The sarcastic observations which Walpole passes on the Society of Antiquaries, its members, and its publications, are so frequent and so bitter, that they must have been founded on some offence not to be pardoned. Were the remarks on the "Historic Doubts" by the president, Dean Milles, and by the Rev. Robert Masters (printed in the first two volumes of the _Archæologia_), regarded as satisfactorily confuting Walpole's arguments; or did he aim, but unsuccessfully, at the president's chair? J. H. M. Bath. COINS OF VABALATHUS. (Vol. iv., p. 255.) There have been many attempts to explain the puzzling VCRIMDR, on the supposition that a Latin sentence was concealed under these letters. Pinkerton suggested "Voluntate Cæsaris Romani Imperatoris Maximi Domini, Rex." I hope to offer a better solution, which, although not new, has been passed over, I believe, by all subsequent writers. The Rev. George North, in the _Museum Meadianum_, p. 97., gives the following note: "Apud Arabes accepi verbum Karama significare Honoravit, a quo Ucrima, et Ucrim; quo sensu respondet hoc Arabicum Τῷ Σεβαστῷ apud Græcos." On applying to a well-known scholar and linguist here, I found that from the verb _Karama_ there was derived the adjective _Kar[=i]mat_ (nobilis), from which again the superlative _Akram_ comes. There can, I think, be little doubt that the word VCRIMDR is originally derived from this verb _Karama_, and that it is most probably equivalent to _Nobilissimus_, a title so common shortly afterwards, as applied to the heirs to the empire.[3] [Footnote 3: "_Nobilissimus_, in the Byzantine historians, is synonymous with Cæsar."--_Niebuhr._] The word ϹΡΩΙΑϹ or ϹΡΙΑϹ, which appears on the Alexandrian coins of this prince, is of more difficult explanation. Some think it a prænomen, some a Syriac or other Eastern title, perhaps corresponding to VCRIMDR. Pellerin thought so. I hope some Oriental scholar will direct his attention to this point. These coins are very often ill struck, so that the part of the legend below the head, where the word in question is found, is indistinct, for which reason I suppose MR. TAYLOR has followed the erroneous reading of Banduri, ΕΡΜΙΑϹ (properly ϵΡΜΙΑϹ, with lunate epsilon) for ϹΡΩΙΑϹ, which has been corrected by Eckhel. Of three specimens which I possess, one only reads clearly ϹΡΩΙΑϹ, from the above-mentioned cause, but it is unquestionably the correct reading on all. The best arrangement of the legend, from analogy with those forms used by the Romans, is as follows: ΑΥΤοκρατωρ . ϹΡΩΙΑϹ . ΟΥΑΒΑΛΛΑΘΟϹ . ΑΘΗΝΟδωρου . Υιος. The existence of coins, of which I possess a specimen also, reading Α . ϹΡΙΑϹ . ΟΥΑΒΑΛΛΑΘΟϹ . ΑΘΗΝ . Υ.