his doom was no longer to be eluded. A centurion and his company were despatched to Sinuessa, and Tigellinus, in the lap of luxury, and surrounded by the victims and ministers of his excesses, after a vain attempt to corrupt his executioners, perished by his own hand. (Tac. Hist. i. 72; Plut. Galb. 2,13, 17, 19, 23, 29, Oth. 2; Dion Cass. lxiv. 3; Joseph. B. J. iv. 9. § 2; Suet. Galb. 15). [W. B. D.] TIGELLIUS HERMO'GENES. [HERMOGENES.]

TIGRA NES (Tiypávns), was the name of several kings of Armenia, of whom the first and greatest is also frequently reckoned among the kings of Syria. The Armenian or native form of the name is Dikran.

tinued in the undisputed possession of these extensive dominions for nearly fourteen years. Of the events of this period we have scarcely any information, but he appears to have consigned the government of Syria to a viceroy Magadates, while he himself continued to reside in the upper provinces of his kingdom (Appian, l. c.). Here he followed the example of so many other Eastern despots, by founding a new capital which he named after himself, Tigranocerta (Strab. xi. p. 532). It was his connection with Mithridates that, by bringing him into collision with the power of Rome, paved the way for his downfal. When that monarch was preparing to renew the contest with Rome after the death of Sulla (B. c. 76), he TIGRANES 1.* was a descendant of ARTAXIAS, was desirous to obtain the support of his son-inthe founder of the Armenian monarchy. According law by involving him in the same quarrel, and in to Appian (Syr. 48) his father's name was Tigranes, consequence instigated Tigranes to invade CappaThe Armenian king swept that country but no king of that name preceded his accession, docia, and the native historians represent him as a son of with a large army, and is said to have carried off Artaces or Artaxes. [ARSACIDAE, Vol. I. p. 365.] into captivity no less than 300,000 of the inhabitThe statement of Plutarch that he had reigned ants, a large portion of whom he settled in his twenty-five years when he received the first em- newly-founded capital of Tigranocerta (Appian, bassy of Lucullus in B. c. 71 (Plut. Lucull. 21), Mithr. 67; Strab. xi. p. 532; Memnon, c. 43). would fix the date of his accession in B. c. 96, but But in other respects he appears to have furnished Appian (Mithr. 15), perhaps inadvertently, al- little support to the projects of Mithridates, and ludes to him as already on the throne in B. c. 98. left that monarch to carry on the contest with Of the early events of his reign we have very im- Lucullus single-handed, while he himself turned perfect information. But it appears that he suc- his attention to his Syrian dominions. And when cessively conquered Arsaces or Artanes, king of (in B. c. 71) the vicissitudes of the war at length Sophene, and several other petty princes, so that compelled the king of Pontus to take refuge in the he united under his sway not only all Armenia, dominions of his son-in-law, Tigranes, though he but several of the neighbouring provinces, and thus assigned him a guard of honour, and treated him raised himself to a degree of power far superior to with all the distinctions of royalty, refused to that enjoyed by any of his predecessors. Towards admit him to a personal interview, and manifested But when the commencement of his reign he appears to have no inclination to espouse his cause. been worsted by the Parthians, and was compelled Appius Clodius who had been sent by Lucullus to to purchase a peace from those formidable neigh-demand the surrender of the fugitive monarch, at bours by the cession of a considerable extent of territory. But at a later period he was not only able to recover possession of these districts, but invaded Parthia in his turn, and carried his arms as far as Ninus and Arbela, while he permanently annexed to his dominions the important provinces of Atropatene and Gordyene. Inflated by these successes, he assumed the pompous title of king of kings, and always appeared in public accompanied by some of his tributary princes as attendants (Strab. xi. p. 532; Plut. Lucull. 21; Appian, Syr. 48). His power was at the same time greatly strengthened by his alliance with Mithridates the Great, king of Pontus, whose daughter Cleopatra he had married at an early period of his reign. (Appian, Mithr. 15; Plut. Lucull. 22.)

An additional field was now opened to his ambition by the dissensions which divided the Seleucidan princes of Syria. That country had been so long distracted by civil wars, that a large part of its inhabitants appear to have welcomed, if they did not invite, the foreign invader; Antiochus Eusebes was able to offer little opposition, and Tigranes made himself master without difficulty of the whole Syrian monarchy from the Euphrates to the sea, together with the dependent province of Cilicia, B. C. 83 (App. Syr. 48; Justin. xl. 1). He was now at the summit of his power, and con

length obtained an interview with Tigranes at Antioch, his haughty demeanour as well as the imperious terms in which his message itself was couched, so offended the pride of the Armeniau king that he returned a peremptory refusal, accompanied with an express declaration of war. (Plut. Lucull. 21, 22; Memnon, 46.)

There now remained for him no choice but to prepare for the contest which he had so imprudently provoked. But he was quite unable to appreciate the character of the enemy with whom he had to cope, and though he now at length condescended to admit Mithridates to his presence and his councils, he was too much inflated with pride to listen to the advice which his experience prompted; and hastened to assume the offensive by sending a force to invade Lycaonia and Cilicia, before his other preparations were completed. He appears to have been firmly impressed with the idea that Lucullus would await his approach in the Roman provinces, and when that general instead of doing so, boldly crossed the Euphrates and the Tigris, and penetrated into the heart of Armenia itself, Tigranes was completely taken by surprise. He at first refused to believe the intelligence, and when at length convinced of its truth he opposed Mithrobarzanes with a very inadequate force to the advance of the conqueror. The destruction of this detachment aroused him to a sense of his error and he now abandoned his capital of Tigranocerta, and withdrew to the mountains. Murena, who was sent in pursuit of him, succeeded in cutting off all his baggage, and con

verting his retreat into a disorderly flight (Plut. Lucull. 22-25; Appian, Mithr. 84). But notwithstanding this reverse, the mighty host which he was soon able to gather around his standard, inspired him again with the same overweening confidence, and he hastened to attack Lucullus in order to avert the fall of Tigranocerta. The event was decisive; the army of the Armenian king, though amounting according to the most authentic statement, to 55,000 horse and 150,000 regular infantry, besides light-armed troops, was totally routed by the small force under Lucullus; the king himself fled almost unattended from the field, and Tigranocerta was surrendered to the victorious general. (Plut. Lucull. 26-28; Appian, Mithr. 85, 86; Memnon, 56; Liv. Epit. xcviii.; Eutrop. vi. 9; Oros. vi. 3.)

his father, and finding himself detected, fled for refuge to the Parthian king, Phraates. That monarch, who had recently concluded a treaty of alliance with Pompey, readily lent his support to the fugitive prince, and invaded Armenia with a large army, with which he advanced as far as Artaxata. But he was unable to reduce that city, and as soon as the Parthian king withdrew, Tigranes easily drove out his rebel son. It was at this juncture that Mithridates, after his final defeat by Pompey, once more threw himself upon the support of his son-in-law: but Tigranes, who suspected him of abetting the designs of his son, refused to receive him, and even set a price upon his head, while he himself hastened to make overtures of submission to Pompey. That general had already advanced into the heart of Armenia, and was approaching Artaxata itself, under the guidance of the young Tigranes, when the old king repaired in person to the Roman camp, and presenting himself as a suppliant before Pompey, laid his tiara at his feet. By this act of humiliation he at once conciliated the favour of the conqueror, who treated him in a friendly manner, and left him in possession of Armenia Proper with the title of king, depriving him only of the provinces of Sophene and Gordyene, which he erected into a separate kingdom for his son Tigranes. The elder monarch was so overjoyed at obtaining these unexpectedly favourable terms, that he not only paid the sum of 6000 talents demanded by Pompey, but added a

ever after the steadfast friend of the Roman general (Dion Cass. xxxvi. 33-36; Plut. Pomp. 32, 33; Appian, Mithr. 104, 105, Syr. 49; Vell. Pat. ii. 37). He soon reaped the advantage of this fidelity, as in B. c. 65 Pompey, on his return from the campaign against Oroeses, finding that the Parthian king Phraates had wrongfully occupied the province of Gordyene, sent his lieutenant Afranius to expel him, and restored the possession of it to Tigranes. (Dion Cass. xxxvii. 5.)

During the ensuing winter, while Lucullus was established in Gordyene, several of the neighbour ing princes hastened to throw off the yoke of the Armenian king, and tender their submission to the Roman general. Among others, Antiochus (surnamed Asiaticus), the son of Antiochus Eusebes, presented himself to claim the throne of his fathers, and was reinstated, apparently without opposition, in the possession of the whole of Syria, where the yoke of Tigranes had long been odious to his Greek subjects (App. Syr. 49; Strab. xi. p. 532). Meanwhile Tigranes, in concert with Mithridates (with whom his disasters had brought him into closer relations), was using every exertion to assemble a fresh army, while they both endea-large sum as a donation to his army, and continued voured, though without success, to induce Phraates, king of Parthia, to make common cause with them (App. Mithr. 87; Dion Cass. xxxv. 3; Epist. Mithr. ap. Sall. Hist. iv. p. 238, ed. Gerlach.). Failing in this they awaited the approach of Lucullus among the bleak highlands of Armenia, where he was not able to penetrate until late in the summer of 68. The two kings met him on the river Arsanias, with an army less numerous, but better disciplined than that of the preceding year, but with equal ill success they were again totally defeated, and it was only a mutiny among the troops of Lucullus that prevented him from making himself master of Artaxata, the ancient capital of Armenia. But the spirit of disaffection which had by this time pervaded the Roman troops, hampered all the proceedings of their commander; and though in the ensuing winter Lucullus reduced the strong fortress of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, which was held by Guras, the brother of Tigranes, his subsequent movements were completely paralysed by the disobedience of his own soldiers. The two kings took advantage of this respite, and while Mithridates sought to recover his own dominions, Tigranes regained great part of Armenia, and defeated the Roman lieutenant L. Fannius, whose army was only saved by the arrival of Lucullus himself to his relief (Dion Cass. xxxv. 4-8; Plut. Lucull. 31-34). In the following year, also (B. c. 67), he was able to pour his troops into the provinces of Armenia Minor and Cappadocia without opposition, and Lucullus was unable to punish his audacity. (Dion Cass. xxxv. 14-15.)

The arrival of Pompey (B. c. 66) soon changed the face of events, and Mithridates, after repeated defeats, was again compelled to seek a refuge in Armenia. Meanwhile, a new enemy had arisen to the Armenian king in his own son Tigranes, who, having engaged in a conspiracy against the life of

The next year (B. C. 64) we find him again at war with the king of Parthia, but after several engagements with alternations of success, their dif ferences were arranged by the mediation of Pompey, and the two monarchs concluded a treaty of peace (Dion Cass. xxxvii. 6, 7; App. Mithr. 106). This is the last event recorded to us of the reign of Tigranes: the exact date of his death is unknown, but we find him incidentally mentioned by Cicero (pro Sext. 27) as still alive and reigning in the spring of B. c. 56, while we know that he was succeeded by his son Artavasdes before the expedition of Crassus against the Parthians in B. C. 54 (Dion Cass. xl. 16). His death must therefore have occurred in this interval.

The character of Tigranes seems to have in no respect differed from that of many other Eastern despots. It was marked by the most extravagant pride and overweening confidence in prosperity, as well as by the most abject humiliation in misfortune. He alienated not only his Greek subjects and dependent princes by his violent and arbitrary acts, but extended his cruelties even to his own family. Of his sons by the daughter of Mithri dates, he put to death two upon various charges, while the civil wars in which he was engaged with the third have been already mentioned. Yet he seems not to have been altogether without a tincture of Greek cultivation; for we learn that he

afforded protection to the Athenian rhetorician | Amphicrates, and had assembled a company of Greek players to celebrate the opening of a theatre in his new capital of Tigranocerta. (Plut. Lucull. 21, 22, 29; Appian, Mithr. 104.)

The coins of Tigranes, which were probably struck in Syria and bear Greek inscriptions, represent him with a tiara in the Oriental fashion, instead of the simple diadem of the Seleucidae.

to one spot for fifty years, and there gained all his knowledge from books alone. Polybius also remarks that Timaeus had so little power of observation, and so weak a judgment, that he was unable to give a correct account even of the things he had seen, and of the places he had visited; and adds that he was likewise so superstitious, that his work abounded with old traditions and well-known fables, while things of graver importance were entirely omitted (Polyb. lib. xii. with the Frugmenta Vaticana of his work). His ignorance of geography and natural history appears to have been very great, and Polybius frequently mentions his errors on these subjects (e. g. ii. 16, xii. 3, 5). But Polybius brings still graver charges against Timaeus. He accuses him of frequently stating wilful falsehoods, of indulging in all kinds of calumnies against the most distinguished men, such as Homer, Aristotle, and Theophrastus, and of attacking his personal enemies, such as Agathocles, in the most atrocious manner. These charges are repeated by Diodorus and other ancient writers, among whom Timaeus earned so bad a character by his slanders and calumnies, that he was nick-named Epitimaeus ('Erriuaios), or the Fault-Finder (Athen, vi. p. 272, b; comp. Diod. v. 1, xiii. 90, Exc. xxi. p. 561, Wess.; Strab. xiv. p. 640). Lastly, Polybius censures the speeches in the history of Timaeus, as unsuitable to the speakers, and the times at which they are represented as delivered, and as marked by a scholastic, verbose, and inflated style of oratory.

after their city had been destroyed by Dionysius, | scribed; but on the contrary confined his residence and settled them in the town of Tauromenium, which had been recently founded, and of which he became the tyrant, or supreme ruler, B. c. 358 (Diod. xvi. 7, comp. xiv. 59, with Wesseling's note). Andromachus received Timoleon at Tauromenium, when he came to Sicily in B. c. 344, and he was almost the only one of the tyrants whom Timoleon left in possession of their power (Plut. Tim. 10; Marcellin. Vit. Thuc. § 42). We do not know the exact date of the birth or death of Timaeus, but we can make an approximation to it, which cannot be very far from the truth. We know that his history was brought down to B. c. 264 (Polyb. i. 5), and that he attained the age of ninety-six (Lucian, Macrob. 22). Now as his father could not have been a very young man between B. C. 358 and 344, during which time he held the tyrannis of Tauromenium, we probably shall not be far wrong in placing the birth of Timaeus in B. c. 352, and his death in B. C. 256. We learn from Suidas that Timaeus received instruction from Philiscus, the Milesian, a disciple of Isocrates; but we have no further particulars of his life, except that he was banished from Sicily by Agathocles, and passed his exile at Athens, where he had lived fifty years when he wrote the thirtyfourth book of his history (Diod. Exc. ex libr. xxi. p. 560, Wess.; Polyb. Exc. Vat. pp. 389, 393; Plut. de Exil. p. 605, c). We are not informed in what year he was banished by Agathocles, but it may have been in the year that the latter crossed over to Africa (B. c. 310), since we are told that the tyrant, fearing an insurrection in his absence, either put to death or drove into exile all the persons whom he suspected to be hostile to his government. (Diod. xx. 4.)

Timaeus wrote the history of Sicily from the earliest times to B. C. 264, in which year Polybius commences the introduction to his work (Polyb. i. 5). This history was one of great extent. Suidas quotes the thirty-eighth book (s. v. qỗ тò iepòv Tup), and there were probably many books after this. It appears to have been divided into several great sections, which are quoted with separate titles, though they in reality formed a part of one great whole. Thus Suidas speaks of 'Iraλikà кal Σικελικὰ in eight books, and of Ἑλληνικὰ καὶ Zikeλind. It has been conjectured that the Italica and Sicelica were the title of the early portion of the work, during which period the history of Sicily was closely connected with that of Italy; and that the second part of the work was called Sicelica and Hellenica, and comprised the period during which Sicily was brought more into contact with Greece by the Athenian invasions as well as by other events. The last five books contained the history of Agathocles (Diod. p. 561, Wess.). Timaeus wrote the history of Pyrrhus as a separate work (Dionys. i. 6; Cic. ad Fam. v. 12); but, as it falls within the time treated of in his general History, it may almost be regarded as an episode of the latter.

The value and authority of Timaeus as an historian have been most vehemently attacked by Polybius in many parts of his work. He maintains that Timaeus was totally deficient in the first qualificatious of an historian, as he possessed no practical knowledge of war or politics, and never attempted to obtain by travelling a personal acquaintance with the places and countries he de

Most of the charges of Polybius against Timaeus are unquestionably founded upon truth; but from the statements of other writers, and from the fragments which we possess of Timaeus's own work, we are led to conclude that Polybius has greatly exaggerated the defects of Timaeus, and omitted to mention his peculiar excellencies. Nay, several of the very points which Polybius regarded as great blemishes in his work, were, in reality, some of its greatest merits. The rationalizing Polybius quite approved of the manner in which Ephorus and Theopompus dealt with the ancient myths, which they attempted, by stripping them of all their miracles and marvels, to turn into sober history; but it was one of the great merits of Timaeus, for which he is loudly denounced by Polybius, that he attempted to give the myths in their simplest and most genuine form, as related by the most ancient writers. There can be little doubt that if the early portion of the history of Timaeus had been preserved, we should be able to gain a more correct knowledge of many points than from the histories of Theopompus and Ephorus. Timaeus also collected the materials of his history with the greatest diligence and care, a fact which even Polybius is obliged to admit (Exc. Vat. p. 402, init.). He likewise paid very great attention to chronology, and was the first writer who introduced the practice of recording events by Olympiads, which was adopted by almost all subsequent writers of Greek history (Diod. v. 1). For this purpose he drew up a list of the Olympic conquerors, which is called by Suidas Ολυμπιονίκαι ἢ χρονικὰ πραξι idia. Cicero formed a very different opinion of the merits of Timaeus from that of Polybius. He says (de Orat. ii. 14):- Timaeus, quantum judicare possim, longe eruditissimus, et rerum copia et sententiarum varietate abundantissimus, et ipsa

compositione verborum non impolitus, magnam elo- | roinuáriov ev évì Móyw). It is evident, however, that quentiam ad scribendum attulit, sed nullum usum forensem." (Comp. Cic. Brut. 95.)

In addition to the Sicilian history and the OlymDionicae, Suidas assigns two other works to Timaeus, neither of which is mentioned by any other writer, namely, An Account of Syria, its cities and kings, in three books (repl Zupías Kal Tŵv auTns Kóλewv Kai Baσiλéwv Bibλía y), and a collection of rhetorical arguments in sixty-eight books (Zvλλoyǹ intopikŵv apopur), which was more probably written, as Ruhnken has remarked, by Timaeus the sophist.

The fragments of Timaeus have been collected by Göller, in his De Situ et Origine Syracusarum, Lips. 1818, pp. 209-306, and by Car. and Theod. Müller, in the Frogmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Paris, 1841, pp. 193-233, both of which works also contain dissertations on the life and writings of Timaeus. (Compare Vossius, De Historicis Graecis, pp. 117-120, ed. Westermann; Clinton, Fast. Hell. vol. iii. pp. 489, 490.)

2. Of LOCRI, in Italy, a Pythagorean philosopher, is said to have been a teacher of Plato. (Cic. de Fin. v. 29, de Re Publ. i. 10.) There is an extant work, bearing his name, written in the Doric dialect, and entitled repl yuxas Kóσμov Kai púσios; but its genuineness is very doubtful, and it is in all probability nothing more than an abridgment of Plato's dialogue of Timaeus. This work was first printed in a Latin translation by Valla, along with several other works, Venice, 1488 and 1498. It was first printed in Greek at Paris, 1555, edited by Nogarola. It is also printed in many editions of Plato, and in Gale's Opuscula Mythologica, Physica et Ethica, Cambridge, 1671, and Amsterdam, 1688. The Greek text was published with a French translation by the Marquis d'Argens, Berlin, 1762. The last and best edition is by J. J. de Gelder, Leyden, 1836. (Comp. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 93, foll.) Suidas says (s. v.) that Timaeus wrote the life of Pythagoras, but as no other writer mentions such a work by the Locrian Timaeus, it is not improbable that this life of Pythagoras was simply a portion of the history of Timaeus of Tauromenium, who must have spoken of the philosopher in that portion of his work which related to the early history of Italy.

3 and 4. Of CROTONA and PAROS, Pythago rean philosophers. (Iamblich. Vit. Pyth. cap. extr.; Clem. Alex. Strom. p. 604; Theodoret. ii. Therap. p. 36.)

5. Of Cyzicus, a disciple of Plato, endeavoured to seize the supreme power in the state (Athen. xi. p. 509, a.). Diogenes Laërtius (iii. 46) mentions Timolaus of Cyzicus and not Timaeus among the disciples of Plato; and hence it has been conjectured that there is a corruption in the name, either in Athenaeus or Diogenes.

6. The SOPHIST, wrote a Lexicon to Plato, addressed to a certain Gentianus, which is still extant. The time at which this Timaeus lived is quite uncertain. Ruhnken places him in the third century of the Christian aera, which produced so many ardent admirers of the Platonic philosophy, such as Porphyry, Longinus, Plotinus, &c. The Lexicon is very brief, and bears the title Tuaiov σopioтOU ék tŵy toû Пλάtwvos λéčewv, from which it might have been inferred that it is an extract from a larger work, had not Photius (Cod. 151), who had read it, described it as a very short work (Bpaxù

the work, as it stands, has received several interpolations, especially in explanations of words occurring in Herodotus. Notwithstanding these interpolations the work is one of great value, and the explanations of words are some of the very best which have come down to us from the ancient grammarians. It was printed for the first time, from a manuscript at Paris, edited by Ruhnken, Leyden, 1754, with a very valuable commentary, and again, with many improvements, Leyden, 1789. There are also two more recent editions by Koch, Leipzig, 1828, and 1833. The work on rhetorical arguments in sixty-eight books (Zuλλoyǹ intopikŵv apopuwv) which Suidas assigns to Timaeus of Tauromenium, was more probably written by Timaeus, the author of the Lexicon to Plato, as has been already remarked. (Ruhnken's Preface to his edition of the Lexicon.)

7. The MATHEMATICIAN, is quoted by Pliny (H. N. v. 9, xvi. 22, ii. 8). Suidas says that Timaeus, the Locrian [No. 2] wrote Maonμarikά, but whether this was really the work of the Locrian or not, cannot be determined. The fragment on the Pleiades, preserved by the Scholiast on the Iliad (xviii. 486), and usually assigned to Timaeus of Tauromenium, is supposed by Göller to belong to the mathematician.

TIMA GENES (Tiμayévns). Three persons of this name are mentioned by Suidas. 1. Timagenes, the rhetorician (phτwp), of Alexandria, the son of the king's banker, was taken prisoner by Gabinius (B. c. 55), and brought to Rome, where he was redeemed from captivity by Faustus, the son of Sulla. He taught rhetoric at Rome in the time of Pompey, and afterwards under Augustus, but losing his school on account of his freedom of speech, he retired to an estate at Tusculum. Ile died at Dabanum, a town of Osrhoëne in Mesopotamia. He wrote many books, the titles of which are not given by Suidas. 2. Timagenes, the historian, wrote a Periplus of the whole sea, in five books. 3. Timagenes or Timogenes, of Miletus, an historian or an orator, wrote on the Pontic He racleia and its distinguished men, in five books, and likewise epistles. Besides these three persons, we have mention of a fourth (4), Timagenes, the Syrian, who wrote on the history of the Gauls. (Plut. de Fluv. c. 6.) Of these four writers it is probable that the rhetorician, the historian who wrote the Periplus, and the Syrian, are the same. [Nos. 1, 2 and 4.] Of the historian we have an account given us by the two Senecas, which differs from what Suidas says respecting the grammarian, but does not really contradict the statement of the lexicographer. It is related by the Senecas that Timagenes after his captivity first followed the trade of a cook, and afterwards of a litter or sedan occupations to be the intimate acquaintance of bearer (lecticarius), but rose from these humble Augustus. He afterwards offended the emperor by some caustic remarks on his wife and family, palace. Timagenes in revenge burnt his historical and was in consequence forbidden the imperial deeds of Augustus, and which he had probably works, in one of which he gave an account of the written at the request of the emperor. however, did not punish him any further, but friends he had formerly enjoyed. He found an allowed him to retain the protection of the powerful asylum in the house of Asinius Pollio. (M. Senec.

Augustus.