4. But however my explication of the Parthian legend may be received, I believe it will scarce be denied, that the coin was struck in the reign of Monneses, one of the Parthian kings; this point having been so clearly evinced, by the reasons above alledged. It may not be improper here to remark, that the republic of letters has been obliged with the publication of two of this prince’s medals; the first of which was [96]coined in the year of the Parthian æra 422, and the other in 425[97]. Neither of them however exhibits the _Victory_ impressed on the reverse of mine. That symbol, adopted by the Parthians in imitation of the Roman manner, must undoubtedly have alluded to some victory, or at least some remarkable advantage, gained by the Parthian forces over the Romans, a little before the piece was struck. What that advantage was, when and where obtained, and whether history conspires with the medal, in order to settle this point, I am next to inquire.
5. Monneses, if Dr. Vaillant[98] may be credited, ascended the Parthian throne in the year of the Arsacidæ 422, nearly coincident with the 166th of CHRIST, when M. Aurelius and L. Verus presided over the Roman world. But so far were the Parthians at that time from gaining any victories over the Romans, that they were every where worsted by them, and put to the rout. A Roman army, under the command of Avidius Cassius, had penetrated into Mesopotamia and Assyria, ravaged those provinces, laid Seleucia in ashes, taken Ctesiphon, and levelled the royal palace there with the ground, according to Dio[99], the preceding year. Nay, it appears both from [100]Capitolinus and the Roman[101] coins, that M. Aurelius and L. Verus triumphed over the Parthians, the very year after Monneses, as [102]Dr. Vaillant will have it, came to the crown. All which that celebrated antiquary acknowleges to be true; and adds, that Monneses concluded an infamous peace with the Romans, ceding to them the whole province of Mesopotamia, for which he was soon after deposed by his subjects. Here then we can discover not the faintest traces of a reason for the appearance of a _Victory_ upon the medals of this prince. Nor does any thing like a reason for such an appearance, in antient history, occur, before the 950th year of Rome, corresponding with the 197th of +CHRIST+; when the Parthians, animated by the civil dissentions, which reigned amongst the Romans, Albinus and Severus then fiercely contending for the empire, entered Mesopotamia with a powerful army[103], and reduced to their obedience most of the cities of that province. Now if, with F. Corsini[104], we admit the commencement of the Parthian æra to have happened in the 525th year of Rome; the 425th or 426th year of the former and the 950th of the latter of those æra’s, wherein the Parthians undertook the Mesopotamian expedition, will nearly coincide. But it may be proved from a medal of Monneses, described by the [105]Marquis Scipio Maffei, in opposition to [106]Dr. 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.