¹ The manuscripts' is generally accepted. Some editors have preferred but there is no person previously mentioned to whom it could refer. On the proposal of A. Weidner (Aischines Rede gegen Ktesipho Berlin 1878) to omit the pronoun alto gether 'elect an see below, note 12.

² Schaefer's comment (Demosthenes um seine Zeit, Leipzig 1886, ii. 31) that Demos thenes thus showed ‘was er vermöge zur Wahrung des Friedens thun zu wollen’ is obscure.Google Scholar

³ Cawkwell, G. L., ‘Eubulus’,JHS 83 (1963), 56.Google Scholar

⁴ Thiel, J., Xenophon de vectigalibus (Amsterdam 1922): ‘collegium, opinor, intellegitur quod controversias inter Athenienses aliasque civitates Graecas ortas cornponere studens Bello occurrere conetur.’Google Scholar

⁵ Cawkwell (art. cit., 53) suggests that ‘perhaps the Eubulus group believed that Athens, avoiding the pursuit of imperial aims, could meet any crisis at the head of the Hellenes united under a Common Peace’ but there is no evidence of them trying to promote a Common Peace before 346, whereas they had (presumably) opposed Demosthenes over Megalopolis and Rhodes (Dem. 16 and 15); cf. Ryder, , Koine Eirene (Oxford 1965), 92 ff.Google Scholar

⁶ A. Weidner, op. cit.

⁷ Koine Eirene, 102 ff.

⁸ In the proposed arrangements of Antigonus and Demetrius (302 B.C.) there was a general to be left behind by the kings (SEG i, 1923, 75, col. ii, vv. 13–14).

⁹ Now SEG xxv (1970), 381, vv. 91–4.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Larsen, J.A.O., ‘Representative Government in the Panhellenic Leagues’, Class. Phil. 20 (1925), 322.Google Scholar

¹¹ It is very likely that Athens had more than one. The list at the end of the inscription concerning the Common Peace treaty of 338/7 (Tod, 177), which is generally taken to give the names of states with the numbers of their shows both the Phocians and the Locrians being allowed three (v. 31).

¹² A proposal simply to hold an election, such as Weidner's reading envisages (see above), would not itself be controversial.