Vaillant, that this prince was not dethroned in the year of the Arsacidæ 423, but had two years afterwards the management and direction of the Parthian affairs: wherefore, notwithstanding what has been advanced to the contrary by that antiquary, he might still have sat one or two years longer upon the Parthian throne. This may likewise be inferred from Dio, who mentions Vologeses as presiding over the Parthians, not in 198, but in 199, about two years after their irruption into Mesopotamia. All which being with proper attention considered, it will appear extremely probable, that the medal I have been endeavouring to explain was coined either in the 425th or 426th year of the Parthian æra, that is, the 197th of CHRIST; that the authority of [107]Arrian, [108]Justin, and [109]Athenæus, on which F. Corsini principally sounds his notion, may be intirely depended upon; and, in fine, that the arguments he makes use of on this occasion, to [110]evince the truth of his scheme, however they may be opposed by F. Frœlich, and the medal before me mutually strengthen and support one another. 6. I must not forget to remark, that F. Corsini thinks, without a proper foundation, that the piece of Monneses published by Dr. Vaillant may be considered either as a Parthian or [111]an Armenian coin. This, I say, he takes, without a proper foundation, to be the case. For the medals of the Armenian kings, such as that he has obliged the learned world with a draught of, and a most excellent dissertation upon, discover a taste far different from that which is exhibited by Dr. Vaillant’s coin. The air of the face, the curls into which the hair is formed, and in fine every thing else visible upon the former, except the symbols on the reverses, bear little resemblance to what is presented to our view by the latter. As for the titles, impressed on these medals, they are far from being of the same kind; the Armenian princes in this particular approaching nearer the successors of Seleucus[112], and contenting themselves with more plain and simple titles than that lofty one affected by Monneses, according to Dr. Vaillant, in common with the other Parthian kings. To which I may add, that my coin sets this point beyond dispute, by the Parthian characters it has so apparently preserved; all the Armenian medals I have hitherto met with, about three or four in number, as well as that of Baron Stosch[113], which F. Corsini has so learnedly explained, having only Greek legends upon them. What therefore he has advanced, on this head, must be considered as not altogether so consonant to truth; especially, as he seems to have offered nothing of any great weight in support of his opinion.