392 HISTORY 07 GREKCE. scale, so as to act powerfully on the destinies of the Sicilian i r ,< Whether any internal causes had occurred to make them ajstaii> from intervention during the preceding generations, we are unable to say. The history of this powerful and wealthy city is very lit- tle known. We make out a few facts, which impart a general idea both of her oligarchical government and of her extensive colonial possessions, but which leave us in the dark as to her continuous history. Her possessions were most extensive, along the coast of Africa both eastward and westward from her city ; comprehending also Sardinia and the Balearic isles, but (at this time, probably) few settlements in Spain. She had quite enough to occupy her atten- tion elsewhere, without meddling in Sicilian affairs ; the more so, as her province in Sicily was rather a dependent ally than a colo- nial possession. In the early treaties made with Rome, the Cartha- ginians restrict and even interdict the traffic of the Romans both with Sardinia and Africa (except Carthage itself), but they grant the amplest license of intercourse with the Carthaginian province of Sicily ; which they consider as standing in the same relation to Carthage as the cities of Latium stood in to Rome. 1 While the connection of Carthage with Sicily was thus less close, it would appear that her other dependencies gave her much trouble, chiefly in consequence of her own harsh and extortionate dominion. All our positive information, scanty as it is, about Carthage and her institutions, relates to the fourth, third, or second centuries B. c. , yet it may be held to justify presumptive conclusions as to the fifth 1 Polybius, iii, 22, 23, 24. He gives three separate treaties (either wholly or in part) between the Carthaginians and Romans. The latest of the three belongs to the daya of Pyrrhus, about 278 B. c. ; the earliest to 508 B. c. The intermediate treaty is not marked as to date by any specific evidence, but I see no ground for supposing that it is so late as 345 B. c., which is the date assigned to it by Casaubon, identifying it with the treaty alluded to by Livy, vii, 27. I cannot but think that it is more likely to be of earlier date, somewhere between 480-410 B. c. This second treaty is far more restrictive than the first, against the Romans ; for it interdicts them from all traffic either with Sardinia or Africa, except the city of Carthage itself; the first treaty per- mitted such trade tinder certain limitations and conditions. The second treaty argues a, comparative superiority of Darthage to Rome, which would rather seem to belong *x> the latter half of the fifth century B. c , than to the Intter half of the fourth.
