98 ARZSTOTLE’S PoLITrcs.
But it is not certain that they can be identified. According to
Livy and Justin the ordo judicum consisted of 100. ‘Centum
ex numero senatorurn judices deliguntur.’ Justin xix. 2. (Cp. Livy
xxxiii. 46.) They were appointed about the year B.C. 450, to
counteract the house of Mago, and are spoken of as a new in-
stitution. These facts rather lead to the inference that the 100
are not the same with the magistracy of 104, which was probably
more ancient. But in our almost entire ignorance of early
Carthaginian history the question becomes unimportant.
- Kai ri) T~S %as hb riiv cfpxtiov 6txd&uBar sciuas [cipimo~par~du], mi
pi WXar 6n’ aXhou, Kaednfp h AaKsBaipouc.
Either I) rtaddnrp iu AaKt6aipovi refers to the immediately pre-
ceding clause, p+ JMar h’ WXov:-or 2), to the words &as hid
T&U +;pxciov BdZfuBat ndvas, in which case *ai... ~IXXOV must be
taken as an explanatory parenthesis.
According to the first view, Aristotle is opposing Carthage and
Lacedaemon. In Carthage all cases are tried by the same board
or college of magistrates (or by the magistrates collectively),
Ivhereas in Lacedaemon some magistrates try one case and some
another. The former is the more aristocratical, the second the
more oligarchical mode of proceeding : the regular skilled tribunal
at Carthage is contrasted with the casual judgments of individuals
at Lacedaemon. The difficulty in this way of taking the passage
is that we should expect 6ab r&u aCr&u cipxfiov, unless the words Kal
p+ 8Mas im‘ WXov be regarded as suggesting aCr&v by antithesis.
According to the second view, Aristotle, as in iii. 1. $ IO, is
comparing the general points of resemblance in Carthage and
Lacedaemon. ‘ Both at Carthage and Lacedaemon cases are tried
by regular boards of magistrates, and not by different persons,
some by one and some by another.’ The difference between the
professional judges of the Carthaginians and the casual magistrates
of the Spartans is noted in iii. 1. $ IO, but here passed over in
silence. The Carthaginian and Lacedaemonian arrangements
may thus be considered as both aristocratic and oligarchic,-
aristocratic because limiting judicial functions to regular magis-
trates; oligarchic, because confining them to a few, They are
