died soon afterwards (A.D. 419 or 420); and Sapor made an attempt to seize the throne; but there was another pretender whose partisans had more strength, and the viceroy of Armenia was treacherously assassinated in the palace of his father.  Armenia remained for three years in a state of anarchy; and it was not till Varahran V. had been for some time established upon the Persian throne that Artases was made viceroy, under the name of Artasiris or Artaxerxes.

The coins of Isdigerd I. are not remarkable as works of art; but they possess some features of interest.  They are numerous, and appear to have been issued from various mints, but all bear a head of the same type. [PLATE XXI., Fig. 1.] It is that of a middle-aged man, with a short beard and hair gathered behind the head in a cluster of curls.  The distinguishing mark is the headdress, which has the usual inflated ball above a fragment of the old mural crown, and further bears a crescent in front.  The reverse has the usual fire-altar with supporters, and is for the most part very rudely executed.  The ordinary legend is, on the obverse, "Mazdisn bag ramashtras Izdikerti, malkan malka Airan," or “the Ormazd-worshipping divine most peaceful Isdigerd, king of the kings of Iran;” and on the reverse, Ramashtras Izdikerti, “the most peaceful Isdigerd.”  In some cases, there is a second 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