[14] It has been denied by some writers (e.g. by A. H. J. Greenidge) that Athens interfered with the constitutions of the subject-states. For the view put forward in the text, the following passages may be quoted: Aristotle, Politics 1307 b 20; Isocrates, Panegyricus, 105, 106, Panathenaicus, 54 and 68; Xenophon, Hellenica, iii. 4. 7; Ps.-Xen. Athen. Constit. i. 14, iii. 10.
[15] The evidence seems to indicate that all the more important criminal cases throughout the empire were tried in the Athenian courts. In civil cases Athens secured to the citizens of the subject-states the right of suing Athenian citizens, as well as citizens of other subject-states.
[16] After this date, and partly in consequence of the change, the archonship, to which sortition was applied, loses its importance. The strategi (generals) become the chief executive officials. As election was never replaced by the lot in their case, the change had less practical meaning than might appear at first sight. (See [Archon]; [Strategus].)
[17] For an estimate of the numbers annually engaged in the service of Athens, see Aristot. Ath. Pol. 24. 3.
[18] Foreign is not used here as equivalent to non-Hellenic. It means “belonging to another state, whether Greek or barbarian.”
[19] It failed even to create a united Arcadia or a strong Messenia.
[20] See Demosthenes, On the Crown, 235. Philip was αὐτοκράτωρ, δεσπότης, ἡγεμών, κύριος πάντων.
[21] See Archidamus, 68; Philippus, 96, ὤστε ῥᾷον εἶναι συστῆσαι στρατόπεδον μεῖζον καὶ κρεῖττον ἐκ τῶν πλανωμένων ῆ ἐκ τῶν πολιτευομένων.
[22] The Liturgies (e.g. the trierarchy) had much the same effect as a direct tax levied upon the wealthiest citizens.
[23] His extreme caution in approaching the question at an earlier date is to be noticed. See, e.g., Olynthiacs, i. 19, 20.