| cules. Beyond these limits she held possession of Sardinia, Corsica (at least in part), the W. part of Sicily, and all the islands of the W. Mediterranean; and her colonies extended along the Mediterranean coasts of Iberia and Liguria, and beyond the Pillars far towards the Equator on the one side, and the Arctic regions on the other. Towards her mother city she continued to acknowledge the filial duties of a colony: with her nearest neighbour, Cyrene, she had settled a disputed boundary line: she had met the Greeks in a sea-fight off Corcyra; and had retired from a brief struggle with them in Sicily, which she was about to renew, after an interval of 70 years spent in improving her resources; she had avoided the double dangers of Persian alliance and resentment, and had seen the naval force of her most formidable rival for the empire of the seas destroyed in the Syracusan expedition: in the Tyrrhenian seas she had protected her own commerce by treaties with the Italian states, one of which laid the foundation of an intercourse destined to end in her destruction.
To complete the review of this first period of her history, it is necessary to turn to her internal condition and resources. On this subject, as well as in the preceding account of her empire, it is well to bear in mind the remark of Grote, that all "our positive information, scanty as it is, about Carthage and her institutions, relates to the fourth, third, and second centuries B.C.; yet it may be held to justify presumptive conclusions as to the fifth century B.C., especially in reference to the general system pursued." (Hist. of Greece, vol. x. p. 542.)
11. Political Constitution. — Our information on this subject is of the most tantalizing kind; just enough to show us how interesting is the problem, which we have no sufficient materials to solve. The brief account of Aristotle, and the incidental notices of Polybius (especially vi. 51, et seq.), and other writers, are very elaborately discussed by Heeren (African Nations, vol. i. chap.3), and Kluge (Aristoteles de Politia Carthaginiensium, Wratisl. 1824); whose dissertations the inquirer should study, with Grote's caution that "their materials do not enable them to reach any certainty." As a summary of the subject, it would be fruitless to attempt to improve on the condensed account of Grote (vol. x. pp. 548, foll.): — "Respecting the political constitution of Carthage, the facts known are too few, and too indistinct, to enable us to comprehend its real working. The magistrates most conspicuous in rank and precedence were, the two Kings or Suffetes, who presided over the Senate. There were in like manner two Suffetes in Gades, and each of the other Phoenician colonies (Liv. xxviii. 37)." The name of these Suffetes is probably identical with the Hebrew Shofetim i. e. Judges, "They seem to have been renewed annually, though how far the same persons were re-eligible or actually re-chosen, we do not know; but they were always selected out of some few principal families or Gentes. There is reason for believing that the genuine Carthaginian citizens were distributed into three tribes, thirty curiae, and three hundred gentes, — something in the manner of the Roman patricians. From these gentes emanated a Senate of three hundred, out of which again was formed a smaller council or committee of thirty principes representing the curiae (Mövers, die Phōnizier, vol. ii. pt 1. pp. 483-499); sometimes a still smaller of only ten principes. These little councils are both frequently mentioned in the political proceedings of Carthage; and perhaps the | Thirty may coincide with what Polybius calls the Gerusia or Council of Ancients, — the Three Hundred, with that which he calls the Senate. (Polyb. x. 18; Liv. xxx. 16.) Aristotle assimilates the two Kings (Suffetes) of Carthage to the two Kings of Sparta, and the Gerusia of Carthage also to that of Sparta (Pol. ii. 8. § 2); which latter consisted of thirty members, including the Kings, who sat in it. But Aristotle does not allude to any assembly at Carthage analogous to what Polybius calls the Senate. He mentions two councils, one of one hundred members, the other of one hundred and four (comp. Niebuhr, vol. i. p. 85); and certain Boards of Five — the Pentarchies. He compares the Council of one hundred and four to the Spartan Ephors; yet again, he talks of the Pentarchies as invested with extensive functions, and terms the Council of one hundred the greatest authority in the state. Perhaps this last Council was identical with the assembly of one hundred Judges (said to have been chosen from the Senate as a check upon the generals employed), or Ordo Judicum; of which Livy speaks after the second Punic war, as existing with its members perpetual, and so powerful that it overruled all the other assemblies and magistracies of the state. Through the influence of Hannibal, a law was passed to lessen the overweening power of this Order of Judges; causing them to be elected only for one year, instead of being perpetual.(Liv. xxxiii. 46; Justin, xix. 2, mentions the 100 select Senators set apart as judges.)
"These statements, though coming from valuable authors, convey so little information, and are withal so difficult to reconcile, that both the structure and working of the political machine at Carthage may be said to be unknown. But it seems clear that the general spirit of the government was highly oligarchical; that a few rich, old, and powerful families divided among themselves the great offices and influence of the state; that they maintained themselves in pointed and even insolent distinction from the multitude (Val. Max. ix. 5. § 4); that they stood opposed to each other in bitter fends, often stained by gross perfidy and bloodshed; and that the treatment with which, through these violent party antipathies, unsuccessful generals were visited, was cruel in the extreme. (Diod. xx. 10, xxiii. 9; Val. Max. ii. 7. § 1.) It appears that wealth was one indispensable qualification, and that magistrates and generals procured their appointments in a great measure by corrupt means. Of such corruption, one variety was, the habit of constantly regaling the citizens in collective banquets of the curiae, or the political associations; a habit so continual, and embracing so wide a circle of citizens, that Aristotle compares these banquets to the Phiditia, or public mess of Sparta. (Pol. iii. 5. § 6.) There was a Demos or people at Carthage, who were consulted on particular occasions, and before whom propositions were publicly debated, in cases where the Suffetes and the small Council were not all of one mind. (Aristot. Pol. ii. 8. § 3.) How numerous this Demos was, or what proportion of the whole population it comprised, we have no means of knowing. But it is plain that, whether more or less considerable, its multitude was kept under dependence to the rich families by stratagems such as the banquets, the lucrative appointments, with lots of land in foreign dependencies, &c. The purposes of government were determined, its powers |
