Chapter VI (2)

In inquiring now into the period referred to by this symbol, we naturally look to that which immediately succeeded the one which was represented by the opening of the first seal; that is, the period which followed the accession of Commodus, A.D. 180. We shall find, in the events which succeeded his accession to the empire, a state of things which remarkably accords with the account given by John in this emblem――so much so, that if it were supposed that the book was written _after_ these events had occurred, and that John had _designed_ to represent them by this symbol, he could not have selected a more appropriate emblem. The only authority which it is necessary to refer to here is Mr. Gibbon; who, as before remarked, seems to have been raised up by a special Providence to make a record of those events which were referred to by some of the most remarkable prophecies in the Bible. As he had the highest qualifications for an historian, his statements may be relied on as accurate; and as he had no belief in the inspiration of the prophetic records, his testimony will not be charged with partiality in their favour. The following particulars, therefore, will furnish a full illustration of the opening of the second seal: (a) The previous state of peace. This is implied in the expression, “and power was given to him to _take peace_ from the earth.” Of this we have had a full confirmation in the peaceful reign of Hadrian and the Antonines. See the Notes on the exposition of the first seal. Mr. Gibbon, speaking of the accession of Commodus to the imperial throne, says that he “had nothing to wish, and everything to enjoy. The beloved son of Marcus [Commodus] succeeded his father amidst the acclamations of the senate and armies; and when he ascended the throne, the happy youth saw around him neither competitor to remove, nor enemies to punish. In this calm elevated station, it was surely natural that he should prefer the love of mankind to their detestation; the mild glories of his five predecessors to the ignominious fate of Nero and Domitian,” i. 51. So again, on the same page, he says of Commodus, “His graceful person, popular address, and imagined virtues attracted the public favour; the honourable peace which he had recently granted to the barbarians diffused an universal joy.” No one can doubt that the accession of Commodus was preceded by a remarkable prevalence of peace and prosperity. (b) Civil war and bloodshed: _to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another_. Of the applicability of this to the time supposed to be represented by this seal, we have the fullest confirmation in the series of civil wars commencing with the assassination of the emperor Commodus, A.D. 193, and continued, with scarcely any intervals of intermission, for eighty or ninety years. So Sismondi, on the fall of the Roman empire (i. 36), says, “With Commodus’ death commenced the third and most calamitous period. It lasted ninety-two years, from 193 to 284. During that time, thirty-two emperors, and twenty-seven pretenders to the empire, alternately hurried each other from the throne, by incessant civil warfare. Ninety-two years of almost incessant civil warfare taught the world _on what a frail foundation the virtue of the Antonines had reared the felicity of the empire_.” The full history of this period may be seen in Gibbon, i. pp. 50‒197. Of course it is impossible in these Notes to present anything like a complete account of the characteristics of those times. Yet the briefest summary may well show the general condition of the Roman empire then, and the propriety of representing it by the symbol of a red horse, as a period when peace would be taken from the earth, and when men would kill one another. Commodus himself is represented by Mr. Gibbon in the following words:――“Commodus was not, as he has been represented, a tiger, born with an insatiate thirst of human blood, and capable, from his infancy, of the most inhuman actions. Nature had formed him of a weak, rather than a wicked disposition. His simplicity and timidity rendered him the slave of his attendants, who gradually corrupted his mind. His cruelty, which at first obeyed the dictates of others, degenerated into habit, and at length became the ruling passion of his soul,” i. 51. During the first {148} three years of his reign “his hands were yet unstained with blood” (_Ibid._), but he soon degenerated into a most severe and bloody tyrant, and “when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he was incapable of pity or remorse,” i. 52. “The tyrant’s rage,” says Mr. Gibbon (i. 52), “after having shed the noblest blood of the senate, at length recoiled on the principal instrument of his cruelty. While Commodus _was immersed in blood and luxury_ he devolved the detail of public business on Perennis, a servile and ambitious minister, who had obtained his post by the murder of his predecessor,” &c. “Every sentiment of virtue and humanity was extinct in the mind of Commodus,” i. 55. After detailing the history of his crimes, his follies, and his cruelties, Mr. Gibbon remarks of him: “His cruelty proved at last fatal to himself. He had shed with impunity the best blood of Rome: he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own domestics. Marcia, his favourite concubine, Eclectus, his chamberlain, and Lætus, his pretorian prefect, alarmed by the fate of their companions and predecessors, resolved to prevent the destruction which every hour hung over their heads, either from the mad caprice of the tyrant, or the sudden indignation of the people. Marcia seized the occasion of presenting a draught of wine to her lover, after he had fatigued himself with hunting some wild beasts. Commodus retired to sleep; but while he was labouring with the effects of poison and drunkenness, a robust youth, by profession a wrestler, entered his chamber, and strangled him without resistance,” i. 57. The immediate consequence of the assassination of Commodus was the elevation of Pertinax to the throne, and his murder eighty-six days after (_Decline and Fall_, i. 60). Then followed the public setting-up of the empire to sale by the pretorian guards, and its purchase by a wealthy Roman senator, Didius Julianus, or Julian, who, “on the throne of the world, found himself without a friend and without an adherent,” i. 63. “The streets and public places in Rome resounded with clamours and imprecations.” “The public discontent was soon diffused from the centre to the frontiers of the empire,” i. 63. In the midst of this universal indignation Septimius Severus, who then commanded the army in the neighbourhood of the Danube, resolved to avenge the death of Pertinax, and to seize upon the imperial crown. He marched to Rome, overcame the feeble Julian, and placed himself on the throne. Julian, after having reigned sixty-six days, was beheaded in a private apartment of the baths of the palace, i. 67. “In less than four years Severus subdued the riches of the East, and the valour of the West. He vanquished two competitors of reputation and ability, and defeated numerous armies provided with weapons and discipline equal to his own,” i. 68. Mr. Gibbon then enters into a detail of “the two _civil wars_ against Niger and Albinus”――rival competitors for the empire (i. 68‒70), both of whom were vanquished, and both of whom were put to death “in their flight from the field of battle.” Yet he says, “Although the wounds of civil war were apparently healed, its mortal poison still lurked in the vitals of the constitution,” i. 71. After the death of Severus, then follows an account of the contentions between his sons, Geta and Caracalla, and of the death of the former by the instigation of the latter (i. 77); then of the remorse of Caracalla, in which it is said that “his disordered fancy often beheld the angry forms of his father and his brother rising into life to threaten and upbraid him” (i. 77); then of the cruelties which Caracalla inflicted on the friends of Geta, in which “it was computed that, under the vague appellation of the friends of Geta, above twenty thousand persons of both sexes suffered death” (i. 78); then of the departure of Caracalla from the capital, and his cruelties in other parts of the empire, concerning which Mr. Gibbon remarks (i. 78, 79), that “Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. Every province was by turns the scene of his rapine and cruelty. In the midst of peace and repose, upon the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at Alexandria in Egypt for a general massacre. From a secure post in the temple of Serapis he viewed and directed the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers, without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the sufferers,” &c. Then follows the account of the assassination of Caracalla (i. 80); then, and in consequence of that, of the civil war which crushed Macrinus, and raised Elagabalus to the throne (i. 83); then of the life and follies of that wretched voluptuary, and of his massacre by the pretorian guards {149} (i. 86); then, after an interval of thirteen years, of the murder of his successor, the second Severus, on the Rhine; then of the civil wars excited against his murderer and successor, Maximin, in which the two emperors of a day――the Gordians, father and son――perished in Africa, and Maximin himself, and his son, in the siege of Aquileia; then of the murder at Rome of the two joint emperors, Maximus and Balbinus; and quickly after that an account of the murder of their successor in the empire, the third and youngest Gordian, on the banks of the river Aboras; then of the slaughter of the next emperor Philip, together with his son and associate in the empire, in the battle near Verona:――and this state of things may be said to have continued until the accession of Diocletian to the empire, A.D. 284. See _Decline and Fall_, i. 110‒197. Does any portion of the history of the world present a similar period of connected history that would be so striking a fulfilment of the symbols used here of “peace being taken from the earth,” and “men killing one another?” In regard to this whole period it is sufficient, after reading Mr. Gibbon’s account, to ask two questions: (1) If it were supposed that John lived _after_ this period, and designed to represent this by an expressive symbol, could he have found one that would have characterized it better than this does? (2) And if it should be supposed that Mr. Gibbon _designed_ to write a commentary on this “seal,” and to show the exact fulfilment of the symbol, could he have selected a better portion of history to do it, or could he have better described facts that would be a complete fulfilment? It is only necessary to observe further, (c) that this is a _marked_ and _definite_ period. It has such a beginning, and such a continuance and ending, as to show that this symbol was applicable to this _as_ a period of the world. For it was not only preceded by a state of peace, as is supposed in the symbol, but no one can deny that the condition of things in the empire, from Commodus onward through many years, was such as to be appropriately designated by the symbol here used.

5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third
beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo, a black horse;
and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say,
[217]A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of
barley for a penny; and _see_ thou [218]hurt not the oil and
the wine.

5, 6. _And when he had opened the third seal._. Unfolding another portion of the volume. See Notes on ch. v. 1. ¶ _I heard the third beast say, Come and see._ See Notes on ch. iv. 7. It is not apparent why the _third_ beast is represented as taking a particular interest in the opening of _this_ seal (comp. Notes on ver. 3), nor is it necessary to show why it was so. The general design seems to have been, to represent each one of the four living creatures as interested in the opening of the seals, but the _order_ in which they did this does not seem to be a matter of importance. ¶ _And I beheld, and lo, a black horse._ The specifications of the symbol here are the following: (a) As before, the horse. See Notes on ver. 2. (b) The _colour_ of the horse: _lo, a black horse_. This would properly denote distress and calamity――for _black_ has been regarded always as such a symbol. So Virgil speaks of _fear_ as black: “atrumque timorem” (_Æn._ ix. 619). So again, _Georg._ iv. 468:

“Caligantem nigra formidine lucum.”

So, as applied to the dying Acca, _Æn._ xi. 825:

“Tenebris nigrescunt omnia circum.”

Black, in the Scriptures, is the image of fear, of famine, of death. La. v. 10: “Our skin was black like an oven, because of the terrible famine.” Je. xiv. 2: “Because of the drought Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are in deep mourning [literally, _black_] for the land.” Joel ii. 6: “All faces shall gather blackness.” Na. ii. 10: “The knees smite together, and there is great pain in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness.” Comp. Re. vi. 12; Eze. xxxii. 7. See also Bochart, _Hieroz._ P. i. lib. ii. c. vii. pp. 106, 107. From the _colour_ of the horse here introduced we should naturally look for some dire calamity, though the _nature_ of the calamity would not be designated by the mere use of the word _black_. What the calamity was to be must be determined by what follows in the symbol. Famine, pestilence, oppression, heavy taxation, tyranny, invasion――any of these might be denoted by the colour of the horse. (c) The balances: _and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand_. The original word here rendered _a pair {150} of balances_, is ζυγὸν. This word properly means _a yoke_, serving to couple anything together, as a yoke for cattle. Hence it is used to denote the _beam_ of a balance, or of a pair of scales――and is evidently so used here. The idea is, that something was to be _weighed_, in order to ascertain either its _quantity_ or its _value_. Scales or balances are the emblems of justice or equity (comp. Job xxxi. 6; Ps. lxii. 9; Pr. xi. 1; xvi. 11); and when joined with symbols that denote the sale of corn and fruit by weight, become the symbol of scarcity. Thus “bread by weight” (Le. xxvi. 26) denotes scarcity. So in Eze. iv. 16, “And they shall eat bread by weight.” The use of balances here as a symbol would signify that something was to be accurately and carefully weighed out. The connection leads us to suppose that this would appertain to the necessaries of life, and that it would occur either in consequence of scarcity, or because there would be an accurate or severe exaction, as in collecting a revenue on these articles. The balance was commonly the symbol of equity and justice; but it was also, sometimes, the symbol of exaction and oppression, as in Ho. xii. 7: “The balance of deceit is in his hands; he loveth to oppress.” If the balances stood alone, and there were no proclamation as to what was to occur, we should look, under this seal, to a time of the exact administration of justice, as scales or balances are now used as emblems of the rigid application of the laws and of the principles of justice in courts, or in public affairs. If _this_ representation stood alone, or if the black horse and the scales constituted the whole of the symbol, we should look for some severe administration, or perhaps some heavy calamity under a rigorous administration of laws. The reference, however, to the “wheat and barley,” and to the price for which they were to be weighed out, serves still further to limit and define the meaning of the symbol as having reference to the necessaries of life――to the productions of the land――to the actual capital of the country. Whether this refers to scarcity, or to taxation, or both, must be determined by the other parts of the symbol. (d) The proclamation: _And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say_. That is, from the throne, ch. iv. 6. The voice was not that of one of the four beasts, but it seemed to come from among them. As the rider went forth, this was the proclamation that was made in regard to him; or this is that which is symbolized in his going forth, to wit, that there would be such a state of things that a measure of wheat would be sold for a penny, &c. The proclamation consists essentially of two things――that which refers to the price or value of wheat and barley, and that which requires that care shall be taken not to injure the oil and the wine. Each of these demands explanation. ¶ _A measure of wheat for a penny._ See the margin. The word rendered _measure_――χοῖνιξ, _chœnix_――denotes an Attic measure for grain and things dry, equal to the forty-eighth part of the Attic medimnus, or the eighth part of the Roman modius, and consequently was nearly equivalent to one quart English (Rob. _Lex._). The word rendered _penny_, δηνάριον――Lat. _denarius_――was of the same value as the Greek δραχμή, _drachmē_, and was equivalent to about fourteen cents or sevenpence. This was the usual price of a day’s labour, Mat. xx. 2, 9. The chœnix, or measure of grain here referred to, was the ordinary daily allowance for one man [_Odyss._, xix. 27, 28). See Stuart, _in loco_. The common price of the Attic medimnus of wheat was five or six denarii; but here, as that contained forty-eight chœnixes or quarts, the price would be augmented to forty-eight denarii――or it would be about eight times as dear as ordinary; that is, there would be a scarcity or famine. The price of a _bushel_ of wheat at this rate would be about four dollars and a half or 18 shillings――a price which would indicate great scarcity, and which would give rise to much distress. ¶ _And three measures of barley for a penny._ It would seem from this that barley usually bore about one-third the price of wheat. It was a less valuable grain, and perhaps was produced in greater abundance. This is not far from the proportion which the price of this grain usually {151} bears to that of wheat, and here, as in the case of the wheat, the thing which would be indicated would be scarcity. This proclamation of “a measure of wheat for a penny” was heard either as addressed _to_ the horseman, as a rule of action for him, or as addressed _by_ the horseman as he went forth. If the former is the meaning, it would be an appropriate address to one who was going forth to collect tribute――with reference to the _exact_ manner in which this tribute was to be collected, implying some sort of severity of exaction; or to one who should distribute wheat and barley out of the public granaries at an advanced price, indicating scarcity. Thus it would mean that a severe and heavy tax――represented by the scales and the scarcity――or a tax so severe as to _make_ grain dear, was referred to. If the latter is the meaning, then the idea is that there would be a scarcity, and that grain would be dealt out by the government at a high and oppressive price. The latter idea would be as consonant with the symbol of the scales and the price mentioned as the other, if it were not for the _additional_ injunction not to “hurt the oil and the wine”――which cannot be well applied to the idea of dealing out grain at a high price. It can, however, be connected, by a fair interpretation of that passage, with such a severity of taxation that there would be a propriety in such a command――for, as we shall see, under the explanation of that phrase, such a law was actually promulgated as resulting from severity of taxation. The idea, then, in the passage before us, would seem to be, (a) that there would be a rigid administration of the law in regard to the matter under consideration――that pertaining to the productions of the earth――represented by the balances; and (b) that that would be connected with general scarcity, or such an exercise of this power as to determine the price of grain, so that the price would be some three times greater than ordinary. ¶ _And see thou hurt not the oil and the wine._ There has been a great variety of interpretations proposed of this passage, and it is by no means easy to determine the true sense. The first inquiry in regard to it is, to whom is it addressed? Perhaps the most common impression on reading it would be, that it is addressed to the horseman with the balances, commanding _him_ not to injure the oliveyards and the vineyards. But this is not probably the correct view. It does not appear that the horseman goes forth to destroy anything, or that the effect of his going forth is directly to injure anything. This, therefore, should not be understood as addressed to the horseman, but should be regarded as a general command to any and all _not_ to injure the oliveyards and vineyards; that is, an order that nothing should be done essentially to injure them. If thus regarded as addressed to others, a fair and congruous meaning would be furnished by either of the following interpretations: either (a) considered as addressed to those who were disposed to be prodigal in their manner of living, or careless as to the destruction of the crop of the oil and wine, as they would now be needed; or (b) as addressed to those who raised such productions, on the supposition that they would be _taxed_ heavily, or that large quantities of these productions would be extorted for revenue, that they should not mutilate their fruit-trees in order to evade the taxes imposed by the government. In regard to the things specified here――oil and wine――it may be remarked, that they were hardly considered as articles of luxury in ancient times. They were almost as _necessary_ articles as wheat and barley. They constituted a considerable part of the food and drink of the people, as well as furnished a large portion of the revenue, and it would seem to be with reference to that fact that the command here is given that they should not be injured; that is, that nothing should be done to diminish the quantity of oil and wine, or to impair the productive power of oliveyards and vineyards. The state of things thus described by this seal, as thus interpreted, would be, (a) a rigid administration of the laws of the empire, particularly in reference to taxation, producing a scarcity among the necessary articles of living; (b) a strong tendency, _from_ the severity of the taxation, to mutilate such kinds of property, with a view either of concealing the real amount of property, or of diminishing the amount of taxes; and (c) a solemn command from some authoritative quarter _not_ to do this. A command from the ruling power _not_ to do this would meet all that would be fairly demanded in the _interpretation_ of the passage; and what is necessary in its _application_, is to find such a state of things as would {152} correspond with these predictions; that is, such as a writer _would have_ described _by_ such symbols on the supposition that they were referred to.

Now it so happens that there _were_ important events which occurred in the Roman empire, and connected with its decline and fall, of sufficient importance to be noticed in a series of calamitous events, which corresponded with the symbol here, as above explained. They were such as these: (a) The _general_ severity of taxation, or the oppressive burdens laid on the people by the emperors. In the account which Mr. Gibbon gives of the operation of the _Indictions_, and _Superindictions_, though the specific laws on this subject pertained to a subsequent period, the general nature of the taxation of the empire and its oppressive character may be seen (_Decline and Fall_, i. 357‒359). A general estimate of the amount of revenue to be exacted was made out, and the collecting of this was committed to the pretorian prefects, and to a great number of subordinate officers. “The lands were measured by surveyors who were sent into the provinces; their nature, whether arable, or pasture, or woods, was distinctly reported; and an estimate made of their common value, from the average produce of five years. The number of slaves and of cattle constituted an essential part of the report; an oath was administered to the proprietors, which bound them to disclose the true state of their affairs; and their attempts to prevaricate or elude the intention of the legislature were severely watched, and punished as a capital crime, which included the double guilt of treason and of sacrilege. According to the different nature of lands, their real produce in the various articles of _wine or oil, corn or barley_, wood or iron, was transported by the labour or at the expense of the provincials to the imperial magazines, from whence they were occasionally distributed for the use of the court or of the army, and of the two capitals, Rome and Constantinople,” i. p. 358. Comp. Lactant. _de Mort. Persecut._, c. 23. (b) The particular order, under this oppressive system of taxation, respecting the preservation of vineyards and oliveyards, may be referred to, also, as corresponding to the command sent forth under this rider, not to “hurt the oil and the wine.” That order was in the following words:――“If any one shall sacrilegiously cut a vine, or stint the fruit of prolific boughs, and craftily feign poverty in order to avoid a fair assessment, he shall, immediately on detection, suffer death, and his property be confiscated” (_Cod. Theod._ l. xiii. lib. xi. seq.; Gibbon, i. 358, note). Mr. Gibbon remarks: “Although this law is not without its studied obscurity, it is, however, clear enough to prove the minuteness of the inquisition, and the disproportion of the penalty.” (c) Under this general subject of the severity of taxation――as a fact far-spreading and oppressive, and as so important as to hasten the downfall of the empire, may be noticed a distinct edict of Caracalla as occurring more directly in the period in which the rider with the balances may be supposed to have gone forth. This is stated by Mr. Gibbon (i. 91) as one of the important causes which contributed to the downfall of the empire. “The personal characters of the emperors, their victories, laws, and fortunes,” says he, “can interest us no farther than they are connected with the general history of the decline and fall of the monarchy. Our constant attention to that object will not suffer us to overlook a most important edict of Antoninus Caracalla, which communicated to all the free inhabitants of the empire the name and privileges of Roman citizens. His unbounded liberality, however, flowed not from the sentiments of a generous mind; it was the sordid result of avarice,” &c. He then proceeds at length to state the nature and operations of that law, by which a heavy tax, under the pretence of liberality, was in fact imposed on all the citizens of the empire――a fact which, in its ultimate results, the historian of the _Decline and Fall_ regards as so closely connected with the termination of the empire. See Gibbon, i. pp. 91‒95. After noticing the laws of Augustus, Nero, and the Antonines, and the real privileges conferred by them on those who became entitled to the rank of Roman citizens――privileges which were a compensation in the honour, dignity, and offices of that rank for the measure of taxation which it involved――he proceeds to notice the fact that the _title_ of “Roman citizen” was conferred by Caracalla on all the free citizens of the empire, involving the subjection to all the heavy taxes usually imposed on those who sustained the rank expressed by the title, but with nothing of the compensation connected {153} with the title when it was confined to the inhabitants of Italy. “But the favour,” says he, “which implied a distinction, was lost in the prodigality of Caracalla, and the reluctant provincials were compelled to assume _the vain title_, and the real _obligations_, of Roman citizens. Nor was the rapacious son of Severus [Caracalla] contented with such a measure of taxation as had appeared sufficient to his moderate predecessors. Instead of a twentieth, he exacted a tenth of all legacies and inheritances; and during his reign he crushed alike every part of the empire under the weight of his iron sceptre,” i. 95. So again (_Ibid._), speaking of the taxes which had been lightened somewhat by Alexander, Mr. Gibbon remarks: “It is impossible to conjecture the motive that engaged him to spare so trifling a remnant of the evil; but the noxious weed, which had not been totally eradicated, again sprung up with the most luxuriant growth, and in the succeeding age darkened the Roman world with its deadly shade. In the course of this history we shall be too often summoned to explain the land-tax, the capitation, and the heavy contributions of _corn_, _wine_, _oil_, and meat, which were exacted from the provinces for the use of the court, the army, and the capital.” In reference to this whole matter of _taxation_ as being one of the things which contributed to the downfall of the empire, and which spread woe through the falling empire――a woe worthy to be illustrated by one of the seals――a confirmation may be derived from the reign of Galerius, who, as Cæsar, acted under the authority of Diocletian; who excited Diocletian to the work of persecution (_Decline and Fall_, i. 317, 318); and who, on the abdication of Diocletian, assumed the title of Augustus (_Decline and Fall_, i. 222). Of his administration in general Mr. Gibbon (i. 226) remarks: “About that time the avarice of Galerius, or perhaps the exigencies of the state, had induced him to make a very strict and rigorous inquisition into the property of his subjects for the purpose of a general taxation, both on their lands and on their persons. A very minute survey appears to have been taken of their real estates; and wherever there was the slightest suspicion of concealment, torture was very freely employed to obtain a sincere declaration of their personal wealth.” Of the nature of this exaction under Galerius; of the cruelty with which the measure was prosecuted――particularly in its bearing on Christians, towards whom Galerius cherished a mortal enmity (_Decline and Fall_, i. 317); and of the extent and severity of the suffering among Christians and others, caused by it――the following account of Lactantius (_De Mort. Persecut._, c. 23) will furnish a painful but most appropriate illustration:――“Swarms of exactors sent into the provinces and cities filled them with agitation and terror, as though a conquering enemy were leading them into captivity. The fields were separately measured, the trees and vines, the flocks and herds numbered, and an examination made of the men. In the cities the cultivated and rude were united as of the same rank. The streets were crowded with groups of families, and every one required to appear with his children and slaves. Tortures and lashes resounded on every side. Sons were gibbeted in the presence of their parents, and the most confidential servants harassed that they might make disclosures against their masters, and wives that they might testify unfavourably of their husbands. If there were a total destitution of property, they were still tortured to make acknowledgments against themselves, and, when overcome by pain, inscribed for what they did not possess. Neither age nor ill-health was admitted as an excuse for not appearing. The sick and weak were borne to the place of inscription, a reckoning made of the age of each, and years added to the young and deducted from the old, in order to subject them to a higher taxation than the law imposed. The whole scene was filled with wailing and sadness. In the meantime individuals died, and the herds and the flocks diminished, yet tribute was none the less required to be paid for the dead, so that it was no longer allowed either to live or die without a tax. Mendicants alone escaped, where nothing could be wrenched, and whom misfortune and misery had made incapable of farther oppression. These the impious wretch affecting to pity, that they might not suffer want, ordered to be assembled, borne off in vessels, and plunged into the sea.” See Lord on the Apoc., pp. 128, 129. These facts in regard to the severity of taxation, and the rigid nature of the law enforcing it; to the sources of the révenue exacted in the provinces, and to the care that none {154} of those sources should be diminished; and to the actual and undoubted bearing of all this on the decline and fall of the empire, are so strikingly applicable to the symbol here employed, that if it be supposed that it was _intended_ to refer to them, no more natural or expressive symbol could have been used; if it were supposed that the historian _meant_ to make a record of the fulfilment, he could not well have made a search which would more strikingly accord with the symbol. Were we _now_ to represent these things by a symbol, we could scarcely find one that would be more expressive than that of a rider on a black horse with a pair of scales, sent forth under a proclamation which indicated that there would be a most rigid and exact administration of severe and oppressive laws, and with a special command, addressed to the people, not for the purposes of concealment, or from opposition to the government, to injure the sources of revenue. It may serve further to illustrate this, to copy one of the usual emblems of a Roman procurator or questor. It is taken from Spanheim, _De Usu Num. Diss._, vi. 545. See Elliott, i. 169. It has a balance as a symbol of exactness or justice, and an ear of grain as a symbol employed with reference to procuring or exacting grain from the provinces.

Illustration: Emblem of a Roman Procurator.

7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of
the fourth beast say, Come and see.

7. _And when he had opened the fourth seal._ See Notes, ch. v. 1. ¶ _I heard the voice of the fourth beast say._ The flying eagle. Notes, ch. iv. 7. As in the other cases, there does not appear to have been any particular reason why the _fourth_ of the living creatures should have made this proclamation rather than either of the others. It was poetic and appropriate to represent each one in his turn as making proclamation. ¶ _Come and see._ See Notes, ver. 1.

8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse; and his name that
sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power
was given [219]unto them over the fourth part of the earth,
to kill [220]with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and
with the beasts of the earth.

8. _And I looked, and behold a pale horse_――ἵππος χλωρὸς. On the _horse_, as an emblem, see Notes on ver. 2. The _peculiarity_ of this emblem consists in the _colour_ of the horse, the rider, and the power that was given unto him. In these there is entire harmony, and there can be comparatively little difficulty in the explanation and application. The _colour_ of the horse was _pale_――χλωρὸς. This word properly means _pale-green_, _yellowish-green_, like the colour of the first shoots of grass and herbage; then _green_, _verdant_, like young herbage, Mar. vi. 39; Re. viii. 7; ix. 4; and then _pale yellowish_ (Rob. _Lex._). The colour here would be an appropriate one to denote the reign of death――as one of the most striking effects of death is _paleness_――and, of course, of death produced by any cause, famine, pestilence, or the sword. From this portion of the symbol, if it stood with nothing to limit and define it, we should naturally look for some condition of things in which death would prevail in a remarkable manner, or in which multitudes of human beings would be swept away. And yet, perhaps, from the very nature of _this_ part of the symbol, we should look for the prevalence of death in some such peaceful manner as by famine or disease. The _red_ colour would more naturally denote the ravages of death in war; the black, the ravages of death by sudden calamity; the pale would more obviously suggest famine or wasting disease. ¶ _And his name that sat on him was Death._ No description is given of his aspect; nor does he appear with any emblem――as sword, or spear, {155} or bow. There is evident scope for the fancy to picture to itself the form of the destroyer; and there is just that kind of obscurity about it which contributes to sublimity. Accordingly, there has been ample room for the exercise of the imagination in the attempts to paint “Death on the pale horse,” and the opening of this seal has furnished occasion for some of the greatest triumphs of the pencil. The simple _idea_ in this portion of the symbol is, that death would reign or prevail under the opening of this seal――whether by sword, by famine, or by pestilence, is to be determined by other descriptions in the symbol. ¶ _And Hell followed with him._ Attended him as he went forth. On the meaning of the word here rendered _hell_――ᾅδης, _hades_――see Notes on Lu. xvi. 23, comp. Notes on Job x. 21, 22; Is. xiv. 9. It is here used to denote the abode of the dead, considered as a place where they dwell, and not in the more restricted sense in which the word is now commonly used as a place of punishment. The idea is, that the dead would be so numerous at the going forth of this horseman, that it would seem as if the pale nations of the dead had come again upon the earth. A vast retinue of the dead would accompany him; that is, it would be a time when death would prevail on the earth, or when multitudes would die. ¶ _And power was given unto them._ Marg., _to him_. The common Greek text is αὐτοῖς――_to them_. There are many MSS., however, which read αὐτῷ――_to him_. So Professor Stuart reads it. The authority, however, is in favour of _them_ as the reading; and according to this, death and his train are regarded as grouped together, and the power is considered as given to them collectively. The sense is not materially varied. ¶ _Over the fourth part of the earth._ That is, of the Roman world. It is not absolutely necessary to understand this as extending over _precisely_ a fourth part of the world. Comp. Re. viii. 7‒10, 12; ix. 15, _et al._ Undoubtedly we are to look in the fulfilment of this to some far-spread calamity; to some severe visitations which would sweep off great multitudes of men. The _nature_ of that visitation is designated in the following specifications. ¶ _To kill with sword_. In war and discord――and we are, therefore, to look to a period of war. ¶ _And with hunger._ With famine――one of the accompaniments of war――where armies ravage a nation, trampling down the crops of grain; consuming the provisions laid up; employing in war, or cutting off, the men who would be occupied in cultivating the ground; making it necessary that they should take the field at a time when the grain should be sown or the harvest collected; and shutting up the people in besieged cities to perish by hunger. Famine has been not an unfrequent accompaniment of war; and we are to look for the fulfilment of this in its extensive prevalence. ¶ _And with death._ Each of the other forms――“with the sword and with hunger”――imply that _death_ would reign; for it is said that “power was given to _kill_ with sword and with hunger.” This word, then, must refer to death in some other form――to death that seemed to reign without any such _visible_ cause as the “sword” and “hunger.” This would well denote the pestilence――not an unfrequent accompaniment of war. For nothing is better fitted to produce this than the unburied bodies of the slain; the filth of a camp; the want of food; and the crowding together of multitudes in a besieged city; and, accordingly, the pestilence, especially in Oriental countries, has been often closely connected with war. That the _pestilence_ is referred to here is rendered more certain by the fact that the Hebrew word דֶּבֶר, _pestilence_, which occurs about fifty times in the Old Testament, is rendered θάνατος, _death_, more than thirty times in the Septuagint. ¶ _And with the beasts of the earth_. With wild beasts. This, too, would be one of the consequences of war, famine, and pestilence. Lands would be depopulated, and wild beasts would be multiplied. Nothing more is necessary to make them formidable than a prevalence of these things; and nothing, in the early stages of society, or in countries ravaged by war, famine, and the pestilence, is more formidable. Homer, at the very beginning of his _Iliad_, presents us with a representation similar to this. Comp. Eze. xiv. 21: “I send my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence,” דֶבֶר――Sept., as here, θάνατον. See also 2 Ki. xvii. 26.

In regard to the fulfilment of this there can be little difficulty, if the principles adopted in the interpretation of the first three seals are correct. We {156} may turn to Gibbon, and, as in the other cases, we shall find that he has been an unconscious witness of the fidelity of the representation in this seal. Two _general_ remarks may be made before there is an attempt to illustrate the particular things in the symbol. (a) The first relates to _the place_ in the order of time, or in history, which this seal occupies. If the three former seals have been located with any degree of accuracy, we should expect that this would follow, not very remotely, the severe laws pertaining to taxation, which, according to Mr. Gibbon, contributed so essentially to the downfall of the empire. And if it be admitted to be probable that the fifth seal refers to a time of persecution, it would be most natural to fix this period between those times and the times of Diocletian, when the persecution ceased. I may be permitted to say, that I was led to fix on this period without having any definite view beforehand of what occurred _in_ it, and was surprised to find in Mr. Gibbon what _seems_ to be so accurate a correspondence with the symbol. (b) The second remark is, that the _general_ characteristics of this period, as stated by Mr. Gibbon, agree remarkably with what we should expect of the period from the symbol. Thus speaking of this whole period (A.D. 248‒268), embracing the reigns of Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian, and Gallienus, he says, “From the great secular games celebrated by Philip to the death of the emperor Gallienus, there elapsed twenty years of shame and misfortune. During this calamitous period every instant of time was marked, every province of the Roman world was afflicted by barbarous invaders and military tyrants, and the ruined empire seemed to approach the last and fatal moment of its dissolution,” i. 135.

In regard to the _particular_ things referred to in the symbol, the following specifications may furnish a sufficient confirmation and illustration: (a) The killing with the sword. A fulfilment of this, so far as the _words_ are concerned, might be found indeed in many portions of Roman history, but no one can doubt that it was eminently true of this period. It was the period of the _first_ Gothic invasion of the Roman empire; the period when those vast hordes, having gradually come down from the regions of Scandinavia, and having moved along the Danube towards the Ukraine and the countries bordering on the Borysthenes, invaded the Roman territories from the East, passed over Greece, and made their appearance almost, as Mr. Gibbon says, within sight of Rome. Of this invasion Mr. Gibbon says, “This is the first considerable occasion [the fact that the emperor Decius was summoned to the banks of the Danube, A.D. 250, by the invasion of the Goths] in which history mentions that great people, who afterwards broke the Roman power, sacked the Capitol, and reigned in Gaul, Spain, and Italy. So memorable was the part which they acted in the subversion of the Western empire, that the name of GOTHS is frequently, but improperly, used as a general appellation of rude and warlike barbarism,” i. p. 136. As one of the illustrations that the “sword” would be used by “Death” in this period, we may refer to the siege and capture of Philippolis. “A hundred thousand persons are reported to have been massacred in the sack of that great city” (_Dec. and Fall_, i. 140). “The whole period,” says Mr. Gibbon, speaking of the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, “was one uninterrupted series of confusion and calamity. The Roman empire was, at the same time, and on every side, attacked by the blind fury of foreign invaders, and the wild ambition of domestic usurpers,” i. 144. “Such were the barbarians,” says Mr. Gibbon in the close of his description of the Goths at this period, and of the tyrants that reigned, “and such the tyrants, who, under the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, dismembered the provinces, and reduced the empire to the lowest pitch of disgrace and ruin, from whence it seemed impossible that it should ever emerge,” i. 158. (b) Famine: “Shall kill with hunger.” This would naturally be the consequence of long-continued wars, and of such invasions as those of the Goths. Mr. Gibbon says of this period: “Our habits of thinking so fondly connect the order of the universe with the fate of man, that this gloomy period of history has been decorated with inundations, earthquakes, uncommon meteors, preternatural darkness, and a crowd of prodigies, fictitious or exaggerated. But _a long and general famine_ was a calamity of a more serious kind. It was the inevitable consequence of rapine and oppression, which extirpated the produce of the present, and the hope of future harvests,” i. p. 159. Prodigies, and preternatural {157} darkness, and earthquakes, were _not_ seen in the vision of the opening of the _seal_――but _war_ and _famine_ were; and the facts stated by Mr. Gibbon are such as would be now appropriately symbolized by Death on the pale horse. (c) Pestilence: “And shall kill with death.” Of the pestilence which raged in this period Mr. Gibbon makes the following remarkable statement, in immediate connection with what he says of the famine:――“Famine is almost always followed by epidemical diseases, the effect of scanty and unwholesome food. Other causes must, however, have contributed to the furious plague, which, from the year 250 to the year 265, _raged without interruption in every province, every city, and almost every family of the Roman empire_. During some time five thousand persons died daily at Rome; and many towns that had escaped the hands of the barbarians were entirely depopulated,” i. 159. (d) Wild beasts: “And shall kill with the beasts of the earth.” As already remarked, these are formidable enemies in the early stages of society, and when a country becomes, from any cause, depopulated. They are not mentioned by Mr. Gibbon as contributing to the decline and fall of the empire, or as connected with the calamities that came upon the world at that period. But no one can doubt that in such circumstances they would be likely to abound, especially if the estimate of Mr. Gibbon be correct (i. 159), when speaking of these times, and making an estimate of the proportion of the inhabitants of Alexandria that had perished――which he says was more than one-half――he adds, “Could we venture to extend the analogy to the other provinces, we might suspect that _war_, _pestilence_, and _famine_ had consumed in a few years the moiety of the human species.” Yet, though not adverted to by Mr. Gibbon, there _is_ a record pertaining to this very period, which shows that this was one of the calamities with which the world was then afflicted. It occurs in Arnobius, _Adv. Gentes_, lib. i. p. 5. Within a few years after the death of Gallienus (about A.D. 300) he speaks of wild beasts in such a manner as to show that they were regarded as a sore calamity. The public peril and suffering on this account were so great, that in common with other evils this was charged on Christians as one of the judgments of heaven which they brought upon the world. In defending Christians against the general charge that these judgments were sent from heaven on their account, he adverts to the prevalence of wild beasts, and shows that they could not have been sent as a judgment on account of the existence of Christianity, by the fact that they had prevailed also in the times of heathenism, long before Christianity was introduced into the empire. “Quando cum feris bella, et proelia cum leonibus gesta sunt? Non ante nos? Quando pernicies populis venenatis ab anguibus data est? Non ante nos?” “When were wars waged with wild beasts, and contests with lions? Was it not before our times? When did a plague come upon men poisoned by serpents? Was it not before our times?” In regard to the _extent_ of the destruction which these causes would bring upon the world, there is a remarkable confirmation in Gibbon. To say, as is said in the account of the seal, that “a _fourth_ part of the earth” would be subjected to the reign of death by the sword, by famine, by pestilence, and by wild beasts, may seem to many to be an improbable statement――a statement for the fulfilment of which we should look in vain to any historical records. Yet Mr. Gibbon, without expressly mentioning the plague of wild beasts, but referring to the three others――“war, pestilence, and famine”――goes into a calculation, in a passage already referred to, by which he shows that it is probable that from these causes _half_ the human race was destroyed. The following is his estimate:――“We have the knowledge of a very curious circumstance, of some use perhaps in the melancholy calculation of human calamities. An exact register was kept at Alexandria of all the citizens entitled to receive the distribution of corn. It was found that the ancient number of those comprised between the ages of forty and seventy had been equal to the whole sum of claimants, from fourteen to fourscore years of age, who remained alive after the reign of Gallienus. Applying this authentic fact to the most correct tables of mortality, it evidently proves that above half the people of Alexandria had perished; and could we venture to extend the analogy to the other provinces, _we might suspect that war, pestilence, and famine had consumed in a few years the moiety of the human species_, ” i. 159. The historian says that it might be “_suspected_ ” from these data that one-half of the {158} human race had been cut off in a few years, from these causes; in the Apocalyptic vision it is said that power was given over one “_fourth_” of the earth. We may remark, (a) that the description in the symbol is as _likely_ to be correct as the “suspicion” of the historian; and (b) that his statement that in this period “a moiety of the race,” or one-half of the race, perished, takes away all improbability from the prediction, and gives a most graphic confirmation of the symbol of _Death on the pale horse_. If such a desolation in fact occurred, there is no improbability in the supposition that it might have been prefigured by the opening of a prophetic seal. Such a wide-spread desolation would be _likely_ to be referred to in a series of symbols that were designed to represent the downfall of the Roman power, and the great changes in human affairs that would affect the welfare of the church.

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under
the [221]altar the [222]souls of them that were slain for
[223]the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, [224]How long,
O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and [225]avenge
our blood on them that dwell on the earth?