nown to have furnished three thousand hoplites. The theory is
fundamentally at fault, inasmuch as it regards the deme as consisting of
all those _resident within its borders_. In point of fact membership was
hereditary, not residential; Demosthenes "of the Paeanian deme" might
live where he would without severing his deme connexion. Thus the
increase of population could be no reason for creating new demes. This
distinction in a deme between demesmen and residents belonging to
another deme (the [Greek: egkektemenoi]), who paid a deme-tax for their
privilege, is an important one. It should further be noted that the
demes belonging to a particular tribe do not, as a fact, appear always
in three separate groups; the tribe Aeantis consisted of Phalerum and
eleven demes in the district of Marathon; other tribes had demes in five
or six groups. It must, therefore, be admitted that the problem is
insoluble for want of data. Nor are we better equipped to settle the
relation between the Cleisthenean division into Urban, Maritime and
Inland, and the old divisions of the Plain, the Shore and the Upland or
Hill. The "Maritime" of Cleisthenes and the old "Shore" are certainly
not coincident, nor is the "Inland" identical with the "Upland."

Lastly, it has been asked whether we are to believe that Cleisthenes
invented the demes. To this the answer is in the negative. The demes
were undoubtedly primitive divisions of Attica; Herodotus (ix. 73)
speaks of the Dioscuri as ravaging the demes of Decelea (see R.W. Macan
_ad loc._) and we hear of opposition between the city and the demes. The
most logical conclusion perhaps is that Cleisthenes, while he _did_
create the demes which Athens itself comprised, did not create the
country demes, but merely gave them definition as political divisions.
Thus the city itself had six demes in five different tribes, and the
other five tribes were represented in the suburbs and the Peiraeus. It
is clear that in the Cleisthenean system there was one great source of
danger, namely that the residents in and about Athens must always have
had more weight in elections than those in distant demes. There can be
little doubt that the preponderating influence of the city was
responsible for the unwisdom of the later imperial policy and the
Peloponnesian war.

The diapsephismus.

A second problem is the franchise reform of Cleisthenes. Aristotle in
the _Politics_ (iii. 2. 3 = 1275 b) says that Cleisthenes crea