf. the commentary on I.G. ii². 1698. The bouleutai include three who served in office in 403/2, ante 378, and in 360/59, one whose brother was a treasurer in 376/5, one whose son was a surety c. 340, and one whose son was born c. 385. In addition the roster includes the presumed nephew of Aristophon of Azenia.

^{page 3 note 5} I.G. ii². 1926, 1. 96.

^{page 3 note 6} I.G. ii². 3092.

^{page 3 note 7} For the Mnesistratus family cf. I.G. ii². 1926, 2825, 3092, and 4402 and Hesperia xix (1950), 212–215, no. 5, 1. 72Google Scholar. For the Diotimus family cf. Lysias xxxi. 16, I.G. ii². 3092 and 5792, Hesperia xix (1950), 236–237, no. 14, 1. 43Google Scholar, and Michel, Charles, Recueil d'inscriptions grecques (1900), no. 832Google Scholar. The man who shared the choregia with Mnesistratus was Diopithes, son of Diodorus, presumably another Acharnian. Now the son of a Diopithes of Acharnae and a certain Nicias of Oe were members of a group which set up a dedication in Euboia c. 325 (I.G. xii. 9. 1242), and a Nicias of Oe together with a Mnesimachus of Acharnae commemorated an offering to Asclepius (I.G. ii². 4402, dated 350–300). So the association of these choregoi and their families was probably maintained, and it would not be surprising if Diopithes and Diodorus were related to the family of Diomnestus, Diotimus, and Diomedon.

^{page 4 note 1} Chaerestratus himself was apparently so young at the time of the trial that he needed a friend to present his case. On the other hand, the ages of Sophocles' great-grandson Iophon, the sculptor Leochares, and the dedicator Euthydomus of Melite (active in 347/6:I.G. ii². 1668) would permit an earlier date although they do not require one.