which was unsupported by the proper proportion of wealth, as so much lost to the Carthaginians; and he lays down that maxim in their government, as the real cause of that undue respect for wealth, and that lust of gain, which prevailed so much in that republick. But the sentiments of this philosopher, like those of his master Plato, are, I fear, too ideal to be reduced to practice. For he does not seem to attend to the different genius of different nations, but aims at adjusting the balance of power in his republick by the nice standard of philosophick theory. The genius of nations differs perhaps as much as their climate and situation, which seem (at least in some degree) to be the natural cause of that difference. The republicks of Sparta and Rome were both military, and military glory stamped the primary character of both these people. The republick of Carthage, like that of their ancestors, the Tyrians, was commercial. Hence the lust of gain marked their ruling character. Their military character arose from the necessity of defending that wealth which their commerce had acquired. Hence military glory was but a secondary passion, and generally subservient to their lust of gain. Unless we attend to the different ruling passion, which forms the different character of each republick, we shall never be able to make such a comparison as will do equal justice to each people. At Sparta and Rome wealth was despised, when put in competition with honour, and poverty joined with merit formed the most estimable of all characters. Quite different maxims prevailed at Carthage. Wealth with them was the chief support of merit, and nothing was so contemptible as poverty. Hence the Carthaginians, who were well acquainted with the power and influence of wealth, required the additional qualifications of an ample fortune in all candidates for the senatorial dignity, and publick employments. For they judged that such men would be less exposed to the temptations of corruption, and at the same time more anxious for the welfare of a state, in which they were so deeply interested by their private property. That this was the real state of the case, at Carthage, notwithstanding the suggestions of Aristotle and the Greek and Roman historians, may, I think, be fairly proved from the behaviour of their senate and the choice of their officers, which ought certainly to be admitted as the best evidence. For we constantly find all their publick employments filled up with men of the greatest families, and (unless when the intrigues of faction sometimes prevailed) of the greatest abilities. We find in general the same firm and steady attachment to the service of their country, and the same indefatigable zeal for extending the territories and power of their republick. Nor does the most partial historian charge any one of them with sacrificing the honour and interest of his country to any foreign power for money: a practice which was shamefully common amongst the