8. Condition and fate of Egypt as a Persian province. After the death of Cambyses, the country received a Persian governor, and consequently became a satrapy. Immediately after the first tempest of war had blown over, Egypt was treated with mildness by the Persians. The country paid a moderate tribute, together with some royal gifts, among others the produce of the fisheries in lake Moeris; nevertheless, repeated revolts occurred, which may be principally attributed to the hatred and influence of the sacerdotal caste. The first took place under Darius Hystaspes, and was quelled by Xerxes. An increase of tribute was the consequence. The second, under king Inarus, fomented and supported by the Athenians, happened during the reign of Artaxerxes I.; it was quelled by Megabyzus. The third occurred under Darius II. and in consequence of the support which the Egyptians received from the Greeks, was of longer duration than either of the former, the throne of the Pharaoh's being in some measure restored. This third secession of the Egyptians lasted till 354. During this period various kings were appointed; Amyrtaeus, _d._ 408; Psammetichus, about 400; Nephreus, about 397; Pausiris, _d._ 375; Nectanebus I. _d._ 365; Tachos, _d._ 363; Nectanebus II. conquered by Artaxerxes III. 354. CARTHAGINIANS. Sources. The first great republic which ancient records mention as applying both to trade and war, is undoubtedly a phenomenon well deserving the attention of the historical enquirer. Our knowledge, however, of Carthaginian history is unfortunately very deficient, as we possess no author who has made it the principal object of his attention. The immediate subject of the Greek and Roman writers was the history of their own country, and they only allude to that of Carthage in so far as it is connected with their main topic. This observation applies as well to Polybius and Diodorus, as to Livy and Appian. Even the information given by Justin, the only author who says any thing concerning the early state of Carthage, is miserably defective, although taken from Theopompus. (Cf. _Comment. de fontibus_ JUSTINI _in Commentat. Soc. Gotting._ vol. xv.) Moreover, as Herodotus here fails us, we have not the writings of any author whatever who witnessed Carthage in the days of her prosperity: Polybius did not see that country till after the decline of its power; the other historians, wrote long afterwards. But although an uninterrupted history of Carthage does not exist, we are yet able to trace the main outlines of the picture of that state.--The modern writers on Carthage are: HENDRICH, _de Republica Carthaginiensium_, 1664. A useful compilation. # _History of the Republic of Carthage_, 2 vols. Franckfort, 1781. A mere history of the wars. DAMPMARTIN, _Histoire de la Rivalite de Carthage et de Rome_, tom. i, ii. Very superficial.