coast juts out into the very centre of the Mediter-united a colony to her metropolis appears to have ranean, and approaches nearest to the opposite coast of Sicily; between the old Phoenician colonies of UTICA and TUNIS (Polyb. i. 73), and in sight of both; stood the successive Punic, Roman, Vandal, and Byzantine cities, which have borne the renowned name of CARTHAGE; but not all of them within the same limits. The details of the topography are much disputed; and their discussion will be best postponed to the end of this article. Meanwhile the position of the peninsula, and its relation to the surrounding sites will be seen from the subjoined map, which gives an outline of the whole region known under the Romans as ZEU

GITANA.

been carefully observed on both sides. For we find the Tyrians refusing to follow Cambyses when he meditated to attack Carthage by a naval expedition (B.c. 523), and appealing to the mighty oaths by which their paternal relation to her was sanctified. (Herod. iii. 17-19.) On the other hand, in the second commercial treaty with Rome, B. C. 348, the parties to the treaty are "the Carthaginians, Tyrians, Uticeans, and their allies." (Polyb. iii. 24: where the idea that either Tysdrus or some unknown Tyrus in Africa is intended is merely an arbitrary evasion of an imaginary difficulty.) Again, we find the Tyrians, when attacked by Alexander, turning their eyes naturally towards Carthage, first as a source of aid, and afterwards as a place of refuge, whither the women and children and old men were actually sent. (Diod. xvii. 40, 41, 46; Q. Curt. iv. 2.) The religious supremacy of the mother city was acknowledged by an annual offering to the temple of Hercules at Tyre of a tithe of all the revenues of Carthage, as well as of the booty obtained in war (Justin. xviii. 7); a custom, it is true, omitted in the period of prosperity, but at once resorted to again under the pressure of calamities, which were ascribed to the anger of the neglected deity. (Diod. xx. 14.)

2. First steps towards Supremacy.-At what time, and from what causes, Carthage began to obtain her decided pre-eminence over the other Phoenician colonies, is a point on which we have no ade. quate information. Much must doubtless be ascribed to her site, which, we may assume, was discovered to be better than those even of Utica and Tunes; and something to the youthful enterprise which natu. rally distinguished her as the latest colony of Tyre. The conquests of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings in Phoenicia, and their repeated attacks on Tyre [TYRUS], would naturally drive many of the inha

V. HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES. - The history of Carthage is so interwoven with the general course of ancient history, especially in the parts relating to its wars with the Greeks of Sicily and with the Romans, that it would be alike impracticable and superfluous to narrate it here with any approach to fulness. We can only attempt a brief sketch, to be filled up by the reader from the well-known histories of Greece and Rome. The great work of composing a special history of Carthage, worthy of the present state of ancient scholarship, remains to be performed by some one who may superadd to a perfect knowledge of Greek and Roman history a thorough acquaintance with the language and antiquities of the Semitic races, and a vast power of critical research. The History of Carthage is usually divided into three periods:-the first extending from the foundation of the city to the beginning of the wars with Syracuse, in B. C. 480, and ending with the defeat of the Carthaginians by the Greeks under Gelon at Himera (but see just below); the second from this epoch to the breaking out of the wars with Rome, B. C. 480-265; the third is occupied with the Roman, or (as they are usually called, from the Roman point of view) the Punic Wars,bitants of the old country to seek a new abode in the and ends with the destruction of the city in B. C. 146. It seems a far better arrangement to extend the first period down to B. c. 410, when the Carthaginians resumed those enterprises in Sicily to which the battle of Himera had given a complete check; and thus to include in one view the great development of their power. The second period will then be devoted almost entirely to her struggle with the Greeks, during which her empire was not materially increased, and her decline can hardly be said to have begun. The third period is that of her "Decline and Fall." To these must be added the history of the restored city under the Romans, the Vandals, and the Byzantine rule, down to the Mohammedan conquest, and the destruction of the city by the Arabs in A.D. 698. In round numbers, and allowing for the uncertainty of the date of the original founda-period, acknowledging, in some sense, the supremacy tion, the histories of the two cities fill the respective spaces of 750 and 850 years.

i. First Period.- Extension of the Carthaginian Empire. 9th century-410 B. C.— - The first period is by far the most interesting, but unfortunately the most obscure, from the want of native authorities. It embraces the important questions of the Internal Constitution and Resources of the State, its Commerce, Colonies, and Conquests, and its Relations to the surrounding Native Tribes, to the older Phoenician Colonies, and to its own Mother City.

1. Relations to the Mother City. - With respect to Tyre, Carthage seems to have been almost from its foundation independent; but the sacred bond which

colonies, and especially in the most recent, the strength of which would, at the same time, receive a new development from the diminished power of the metropolis; and, as the Greek maritime states obtained much of the lost commerce of Tyre in the Levant, so would Carthage in the West. But the want of historical records prevents our tracing the steps of this transference of

power.

3. Relations to the older Phoenician Colonies. A like obscurity surrounds the relations of Carthage to the older Phoenician colonies of N. Africa, such as UTICA, TUNES, HIPPO, LEPTIS (the Greater and the Less), HADRUMETUM, and others; all of which appear to have been at an early period, like Carthage herself, practically independent of the mother country; and all of which are found, in the historical

The

of Carthage. But that supremacy was not an absolute dominion, but rather the headship of a con. federacy, in which the leading state exercised an undefined, but not always undisputed, controul over the other members, whose existence as independent states seems always to have been recognised, however much their rights may have been invaded. treaties with Rome, already referred to, mention the allies of Carthage, by which we can hardly be wrong in understanding these cities, which therefore were not subjects. In the case of Utica especially, it is remarkable that her name is not mentioned in the first treaty; but in the second, she appears on an equality with Carthage, as one of the contracting

powers; which obviously suggests that, in the interval, changes had been effected in the position of the allies towards Carthage, which Utica alone had successfully resisted. It seems, in fact, that all these cities, except Utica, had been rendered tributary to Carthage, though preserving their municipal organization. Leptis Parva, for example, paid the enormous assessment of a talent a day, or 365 talents every year. (Liv. xxxiv. 62.) The period during which the change took place must have been that which followed the battle of Himera, when, induced by that defeat to abandon for a time her projects of further conquests in Sicily, she turned her attention to the consolidation of her power at home. As for Utica, to the very latest period of the existence of Carthage, she retained her separate political existence, in such a manner as to be able to side with Rome against Carthage, and to take her place as the capital of the new Roman province of Africa.

The temper in which Carthage used her supremacy over these allies is one of those points in her history on which we need the guidance of more impartial authorities than we possess. The Greek and Roman writers accuse her of arrogance and oppression; and we can easily believe that she pursued the selfish policy of a commercial aristocracy. In the hour of danger from the revolts of her African subjects, some of the chief Phoenician cities refused to abandon her; but their support may have been prompted by the motive of common safety. They were faithful to her cause in the Second Punic War, but in the Third most of them deserted her. Their fidelity in the former case is more to the credit of her rule than their ultimate defection is against it; for her cause in the final struggle was so hopeless, that self-interest is a sufficient motive for the course they pursued in abandoning her. But, even then, examples of fidelity were by no means wanting; and while the rewards obtained by Utica attest the selfish motives of her defection, the severe penalties inflicted on the allies of Carthage show that her deepest danger had called forth proofs of attachment to her, which indicate better antecedents than mere oppression on the one side, and resentment on the other.

But however exaggerated the statements of her enemies may be, and however little their own conduct gave them the right to become accusers; to deny that they contain much truth would not only be contrary to the laws of evidence, but inconsistent with all we know of the maxims of government pursued by even the best of ancient states. The chief difficulty is to distinguish, in such statements, what refers to her Phoenician allies, and to her African subjects: the strongly condemnatory evidence of Polybius, for example, applies primarily to her treatment of the latter; though the former may possibly be included under the denomination of raîs móλeσi. (Polyb. i. 72.) On the whole, we may suppose that the case of Leptis gives a fair example of that of the Phoenician allies; and that the chief hardship they endured was the exaction of a heavy tribute, which their commerce enabled them, however reluctantly, to pay. 4. Relations to the Peoples of Africa. With respect to the native tribes, we must carefully observe the distinction, which is made both by Herodotus and Polybius, between those who had fixed abodes and who practised agriculture, and those who were still in the nomad state. This distinction is confirmed by the curious tradition already mentioned as pre

served by Sallust (Jugurth. 18); but it is probably to be accounted for, not by referring the two peoples to a different origin, but by a regard to the different circumstances of those who roamed over the scattered oases of the desert and semi-desert regions, and those who inhabited the fertile districts in the valley of the Bagradas and the terraces above the N. coast. (Comp. AFRICA and ATLAS.) Herodotus distinctly assigns the river Triton, at the bottom of the Lesser Syrtis, as the boundary between the Libyans who were nomads, and those who had fixed abodes and tilled the land; the former extending from the confines of Egypt to the Lesser Syrtis, the latter dwelling in the districts afterwards known as Byzaciam and Zeugitana, a portion of which districts formed the original territory of Carthage. All these tribes are included by Herodotus under the general name of Libyans; the several peoples, whether nomad or agricultural, being called by their specific names, such as AUSENSES, MAXYES, ZAUECES, GYZANTES, &c. The distinction runs through the whole Carthaginian history, although different names are used to mark it. Polybius applies the name of Libyans to the immediate subjects of the Carthaginians and inhabitants of the original Carthaginian territory ; while he designates the free people of Africa, whe served in their armies as mercenaries, by the collec tive name derived from their mode of life, Nomads or Numidians; still calling each tribe by its proper name. That he does not, like Herodotus, distinguish those also whom he calls Libyans in general by the specific names of their tribes, may be taken as a proof that their very names had been lost in their complete subjection to Carthage. The new position taken up by certain of these nomad tribes, under Ma sinissa and other chieftains, in the later period of the Punic Wars, gave a territorial senise to the Numidian name; but the primary distinction, which we have here to observe, was between the comparatively civilized tribes of Zeugitana and Byzacium, with fixed abodes and agricultural pursuits, whom Polybius calls Libyans, and the Nomad tribes who surrounded them on the E., the S., and the W.

a. The Libyans. With the former the Carthaginians were of course brought into contact from their first settlement on the tongue of land, for which tradition assures us they paid a tribute to the Libyans even down to the time of Darius the son of Hystaspes (Justin xviii. 5). But such a relation could no more be permanent than the treaties of white men with American Indians. As they increased in strength, the Carthaginians not only ceased to pay the tribute, but reduced the Libyans to entire subjection. The former lords of the country, driven back from the coast and pent up in the interior, tilled the soil for the profit of their new masters, whether as tenants or still as nominal owners we know not, nor does it matter, for all that they might call their own was held at the mere pleasure of the sovereign state. They were subject to the caprice of Carthaginian officers, and to any exaction of money and men which the exigencies of Carthage might seem to demand. Their youth formed the only regular army (as distinguished from mercensries) which Carthage possessed; and, as a specimen of their taxation, they were made, in the first Punic War, to contribute fifty per cent. on the produce of their land, while those of them who inhabited the cities had to pay twice their former amount of tribute. No respite or remission was given to the poor, but their persons were seized in default of payment. Their

5. Colonies of Carthage in Africa. It is evident that the rule of Carthage over the settled Libyans, and her influence over the Nomads, would have been confined within the limits of her immediate neighThe region occupied by the people thus described, bourhood, but for the system of colonization, which and entirely subject to Carthage, never extended gave her at least the appearance of imperial authofurther than the lake of Triton on the S., nor than rity over the whole N. coast of Africa, W. of CyreHippo Regius (if so far) on the W.; and this dis- naica. The original purpose of her colonies, as of trict may therefore be considered as the territory of every other part of her proceedings, was commercial; Carthage, properly so called, the Teplokis of the and accordingly, with the exception of those already city, as a Greek would say. It included at first the referred to as established in her immediate territory

and they supplied the greater part of the corn required for the consumption of the city.

7. Earliest Foreign Conquests. Like every other great commercial state, both in ancient and modern times, Carthage found that her maritime enterprise led her on, by an inevitable chain of circumstances, to engage in foreign conquests; for effecting which she possessed remarkable opportunities. Surrounded by coasts and islands, which afforded an ample scope for her ambition; supplied with armies from her Libyan subjects and nomad mercenaries, she had likewise the advantage of that systematic traditional policy, which is always fullowed by governments composed of a few noble families, and in which the very steadfastness with which the end is kept in view is a motive for mode

the western seas for the purposes of her commerce; and to it the means employed were admirably adapted.

for her poor citizens, they were all on or near the coast. The most important of them were those on the E. coast of Byzacium, and along the shores from the Lesser to the Greater Syrtis, which were called pre-eminently the EMPORIA (Tà 'Europeîa or 'EuTópia, Polyb. i. 82, iii. 23; Appian, Pun. 72; Liv. xxxiv. 62), and which were so numerous as to give the Carthaginians complete commercial possession of the region of the Syrtes, the proper territorial possession of which was comparatively worthless from the physical character of the region. The colonies "on the W. portion of the coast, known as the Urbes METAGONITAE (ai Meтaywvîтαι Tóλeis), were more thinly scattered: their number and positions are noticed under MAURETANIA and NUMIDIA. Besides their commercial importance, these colonies formed so many points of command, in a greater or less de-ration in its pursuit. The end was the dominion of gree according to their strength or skill, over the nomad tribes; they contributed regularly to the revenue of the mother city, and bore the chief expense of her wars. They contributed 4000 men to the armies of the republic; but, on the other hand, they often needed aid from the mother city in their contests with the neighbouring barbarians. Many of the cities on this coast were colonies, not of Carthage, but of Phoenicia, and their submission to Carthage seems never to have been with much good will. None of them seem to have had a territory of any considerable extent. The colonies in the neighbourhood of Carthage were in stricter subjection to her, as is denoted by the application of them of the significant Greek term repioikides, the colonies in general being called ai móλeis: they were kept unfortified, and hence fell an easy prey to the invader: Regulus and Agathocles, for example, whose operations did not extend beyond Zeugitana, are said each to have taken about 200 of them; and a single district, that on the Tusca, is mentioned as containing 50 towns. (Diod. xx. 17; Appian, Pun. 3, 68.)

6. Extent of the Carthaginian Empire in Africa. -Thus, at a period little subsequent to her first distinct appearance on the stage of recorded history, Carthage possessed an imperial authority, in a greater or less degree, over the N. coast of Africa, from the Pillars of Hercules to the bottom of the Great Syrtis, a space reckoned by Polybius at 16,000 stadia, or 160 geographical miles. (Polyb. iii. 39; comp. Seylax. pp. 51, 52: öoа yéурanтаι TOλíσμата ἐμπόρια ἐν τῇ Λιβύῃ, ἀπὸ τῆς Σύρτιδος τῆς παρ' | Εσπερίδας μέχρι Ηρακλείων στηλῶν ἐν Λιβύῃ, Távтa éσTì Kapɣndoviwv.) On the W. her power extended over her colonies on the Atlantic coast at least as far as the end of the Atlas range; and on the E, after a long contest with Cyrene, the only foreign power with which she came into contact in Africa, the boundary was fixed at the bottom of the Great Syrtis, at a period so early that the transaction had already acquired a mythic character in the age of Herodotus. [ARAE PHILAENORUM.] But of all this extensive empire, it should be carefully remembered, the only part immediately and entirely subject to the dominion of Carthage was the territory which extended S. of the city to a distance of about 80 geographical miles, and the boundaries of which were about the same as those of ZEUGITANA; and further S. the strip of coast along which lay BYZACIUM and the EMPORIA. These two districts comprised nearly all the reliable resources of the state. Their fertile plains were cultivated to the highest pitch under the eyes of the nobles, who were always famous for their devotion to agriculture;

Next to an insular position, like that of England, no object is of more consequence to a great maritime power than the possession of islands in the great highways of maritime intercourse; affording, as they do, stations for her fleets and factories, cut off from those attacks of powerful neighbours, and those incursions of vast and warlike peoples, to which continental settlements are exposed. Sensible of this, the Carthaginians turned their first efforts at conquest upon the islands of the W. Mediterranean, resisting the temptation presented by Spain to effect territorial aggrandisement on a much larger scale. Of these enterprises a very brief notice will suffice here, further details belonging rather to the articles on the respective countries.

It should be observed that these expeditions were naturally attended by a development of the military power of the Carthaginians, which manifested itself in successful wars with the Africans at home; and also that they brought Carthage into collision with foreign powers, and gradually involved her in the wars which ended in her ruin.

Of the earliest of these conquests we possess no other information than the brief notices in Justin, according to whom expeditions were undertaken both to Sicily and Sardinia, about the first half of the 6th century B. C., under a general whom he calls MALCHUS (which is simply the Phoenician for king), who had also performed great exploits against the Africans. After considerable successes in Sicily, Malchus transported his forces to Sardinia, where he suffered a great defeat, and was in consequence banished. Upon this he led his army against Carthage, and took the city, but made a moderate use of his victory. It was not long, however, before he was accused of a design to make himself king, and was put to death. It is worthy of notice that the first foreign wars of Carthage are associated with the first attempt to overthrow her constitution. (Justin. xviii. 7.)

The enterprise of Malchus was resumed with more success, in the latter half of the same century, by MAGO, the head of a family to whom the Cartha ginians were indebted at the same time for the earliest organization of their military resources, and the foundation of their foreign empire. (Justin. xviii. 7: "Huic [Malcho] Mago, imperator successit, cujus industria et opes Carthaginiensium, et imperii fines, et bellicae gloriae laudes creverunt;" and directly after, " Mago, cum primus omnium, ordinata disciplina militari, imperium Poenorum condi