the terrible disease which had wrought so much damage in Sicily. FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 9: See p. 71.] [Footnote 10: It may be as well to explain that our knowledge of this period is derived chiefly from Diodorus Siculus, a writer of the first century of our era. He was a native of Sicily, and while writing something like an Universal History, gave special attention to the affairs of his own country. He had before him, it would appear, two writers of much earlier date, both of them Sicilians. These were Ephorus, who was born about 404 B.C., and Timaeus, who was about half a century later. Fragments only of their works survive, but practically all that Diodorus tells us about Sicilian affairs comes from them. Some details we get from Plutarch.] III DIONYSIUS THE TYRANT We may feel pretty certain that neither of the two parties to the treaty which brought the war of 407-6 to an end had any intention of keeping it longer than it might suit his or their convenience. Dionysius had skilfully used the war to raise himself to despotic power; Carthage probably expected that once again, as so often before, the internal quarrels of the Greek people might give her the opportunity of some fresh aggrandisement. She had accomplished much in a few years, though not without severe losses. But these losses, after all, counted but for little. The blood of mercenaries was cheap. As long as the city's sources of income were untouched, she could reckon with certainty on gathering as many recruits from Africa, Spain, Italy, and the shores of the western Mediterranean as she might choose to pay for. She had therefore no small reason to believe that her long-cherished scheme of subjugating Sicily might be accomplished at no distant date.