, BIR. ZEIVESHNI, LONGÆVI, which occurs in Dr. Hyde[86]. And that the vowels A and E were sometimes prefixed to the Persian proper names, in the remoter periods of time, is abundantly manifest, from the words SFITAMAN, ESFINTAMAN, or ESPINTAMAN, the [87]name of either the father or one of the ancestors of Zerâtusht; XERXES, [88]AXERXES, or AXERSES, and others of the same kind, that might, with equal facility, be produced. Whether therefore we read this legend——PADESHANE MONESH, PADESHAN EMONESH, or PADESHAN AMONESH, we cannot greatly err. As the coin was not so perfectly struck, part of the Greek legend is thereby apparently lost; from whence, and the evident want of a word there, we may conclude, that the Parthian legend, for Parthian by the explication here laid down it appears to be, on the correspondent part of the reverse, must have met with the same fate. What that Parthian term was, I cannot take upon me to say; but the whole legend was probably something like THE GREAT KING MONNESES, MONNESES THE KING OF KINGS, or MONNESES[89] THE GREAT KING OF KINGS; all which titles are intirely consonant to those assumed by the Parthian kings[90], and transmitted down to us on their other coins. The Persian, or Parthian, termination of the proper name MONNESES, and others that occur, was ESH. This may be inferred from the legend now before me, in conjunction with Scripture[91], and has been remarked by some good authors[92]. That the Greeks also expressed the Schin by their Sigma, and superadded another termination to such words, is sufficiently manifest from the Persian, or Parthian Arshak[93], which was converted into Arsaces by the Greek writers. I must farther observe, that, according to Herodotus[94], the antient letters of the Persians were those used by the Assyrians; which I take to have been the same with the elements that prevailed amongst the Syrians, and formed the alphabet of the Palmyrenes. Nay, we may collect from [95]Epiphanius, that a considerable part of the Persians used the Palmyrene characters as late as the decline of the fourth century after Christ. All which being maturely weighed, I cannot forbear thinking the interpretation of the Parthian legend here laid down in a good degree probable. I am far however from insisting upon the truth of it. I shall only beg to be indulged the liberty of proposing it to the consideration of our most illustrious Society, and leave the fate of it intirely to the decision of so very eminent a part of the learned world.
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.
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.
7. Before I dismiss the present subject, I must beg leave to take notice of the Parthian character on the field of my medal, which is not very unlike the Chaldee[114] or Palmyrene Aleph, tho' of something a more complex form. Should this be allowed, that character may be considered as the initial letter of ARSACIA, the name of a city subject to the Parthians, placed by [115]Ptolemy in Media; where, according to [116]Dr. Vaillant, many of the Parthian medals were coined. That city is however believed by some to have been seated on the spot occupied at this time by Casbin, or rather Kazwîn[117], one of the principal towns of the Belâd Al Jebâl, or mountainous part of the Persian Irâk; for a particular account of which place, the curious may have recourse to Golius, and the eastern geographers. As I have already far exceeded the limits proposed to myself, when I began this letter, I shall not now touch upon any other observations relative to the medal before me, which is the only one I have hitherto met with carrying a Greek and a Parthian legend upon it; but only assure you that I am, with the most perfect regard,
SIR,
Your most obliged
and most obedient Servant,
John Swinton.
Christ-Church Oxon. Nov 29th, 1756.
XXIII. An Account of a Red Coral from the East-Indies, of a very singular Kind: In a letter from Mr. John Ellis, F.R.S. to Mr. Peter Collinson, F.R.S.
Dear Sir,