of such a title, even as it appears under the reign of
Constantine, is a strange and unconnected fact, which can
scarcely be admitted on the joint authority of Imperial medals
and contemporary writers. ^31

[Footnote 29: Euseb. Orat. in Constantin. c. 3. These dates are
sufficiently correct to justify the orator.]

[Footnote 30: Zosim. l. ii. p. 117. Under the predecessors of
Constantine, No bilissimus was a vague epithet, rather than a
legal and determined title.]

[Footnote 31: Adstruunt nummi veteres ac singulares. Spanheim de
Usu Numismat. Dissertat. xii. vol. ii. p. 357. Ammianus speaks
of this Roman king (l. xiv. c. l, and Valesius ad loc.) The
Valesian fragment styles him King of kings; and the Paschal
Chronicle acquires the weight of Latin evidence.]

[Footnote *: Hannibalianus is always designated in these authors
by the title of king. There still exist medals struck to his
honor, on which the same title is found, Fl. Hannibaliano Regi.
See Eckhel, Doct. Num. t. viii. 204. Armeniam nationesque circum
socias habebat, says Aur. Victor, p. 225. The writer means the
Lesser Armenia. Though it is not possible to question a fact
supported by such respectable authorities, Gibbon considers it
inexplicable and incredible. It is a strange abuse of the
privilege of doubting, to refuse all belief in a fact of such
little importance in itself, and attested thus formally by
contemporary authors and public monuments. St. Martin note to Le
Beau i. 341. - M.]