nd name, associated with that
of the monarch, on the reverse, a name which reads either "Ardashatri"
(Artaxerxes) or, "Varahran." It has been conjectured that, where the
name of "Artaxerxes" occurs, the reference is to the founder of the
empire; while it is admitted that the "Varahran" intended is almost
certainly Isdigerd's son and successor, Varahran V., the "Bahram-Grur"
of the modern Persians. Perhaps a more reasonable account of the matter
would be that Isdigerd had originally a son Artaxerxes, whom he intended
to make his successor, but that this son died or offended him, and that
then he gave his place to Varahran.

[Illustration: PLATE 21.]

The character of Isdigerd is variously represented. According to the
Oriental writers, he had by nature an excellent disposition, and at the
time of his accession was generally regarded as eminently sage, prudent,
and virtuous; but his conduct after he became king disappointed all
the hopes that had been entertained of him. He was violent, cruel, and
pleasure-seeking; he broke all laws human and divine; he plundered the
rich, ill-used the poor, despised learning, left those who did him a
service unrewarded, suspected everybody. He wandered continually about
his vast empire, not to benefit his subjects, but to make them all
suffer equally. In curious contrast with these accounts is the picture
drawn of him by the Western authors, who celebrate his magnanimity
and his virtue, his peaceful temper, his faithful guardianship of
Theodosius, and even his exemplary piety. A modern writer has suggested
that he was in fact a wise and tolerant prince, whose very mildness and
indulgence offended the bigots of his own country, and caused them to
represent his character in the most odious light, and do their utmost
to blacken his memory. But this can scarcely be accepted as the true
explanation of the discrepancy. It appears from the ecclesiastical
historians that, whatever other good qualities Isdigerd may have
possessed, tolerance at any rate was not among his virtues. Induced
at one time by Christian bishops almost to embrace Christianity, he
violently persecuted the professors of the old Persian religion. Alarmed
at a later period by the excessive zeal of his Christian preceptors, and
probably fearful of provoking rebellion among his Zoroastrian subjects,
he turned around upon his late friends, and treated them with a cruelty
even exceeding that previously exhibited towards their