Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 2 (of 3)Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
History
Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 2 (of 3)
Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
Rome -- History
As to the constitution of Carthage, we are utterly in the dark. What
has been written on it, is but insignificant; nor have my researches
led me to any important results. They had, according to Aristotle,
a δῆμος, that is to say, a mixed commonalty which had come together
(συνήλυδες) of colonial citizens and Libyans (Amazirgh, Schilha’s,
Maxyes, Massesyles). The Libyans, in their whole physical constitution,
do not in the least differ from the nations of Southern Europe; and
thus likewise ancient Egypt, before it was conquered by the Æthiopians,
had a white population: the whole of the Mediterranean therefore was
inhabited around by whites. These Libyans could very easily have
amalgamated with the _Pœni_ in a δῆμος, even as at Rome the plebeians
did with the patricians; yet there would be this distinction, that
these last were of the same stock, whereas the Libyans and the _Pœni_
were altogether different, and particularly so in their language. The
relation between the Libyans and the _Pœni_ is analogous to that of
the Lettish and Lithuanian tribes to the German settlers, or of the
Slavonic population near Lübeck and the Germans, the former of whom
also became completely Germanized. We know moreover that Carthage had
a senate; this is still the governing body in the first Punic war.
According to Aristotle, the δῆμος at Carthage had but little to say,
not much more than at Sparta, where only those who were in authority
might speak in the assembly, and not the people, who were merely to
assent or to reject; at Carthage, any one of the people was at least
free to stand up and make a speech. Those whom Aristotle calls the
βασιλεῖς, even the Suffetes or _Schofetim_, were no doubt in earlier
times the commanders of the army likewise: afterwards, when the civil
and military power were jealously kept distinct, their office was
merely an administrative one. We also find that there was a powerful
corporation called the Hundred, which cannot but be the same as the
Hundred and Four in Aristotle: these I have long ago referred to
the fifty weeks of the year. Moreover, he speaks of another kind of
magistracy, of which we merely know that it was a πενταρχία (if the
reading be correct, as the text of Aristotle’s Politics is derived from
a single Parisian MS. of the fourteenth century), and that its members
were chosen by the Hundred and Four. Of what nature it was, we do not
know.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account