OLIGARCHICAL SYSTEM. 399 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. 1 Bat 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 ; 2 that they stood opposed to each other in bitter feuds, 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. 3 It appears that wealth was one indispensable qualification, and that magistrates and generals procured ther appointments in a great measure by corrupt means. Of such corruption, one variety was, the habit of constantly regal- ing the citizens in collective banquets of the curice or the political associations ; a habit so continual, and embracing so wide n circle of citizens, that Aristotle compares these banquets to the phiditia or public mess of Sparta. 4 There was a demos or people at Car- thage, 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. 5 How numerous 1 Heeren (Ideen iiber den Verkehr der Alten Welt, part ii, p. 138, 3rd edit.) and Kluge (in his Dissertation, Aristoteles do Politi& Carthaginien- sium, Wratisl. 1824) have discussed all these passages with ability. But their materials do not enable them to reach any certainty. 2 Valerius Max. ix, 5, 4. " Insolentiae inter Carthaginiensem et Campa num senatum quasi semulatio fuit. Ille enim separate a plebe balneo lava batur, hie diverso foro utebatur." 3 Diodor. xx, 10 ; xxiii, 9 ; Valer. Max. ii, 7, 1. 4 Aristotel Politic, iii, 5, 6. These banquets must have been settled, daily proceedings, as well aa multitudinous, in order to furnish even apparent warrant for the compari son which Aristotle makes with the Spartan public mess. But even grant ing the analogy on these external points, the intrinsic difference of character and purpose between the two must have been so great, that the comparison seems not happy. Livy (xxxiv, 61) talks of the circuli et convivia at Carthage; but this is probably a general expression, withort particular reference to the public banquets mentioned by Aristotle. 6 Aristotel. Polit. ii 8. 3.
