as crowned king of Armenia. Arsaces pursued a vacillating
policy between the influence of Rome and Persia, and the war recommenced
in the year 345. At least, that was the period of the expedition of
Constantius to the East. See St. Martin, additions to Le Beau, i. 442.
The Persians have made an extraordinary romance out of the history of
Shahpour, who went as a spy to Constantinople, was taken, harnessed like
a horse, and carried to witness the devastation of his kingdom. Malcolm.
84--M.]

[Footnote 58: Julian. Orat. i. p. 20, 21. Moses of Chorene, l. ii. c.
89, l. iii. c. 1--9, p. 226--240. The perfect agreement between the
vague hints of the contemporary orator, and the circumstantial narrative
of the national historian, gives light to the former, and weight to the
latter. For the credit of Moses, it may be likewise observed, that
the name of Antiochus is found a few years before in a civil office of
inferior dignity. See Godefroy, Cod. Theod. tom. vi. p. 350.]

[Footnote 58a: Gibbon has endeavored, in his History, to make use of the
information furnished by Moses of Chorene, the only Armenian
historian then translated into Latin. Gibbon has not perceived all the
chronological difficulties which occur in the narrative of that writer.
He has not thought of all the critical discussions which his text ought
to undergo before it can be combined with the relations of the western
writers. From want of this attention, Gibbon has made the facts which he
has drawn from this source more erroneous than they are in the original.
This judgment applies to all which the English historian has derived
from the Armenian author. I have made the History of Moses a subject
of particular attention; and it is with confidence that I offer the
results, which I insert here, and which will appear in the course of
my notes. In order to form a judgment of the difference which exists
between me and Gibbon, I will content myself with remarking, that
throughout he has committed an anachronism of thirty years, from whence
it follows, that he assigns to the reign of Constantius many events
which took place during that of Constantine. He could not, therefore,
discern the true connection which exists between the Roman history and
that of Armenia, or form a correct notion of the reasons which induced
Constantine, at the close of his life, to make war upon the Persians, or
of the motives which detained Constantius so long in the East; he does
not even me