presidents of the demes (δῆμοι
) in Attica,
are said to have been first appointed by Cleisthenes when he abolished the
] They were probably elected by vote and
not by lot (Schömann, Antiq.
1.368, E. T.; cf.
C. I. A.
2.578). Their duties were various and important.
Thus they convened meetings of the demotae. and took the votes upon all
questions under consideration; they had the custody of the ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον,
or book in which the
members of the deme were enrolled (Dem. c. Eubul.
Schol. Aristoph. Cl. 37
); and they made
and kept a register of the landed estates (χωρία
) in their districts, whether belonging to individuals or
the corporate property of the deme (Schol. l.c.;
Boeckh, P. E.
p. 512 = Sthh.
3 1.596 f.). The existence of this register has been recently doubted
by Lipsius (on Att. Process,
p. 305, n. 308; p. 319, n. 317)
and Fränkel (on Boeckh l.c.,
819); see, however, in support of Boeckh's view, Gilbert
1.195), and especially Thalheim's
rejoinder to Lipsius (Rechtsalterth.
p. 49 n.). Whether we
are to [p. 1.612]
Scholiast matters less than Boeckh thought, as there is sufficient evidence
that both “lands” and “debts” came within the
purview of the demarchs. They undoubtedly collected rents and other monies,
both sacred and profane, on behalf of the deme (Boeckh, P. E.
p. 305 = Sthh.
3 1.374 f.); rents of
temple lands (μισθώδεις τεμενῶν,
p. 1318.63); the ἐγκτητικὸν
or tax paid by the holders of land in a deme
other than their own (C. I. A.
); and in their
financial capacity were assisted by two ταμίαι
(C. I. A.
2.570, 579, 585), or sometimes
by one ταμίας
only, as at Eleusis
(C. I. A.
2.574). In this capacity they had the power of
], to which
allusion is made by Aristophanes (Aristoph. Cl.
) and in several passages of the grammarians (Harpocrat.,
s. v. ; Lex. Rhet.
p. 199, 4). That the sphere of their
activity extended beyond their own deme, and that they were employed for
various debts and dues claimed by the state, as Boeckh, though with some
hesitation, is inclined to think (P. E.
p. 157 =
3 1.192), is at least not
proved. The one inscription, “a perhaps obscure example,” as
Boeckh admits (ἐκπραττόντων δὲ οἱ δήμαρ[χοι],
C. I. G.
80 =C. I. A.
1.79), more probably
refers, like those already cited, to their power of exaction within their
own deme; and the words of the decree against Antiphon (τῷ δὲ δημάρχῳ ἀποφῆναί τε οἰκίαν,
[Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.
p. 834 A, a
mutilated passage) point rather to a single locality.
In the duties which have been enumerated they supplanted the naucrari
) of the old constitution; and they added others to
them. As local police magistrates they could impose a fine (ἐπιβολὴν ἐπιβάλλειν
) for disobedience to a
decree of the demotae, e. g. for entering the Thesmophorion without leave of
the priestess (C. I. A.
2.573 b); they were required to bury,
or cause to be buried, any dead bodies found in their district, indemnifying
themselves by levying double the expense on the relations of the deceased,
if their order to bury were disobeyed: for neglect of this duty they were
liable to a fine of 1000 drachmas (Lex ap. Dem. c. Macart.
1069.58). They distributed the theoric fund [THEORICA] among their demotae (Dem. c. Leochar.
1091.37; C. I. A.
2.163; Plaut. Aulul.
29; Fränkel, n. 410); and conducted those honoured with προεδρία
to their places in the theatre
(C. I. A.
2.589). The case of their assisting to prepare
or list for military service
seems to have been exceptional: on an emergency the βουλευταὶ
ordered by a psephisma to furnish lists of those able to serve (Dem.
p. 1208.6). (Pollux, 8.118; Hermaun,
§ 111; Schömann,
p. 376 ff.; Thalheim,
pp. 49, 115; and especially Gilbert,
p. 194 f., who gives the fullest
references to inscriptions.)
was also the name given by Greek
writers to the Roman tribunes of the plebs (Dionys. A. R. 6.89
; Plut. Cor. 7