Chapter IX (3)

The rise and character of the Turkish people may be seen stated in full in Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, iii. 101‒103, 105, 486; iv. 41, 42, 87, 90, 91, 93, 100, 127, 143, 151, 258, 260, 289, 350. The leading facts in regard to the history of the Turks, so far as they are necessary to be known before we proceed to apply the symbols, are the following:――(1) The Turks, or Turkmans, had their origin in the vicinity of the Caspian Sea, and were divided into two branches, one on the east, and the other on the west. The latter colony, in the tenth century, could muster forty thousand soldiers; the other numbered a hundred thousand families (Gibbon, iv. 90). By the latter of these, Persia was invaded and subdued, and soon Bagdad also came into their possession, and the seat of the caliph was occupied by a Turkish prince. The various details respecting this, and respecting their conversion to the faith of the Koran, may be seen in Gibbon, iv. 90‒93. A mighty Turkish and Moslem power was thus concentrated under Togrul, who had subdued the caliph, in the vicinity of the Tigris and the Euphrates, extending east over Persia and the countries adjacent to the Caspian Sea, but it had not yet crossed the Euphrates to carry its conquests to the west. The conquest of Bagdad by Togrul, {231} the first prince of the Seljuk race, was an important event, not only in itself, but as it was by this event that the Turk was constituted temporal lieutenant of the prophet’s vicar, and so the head of the temporal power of the religion of Islam. “The conqueror of the East kissed the ground, stood some time in a modest posture, and was led toward the throne by the vizier and an interpreter. After Togrul had seated himself on another throne his commission was publicly read, which declared him the temporal lieutenant of the prophet. He was successively invested with seven robes of honour, and presented with seven slaves, the natives of the seven climates of the Arabian empire, &c. Their alliance [of the sultan and the caliph] was cemented by the marriage of Togrul’s sister with the successor of the prophet,” &c. (Gibbon, iv. 93). The conquest of Persia, the subjugation of Bagdad, the union of the Turkish power with that of the caliph, the successor of Mahomet, and the foundation of this powerful kingdom in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, is all that is necessary to explain the sense of the phrase “which were _prepared_ for an hour,” &c., ver. 15. The arrangements were then made for the important series of events which were to occur when that formidable power should be summoned from the East, to spread the predicted desolation over so large a part of the world. A mighty dominion had been forming in the East that had subdued Persia, and that, by union with the caliphs, by the subjugation of Bagdad, and by embracing the Mahometan faith, had become “_prepared_” to play its subsequent important part in the affairs of the world. (2) The next important event in their history was the crossing of the Euphrates, and the invasion of Asia Minor. The account of this invasion can be best given in the words of Mr. Gibbon: “Twenty-five years after the death of Basil [the Greek emperor], his successors were suddenly assaulted by an unknown race of barbarians, who united the Scythian valour with the fanaticism of new proselytes, and the art and riches of a powerful monarchy. The myriads of Turkish horse overspread a frontier of six hundred miles from Taurus to Arzeroum, and the blood of one hundred and thirty thousand Christians was a grateful sacrifice to the Arabian prophet. Yet the arms of Togrul did not make any deep or lasting impression on the Greek empire. The torrent rolled away from the open country; the sultan retired without glory or success from the siege of an Armenian city; the obscure hostilities were continued or suspended with a vicissitude of events; and the bravery of the Macedonian legions renewed the fame of the conqueror of Asia. The name of Alp Arslan, the valiant lion, is expressive of the popular idea of the perfection of man; and the successor of Togrul displayed the fierceness and generosity of the royal animal. [‘The heads of the horses were as the heads of lions.’] He passed the Euphrates at the head of the Turkish cavalry, and entered Cæsarea, the metropolis of Cappadocia, to which he had been attracted by the fame and the wealth of the temple of St. Basil” (vol. iv. 93, 94; comp. also p. 95). (3) The next important event was the establishing of the kingdom of _Roum_ in Asia Minor. After a succession of victories and defeats; after being driven once and again from Asia Minor, and compelled to retire beyond its limits; and after subjecting the East to their arms (Gibbon, iv. 95‒100) in the various contests for the crown of the Eastern empire, the aid of the Turks was invoked by one party or the other until they secured for themselves a firm foothold in Asia Minor, and established themselves there in a permanent kingdom――evidently with the purpose of seizing upon Constantinople itself when an opportunity should be presented (Gibbon, iv. 100, 101). Of this kingdom of _Roum_ Mr. Gibbon (iv. 101) gives the following description, and speaks thus of the effect of its establishment on the destiny of the Eastern empire: “Since the first conquests of the caliphs, the establishment of the Turks in Anatolia, or Asia Minor, was the most deplorable loss which the church and empire had sustained. By the propagation of the Moslem faith Soliman deserved the name of Gazi, a holy champion; and his new kingdom of the Romans, or of _Roum_, was added to the table of Oriental geography. It is described as extending _from the Euphrates to Constantinople_, from the Black Sea to the confines of Syria; pregnant with mines of silver and iron, of alum and copper, fruitful in corn and wine, and productive of cattle and excellent horses. The wealth of Lydia, the arts of the Greeks, the splendour of the Augustan age, {232} existed only in books and ruins, which were equally obscure in the eyes of the Scythian conquerors. By the choice of the Sultan, Nice, the metropolis of Bithynia, was preferred for his palace and fortress――the seat of the Seljukian dynasty of Roum was planted one hundred miles from Constantinople; and the divinity of Christ was denied and derided in the same temple in which it had been pronounced by the first general synod of the Catholics. The unity of God and the mission of Mahomet were preached in the mosques; the Arabian learning was taught in the schools; the cadis judged according to the law of the Koran; the Turkish manners and language prevailed in the cities; and Turkman camps were scattered over the plains and mountains of Anatolia,” &c. (4) The next material event in the history of the Turkish power was the conquest of Jerusalem. See this described in Gibbon, iv. 102‒106. By this the attention of the Turks was turned for a time from the conquest of Constantinople――an event at which the Turkish power all along aimed, and in which they doubtless expected to be ultimately successful. Had they not been diverted from it by the wars connected with the Crusades, Constantinople would have fallen long before it did fall, for it was too feeble to defend itself if it had been attacked. (5) The conquest of Jerusalem by the Turks, and the oppressions which Christians experienced there, gave rise to the Crusades, by which the destiny of Constantinople was still longer delayed. The war of the Crusades was made on the Turks, and as the crusaders mostly passed through Constantinople and Anatolia, all the power of the Turks in Asia Minor was requisite to defend themselves, and they were incapable of making an attack on Constantinople until after the final defeat of the crusaders and restoration of peace. See Gibbon, iv. 106‒210. (6) The next material event in the history of the Turks was the conquest of Constantinople in A.D. 1453――an event which established the Turkish power in Europe and completed the downfall of the Roman empire (Gibbon, iv. 333‒359).

After this brief reference to the general history of the Turkish power, we are prepared to inquire more particularly whether the symbol in the passage before us is applicable to this series of events. This may be considered in several particulars.

(1) _The time._ If the first woe-trumpet referred to the Saracens, then it would be natural that the rise and progress of the Turkish power should be symbolized as the next great fact in history, and as that under which the empire fell. As we have seen, the Turkish power rose immediately after the power of the Saracens had reached its height, and identified itself with the Mahometan religion; and was, in fact, the next great power that affected the Roman empire, the welfare of the church, and the history of the world. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the _time_ is such as is demanded in the proper interpretation of the symbol.

(2) _The place._ We have seen (in the remarks on ver. 14) that this was on or near the river Euphrates, and that this power was long forming and consolidating itself on the east of that river before it crossed it in the invasion of Asia Minor. It had spread over Persia, and had even invaded the region of the East as far as the Indies; it had secured, under Togrul, the conquest of Bagdad, and had united itself with the caliphate, and was, in fact, a mighty power “_prepared_” for conquest before it moved to the west. Thus Mr. Gibbon (iv. 92) says, “The more rustic, perhaps the wisest, portion of the Turkmans continued to dwell in the tents of their ancestors; and from the Oxus to the _Euphrates_ these military colonies were protected and propagated by their native princes.” So again, speaking of Alp Arslan, the son and successor of Togrul, he says (iv. 94), “He passed the _Euphrates_ at the head of the Turkish cavalry, and entered Cæsarea, the metropolis of Cappadocia, to which he was attracted by the fame and the wealth of the temple of St. Basil.” If it be admitted that it was _intended_ by John to refer to the Turkish power, it could not have been better represented than as a power that had been forming in the vicinity of that great river, and that was prepared to precipitate itself on the Eastern empire. To one contemplating it in the time of Togrul or Alp Arslan, it would have _appeared_ as a mighty power growing up in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates.

(3) _The four angels_: “Loose the four angels which are bound.” That is, loose the powers which are in the vicinity of the Euphrates, _as if_ they were under the control of four angels. The most natural construction of this would {233} be, that under the mighty power that was to sweep over the world, there were four subordinate powers, or that there were such subdivisions that it might be supposed they were ranged under _four_ angelic powers or leaders. The question is, whether there was any such division or arrangement of the Turkish power, that, to one looking on it at a distance, there would _seem_ to be such a division. In the _History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (iv. 100) we find the following statement:――“The greatness and unity of the Turkish empire expired in the person of Malek Shah. The vacant throne was disputed by his brother and his four sons; and, after a series of civil wars, the treaty which reconciled the surviving candidates confirmed a lasting separation in the Persian dynasty, the oldest and principal branch of the house of Seljuk. The three younger dynasties were those of _Kerman_, of _Syria_, and of _Roum_; the first of these commanded an extensive, though obscure dominion, on the shores of the Indian Ocean; the second expelled the Arabian princes of Aleppo and Damascus; and the third (our peculiar care) invaded the Roman provinces of Asia Minor. The generous policy of Malek contributed to their elevation; he allowed the princes of his blood, even those whom he had vanquished in the field, to seek new kingdoms worthy of their ambition; nor was he displeased that they should draw away the more ardent spirits who might have disturbed the tranquillity of his reign. As the supreme head of his family and nation, the great Sultan of Persia commanded the obedience and tribute of his royal brethren: the thrones of Kerman and Nice, of Aleppo and Damascus; the atabeks and emirs of Syria and Mesopotamia erected their standards under the shadow of his sceptre, and the hordes of Turkmans overspread the plains of Western Asia. After the death of Malek the bands of union and subordination were gradually relaxed and dissolved; the indulgence of the house of Seljuk invested their slaves with the inheritance of kingdoms; and, in the Oriental style, a crowd of princes arose from the dust of their feet.” Here it is observable, that, at the period when the Turkman hordes were about to precipitate themselves on Europe, and to advance to the destruction of the Eastern empire, we have distinct mention of _four_ great departments of the Turkish power: the original power that had established itself in Persia, under Malek Shah, and the three subordinate powers that sprung out of that of Kerman, Syria, and Roum. It is observable (a) that this occurs at the period when that power would appear in the East as advancing in its conquests to the West; (b) that it was in the vicinity of the great river Euphrates; (c) that it had never before occurred――the Turkish power having been before united as one; and (d) that it never afterwards occurred――for, in the words of Mr. Gibbon, “after the death of Malek the bands of union and subordination were relaxed and finally dissolved.” It would not be improper, then, to look upon this one mighty power as under the control of four spirits that were held in check in the East, and that were “prepared” to pour their energies on the Roman empire.

(4) _The preparation_: “Prepared for an hour,” &c. That is, arranged; made ready――as if by previous discipline――for some mighty enterprise. Applied to the Turkmans, this would mean that the preparation for the ultimate work which they executed had been making as that power increased and became consolidated under Togrul, Alp Arslan, and Malek Shah. In its successful strides Persia and the East had been subdued; the caliph at Bagdad had been brought under the control of the sultan; a union had been formed between the Turks and the Saracens; and the sultanies of Kerman, Syria, and Roum had been established――embracing together all the countries of the East, and constituting this by far the most mighty nation on the globe. All this would seem to be a work of _preparation_ to do what was afterwards done as seen in the visions of John.

(5) _The fact that they were bound_: “Which are bound in the great river Euphrates.” That is, they were, as it were, _restrained_ and _kept back_ for a long time in that vicinity. It would have been natural to suppose that that vast power would at once move on toward the West to the conquest of the capital of the Eastern empire. Such had been the case with the Huns, the Goths, and the Vandals. But these Turkish hordes had been long restrained in the East. They had subdued Persia. They had then achieved the conquest of India. They had conquered Bagdad, and the entire East was under their control. {234} Yet for a long time they had now been inactive, and it would seem as if they had been _bound_ or _restrained_ by some mighty power from moving in their conquests to the West.

(6) _The material that composed the army_: “And the number of the army _of the horsemen_.” “And thus I saw _the horses_ in the vision.――And the heads of _the horses_ were as the heads of lions.” From this it appears that this vast host was composed mainly of cavalry; and it is hardly necessary to say that this description would apply better to the Turkish hordes than to any other body of invaders known in history. Thus Mr. Gibbon (vol. iv. p. 94) says, “The myriads of the Turkish _horse_ overspread a frontier of six hundred miles, from Taurus to Arzeroum,” A.D. 1050. So again, speaking of Togrul (vol. iv. p. 94), “He passed the Euphrates at the head of the Turkish _cavalry_” (_ibid._). So again (vol. iii. p. 95), “Alp Arslan flew to the scene of action at the head of forty thousand horse.” A.D. 1071. So in the attack of the crusaders on Nice, the capital of the Turkish kingdom of Roum, Mr. Gibbon (vol. iv. p. 127) says of the sultan Soliman: “Yielding to the first impulse of the torrent, he deposited his treasure and family in Nice; retired to the mountains with fifty thousand horse,” &c. And so again (_ibid._), speaking of the Turks who rallied to oppose the “strange” invasion of “the Western barbarians,” he says, “The Turkish emirs obeyed the call of loyalty or religion; the Turkman hordes encamped round his standard; and his whole force is loosely stated by the Christians at two hundred, or even three hundred and sixty thousand horse,” A.D. 1097. Every student of history knows that the Turks, or Turkmans, in the early periods of their history, were remarkable for their cavalry.

(7) _Their numbers_: “And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand.” That is, it was _vast_, or it was such as to be reckoned by _myriads_, or by tens of thousands――δύο μυριάδες μυριάδων――_two myriads of myriads_. Thus Mr. Gibbon (vol. iv. p. 94) says, “The _myriads_ of Turkish horse overspread,” &c. It has been suggested by Daubuz that in this there may be probably an allusion to the Turkman custom of numbering by _tomans_, or _myriads_. This custom, it is true, has existed elsewhere, but there is probably none with whom it has been so familiar as with the Tartars and Turks. In the Seljukian age the population of Samarcand was rated at seven _tomans_ (_myriads_), because it could send out 70,000 warriors. The dignity and rank of Tamerlane’s father and grandfather was thus described, that “they were the hereditary chiefs of a _toman_, or 10,000 horse”――_a myriad_ (Gibbon, vol. iv. p. 270); so that it is not without his usual propriety of language that Mr. Gibbon speaks of the _myriads_ of the Turkish horse, or of the cavalry of the earlier Turks of Mount Altai, “being, both men and horses, proudly computed by _myriads_.” One thing is clear, that to no other invading hosts could the language here used be so well applied, and if it were supposed that John was writing _after_ the event, this would be the language which he would be likely to employ――for this is nearly the identical language employed by the historian Gibbon.

(8) _Their personal appearance_: “Them that sat on them having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone”――as explained above, in a “uniform” of red, and blue, and yellow. This might, undoubtedly, be applicable to other armies besides the Turkish hordes; but the proper question here is, whether it _would be_ applicable to them. The fact of the application of the symbol to the Turks in general must be determined from other points in the symbol which designate them clearly; the only natural inquiry here is, whether this description would apply to the Turkish hosts; for if it would not, that would be fatal to the whole interpretation. On the application of this passage to the Turks Mr. Daubuz justly remarks, that “from their first appearance the Ottomans have affected to wear warlike apparel of scarlet, blue, and yellow――a descriptive trait the more marked from its contrast to the military appearance of the Greeks, Franks, or Saracens contemporarily.” Mr. Elliott adds: “It only needs to have seen the Turkish cavalry (as they _were_ before the late innovations), whether in war itself, or in the djerrid war’s mimicry, to leave an impression of the absolute necessity of some such notice of their rich and varied colourings, in order to give in description at all a just impression of their appearance,” vol. i. p. 481.

(9) _The remarkable appearance of the cavalry_: “Having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone; and the {235} heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire, and smoke, and brimstone.” It was remarked in the exposition of this passage that this is just such a description as would be given of an army to which the use of gunpowder was known, and which made use of it in these wars. Looking now upon a body of cavalry in the heat of an engagement, it would seem, if the cause were not known, that the horses belched forth smoke and sulphurous flame. The only question now is, whether in the warfare of the Turks there was anything which would peculiarly or remarkably justify this description. And here it is impossible not to advert to the historical fact that they were among the first to make use of gunpowder in their wars, and that to the use of this destructive element they owed much of their success and their ultimate triumphs. The historical truth of this it is necessary now to advert to, and this will be done by a reference to Mr. Gibbon, and to the account which he has given of the final conquest of Constantinople by the Turks. It will be seen how he puts this new instrumentality of war into the foreground in his account; how prominent this seemed to _him_ to be in describing the victories of the Turks; and how probable, therefore, it is that John, in describing an invasion by them, would refer to the “fire and smoke and brimstone,” that seemed to be emitted from the mouths of their horses. As preparatory to the account of the siege and conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, Mr. Gibbon gives a description of the invention and use of gunpowder. “The chemists of China or Europe had found, by casual or elaborate experiments, that a mixture of saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal produces, with a spark of fire, a tremendous explosion. It was soon observed that if the expansive force were compressed in a strong tube, a ball of stone or iron might be expelled with irresistible and destructive velocity. The precise era of the invention and application of gunpowder is involved in doubtful traditions and equivocal language; yet we may clearly discern that it was known before the middle of the fourteenth century; and that before the end of the same the use of artillery in battles and sieges, by sea and land, was familiar to the states of Germany, Italy, Spain, France, and England. The priority of nations is of small account; none could derive any exclusive benefit from their previous or superior knowledge; and in the common improvement they stood on the same level of relative power and military science. Nor was it possible to circumscribe the secret within the pale of the church; it was disclosed _to the Turks_ by the treachery of apostates and the selfish policy of rivals; and the sultans had sense to adopt, and wealth to reward, the talents of a Christian engineer. By the Venetians the use of gunpowder was communicated without reproach to the sultans of Egypt and Persia, their allies against the Ottoman power; the secret was soon propagated to the extremities of Asia; and the advantage of the European was confined to his easy victories over the savages of the New World,” vol. iv. p. 291. In the description of the conquest of Constantinople Mr. Gibbon makes frequent mention of their artillery, and of the use of gunpowder, and of its important agency in securing their final conquests, and in the overthrow of the Eastern empire. “Among the implements of destruction he [the Turkish sultan] studied with peculiar care the recent and tremendous discovery of the Latins; and his artillery surpassed whatever had yet appeared in the world. A founder of cannon, a Dane or Hungarian, who had almost starved in the Greek service, deserted to the Moslems, and was liberally entertained by the Turkish sultan. Mahomet was satisfied with the answer to his first question, which he eagerly pressed on the artist: ‘Am I able to cast a cannon capable of throwing a ball or stone of sufficient size to batter the walls of Constantinople? I am not ignorant of their strength, but, were they more solid than those of Babylon, I could oppose an engine of superior power; the position and management of that engine must be left to your engineers.’ On this assurance a foundry was established at Adrianople; the metal was prepared; and at the end of three months Urban produced a piece of brass ordnance of stupendous and almost incredible magnitude: a measure of twelve palms is assigned to the bore; and the stone bullet weighed above six hundred pounds. A vacant place before the new palace was chosen for the first experiment; but to prevent the sudden and mischievous effects of astonishment and fear, a proclamation was issued that the cannon would be {236} discharged the ensuing day. The explosion was felt or heard in a circuit of a hundred furlongs; the ball, by force of gunpowder, was driven above a mile; and on the spot where it fell it buried itself a fathom deep in the ground,” vol. iv. p. 339. So, in speaking of the siege of Constantinople by the Turks, Mr. Gibbon says of the defence by the Christians (vol. iv. p. 343): “The incessant volleys of lances and arrows were accompanied with the smoke, the sound, and the fire of their musketry and cannon.” “The same destructive secret,” he adds, “had been revealed to the Moslems, by whom it was employed with the superior energy of zeal, riches, and despotism. The great cannon of Mahomet has been separately noticed――an important and visible object in the history of the times; but that enormous engine was flanked by two fellows almost of equal magnitude; the long order of the Turkish artillery was pointed against the walls; fourteen batteries thundered at once on the most accessible places; and of one of these it is ambiguously expressed that it was mounted with one hundred and thirty guns, or that it discharged one hundred and thirty bullets,” vol. iv. pp. 343, 344. Again: “The first random shots were productive of more sound than effect; and it was by the advice of a Christian that the engineers were taught to level their aim against the two opposite sides of the salient angles of a bastion. However imperfect, the weight and repetition of the fire made some impression on the walls,” vol. iv. p. 344. And again: “A circumstance that distinguishes the siege of Constantinople is the reunion of the ancient and modern artillery. The cannon were intermingled with the mechanical engines for casting stones and darts; the bullet and the battering-ram were directed against the same walls; nor had the discovery of gunpowder superseded the use of the liquid and inextinguishable fire,” vol. iv. p. 344. So again, in the description of the final conflict when Constantinople was taken, Mr. Gibbon says, “From the lines, the galleys, and the bridge, the Ottoman artillery thundered on all sides; and the camp and city, the Greeks and the Turks, were involved in a cloud of smoke which could only be dispelled by the final deliverance or destruction of the Roman empire,” vol. iv. p. 350. Assuredly, if such was _the fact_ in the conquests of the Turks, it was not unnatural in one who was looking on these warriors in vision to describe them as if they seemed to belch out “fire and smoke and brimstone.” If Mr. Gibbon had _designed_ to describe the conquest of the Turks as a fulfilment of the prediction, could he have done it in a style more clear and graphic than that which he has employed? If this had occurred in a _Christian_ writer, would it not have been charged on him that he had shaped his facts to meet his notions of the meaning of the prophecy?

(10) The statement that “their power was in their mouth, and in their tails,” ver. 19. The former part of this has been illustrated. The inquiry now is, what is the meaning of the declaration that “their power was in their tails?” In ver. 19 their tails are described as resembling “serpents, having heads,” and it is said that “with them they do hurt.” See Notes on that verse. The allusion to the “serpents” would seem to imply that there was something in the horses’ tails, as compared with them, or in some _use_ that was made of them, which would make this language proper; that is, that their appearance would so suggest the idea of death and destruction, that the mind would easily imagine they were a bundle of serpents. The following remarks may show how applicable this was to the Turks: (a) In the Turkish hordes there was _something_, whatever it was, that naturally suggested _some_ resemblance to serpents. Of the Turkmans when they began to spread their conquests over Asia, in the eleventh century, and an effort was made to rouse the people against them, Mr. Gibbon makes the following remark: “Massoud, the son and successor of Mahmoud, had too long neglected the advice of his wisest Omrahs. ‘Your enemies’ [the Turkmans], they repeatedly urged, ’were in their origin a swarm of ants; they are now little snakes; and unless they be instantly crushed, they will acquire the venom and magnitude of serpents,” vol. iv. p. 91. (b) It is a remarkable fact that the horse’s tail is a well-known Turkish standard――a symbol of office and authority. “The pashas are distinguished, after a Tartar custom, by three horsetails on the side of their tents, and receive by courtesy the title of _beyler bey_, or prince of princes. The next in rank are the pashas of two tails, the beys who are honoured with one tail.”――_Edin. Ency._ {237} (art. “Turkey”). In the times of their early warlike career the principal standard was once lost in battle, and the Turkman commander, in default, cut off his horse’s tail, lifted it on a pole, made it the rallying ensign, and so gained the victory. So Tournefort in his _Travels_ states. The following is Ferrario’s account of the origin of this ensign:――“An author acquainted with their customs says, that a general of theirs, not knowing how to rally his troops that had lost their standards, cut off a horse’s tail, and fixed it to the end of a spear; and the soldiers rallying at that signal, gained the victory.” He adds farther, that whereas “on his appointment a pasha of the three tails _used_ to receive a drum and a standard, now for the _drum_ there have been substituted three horses’ tails, tied at the end of a spear, round a gilded haft. One of the first officers of the palace presents him these three tails as a standard” (Elliott, vol. i. pp. 485, 486). This remarkable standard or ensign is found only among the Turks, and, if there was an intended reference to them, the symbol here would be the proper one to be adopted. The _meaning_ of the passage where it is said that “their _power_ is in their tails” would seem to be, that their tails were the symbol or emblem of their authority――as in fact the horse’s tail is in the appointment of a pasha. The _image_ before the mind of John would seem to have been, that he saw the horses belching out fire and smoke, and, what was equally strange, he saw that their power of spreading desolation was connected with the tails of horses. Anyone looking on a body of cavalry with such banners or ensigns would be struck with this unusual and remarkable appearance, and would speak of their banners as concentrating and directing their power. The above engraving, representing the standard of a Turkish pasha, will illustrate the passage before us.

Illustration: Standard-bearer of a Turkish Pasha.

(11) The number slain, ver. 18. That is said to have been “the third part of men.” No one in reading the accounts of the wars of the Turks, and of the ravages which they have committed, would be likely to feel that this is an exaggeration. It is not necessary to suppose that it is _literally_ accurate, but it is such a representation as would strike one in looking over the world, and contemplating the effect of their invasions. If the other specifications in the symbol are correct, there would be no hesitation in admitting the propriety of this.

(12) The time of the continuance of this power. This is a material, and a more difficult point. It is said (ver. 15) to be “an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year;” that is, as explained, three hundred and ninety-one years, and the portion of a year indicated by the expression “an hour;” to wit, an additional twelfth or twenty-fourth part of a year. The question now is, whether, supposing the time to which this reaches to be the capture of Constantinople, and the consequent downfall of the Roman empire――the object in view in this series of visions――in reckoning _back_ from that period for 391 years, we should reach an epoch that would properly denote the moving forward of this power towards its final conquest; that is, whether there was any such marked epoch that, if the 391 years were added to it, it would reach the year of the conquest of Constantinople, A.D. 1453. The period that would be indicated by taking the number 391 from 1453 would be 1062――and that is the time in which we are to look for the event referred to. This is on the supposition that the year consisted of 360 days, or twelve months of thirty days each. If, however, instead of this, we reckon 365 days and six hours, then the length of time would be found to amount to 396 years and {238} 106 days.[311] This would make the time of the “loosening of the angels,” or the moving forward of this power, to be A.D. 1057. In the uncertainty on this point, and in the unsettled state of ancient chronology, it would, perhaps, be vain to hope for minute accuracy, and it is not reasonable to demand it of an interpreter. On any fair principle of interpretation it would be sufficient if at _about_ one of these periods――A.D. 1062 or A.D. 1057――there was found such a definite or strongly marked event as would indicate a movement of the hitherto restrained power toward the West. This is the real point, then, to be determined. Now, in a common work on chronology I find this record: “A.D. 1055, Turks reduce Bagdad, and overturn the empire of the caliphs.” In a work still more important to our purpose (Gibbon, iv. 92, 93), under the date of A.D. 1055, I find a series of statements which will show the propriety of referring to that event as the one by which this power, so long restrained, was “let loose;” that is, was placed in such a state that its final conquest of the Eastern empire certainly followed. The event was the union of the Turkish power with the caliphate in such a way that the sultan was regarded as “the temporal lieutenant of the vicar of the prophet.” Of this event Mr. Gibbon gives the following account. After mentioning the conversion of the Turks to the Moslem faith, and especially the zeal with which the son of Seljuk had embraced that faith, he proceeds to state the manner in which the Turkish sultan Togrul came in possession of Bagdad, and was invested with the high office of the “temporal lieutenant of the vicar of the prophet.” There were two caliphs, those of Bagdad and Egypt, and “the sublime character of the successor of the prophet” was “disputed” by them, iv. 93. Each of them became “solicitous to prove his title in the judgment of the strong though illiterate barbarians.” Mr. Gibbon then says, “Mahmoud the Gaznevide had declared himself in favour of the line of Abbas; and had treated with indignity the robe of honour which was presented by the Fatimite ambassador. Yet the ungrateful Hashemite had changed with the change of fortune; he applauded the victory of Zendecan, and named the Seljukian sultan his temporal vicegerent over the Moslem world. As Togrul executed and enlarged this important trust, he was called to the deliverance of the caliph Cayem, and obeyed the holy summons, which gave a new kingdom to his arms. In the palace of Bagdad the commander of the faithful still slumbered, a venerable phantom. His servant or master, the prince of the Bowides, could no longer protect him from the insolence of meaner tyrants; and the Euphrates and the Tigris were oppressed by the revolt of the Turkish and Arabian emirs. The presence of a conqueror was implored as a blessing; and the transient mischiefs of fire and sword were excused as the sharp but salutary remedies which alone could restore the health of the republic. At the head of an irresistible force the sultan of Persia marched from Hamadan; the proud were crushed, the prostrate were spared; the prince of the Bowides disappeared; the heads of the most obstinate rebels were laid at the feet of Togrul; and he inflicted a lesson of obedience on the people of Mosul and Bagdad. After the chastisement of the guilty, and the restoration of peace, the royal shepherd accepted the reward of his labours; and a solemn comedy represented the triumph of religious prejudice over barbarian power. The Turkish sultan embarked on the Tigris, landed at the gate of Racca, and made his public entry on horseback. At the palace gate he respectfully dismounted, and walked on foot preceded by his emirs without arms. The caliph was seated behind his black veil; the black garment of the Abbassides was cast over his shoulders, and he held in his hand the staff of the Apostle of God. The conqueror of the East kissed the ground, stood some time in a modest posture, and was led toward the throne by the vizier and an interpreter. After Togrul had seated himself on another throne, his commission was publicly read, _which declared him the temporal lieutenant of the vicar of the {239} prophet_. He was successively invested with seven robes of honour, and presented with seven slaves, the natives of the seven climates of the Arabian empire. His mystic veil was perfumed with musk; two crowns were placed on his head; two scimetars were girded to his side, as the symbols of a double reign over the East and West. Their alliance was cemented by the marriage of Togrul’s sister with the successor of the prophet,” iv. 93, 94. This event, so described, was of sufficient importance, as constituting a _union_ of the Turkish power with the Moslem faith, as making it practicable to move in their conquests toward the West, and as connected in its ultimate results with the downfall of the Eastern empire, to make it an _epoch_ in the history of nations. In fact, it was _the_ point which one would have particularly looked at, after describing the movements of the Saracens (ch. ix. 1‒11), as the next event that was to change the condition of the world.

Happily we have also the means of fixing the exact date of this event, so as to make it accord with singular accuracy with the period supposed to be referred to. The _general_ time specified by Mr. Gibbon is A.D. 1055. This, according to the two methods referred to of determining the period embraced in the “hour, and day, and month, and year,” would reach, if the period were 391 years, to A.D. 1446; if the other method were referred to, making it 396 years and 106 days to A.D. 1451, with 106 days added, within less than two years of the actual taking of Constantinople. But there is a more accurate calculation as to the time than the _general_ one thus made. In vol. iv. 93 Mr. Gibbon makes this remark:――“Twenty-five years after the death of Basil his successors were suddenly assaulted by an unknown race of barbarians, who united the Scythian valour with the fanaticism of new proselytes, and the art and riches of a powerful monarchy.” He then proceeds (p. 94, seq.) with an account of the invasions of the Turks. In vol. iii. 307 we have an account of the death of Basil. “In the sixty-eighth year of his age his martial spirit urged him to embark in person for a holy war against the Saracens of Sicily; he was prevented by death, and Basil, surnamed the slayer of the Bulgarians, was dismissed from the world, with the blessings of the clergy and the curses of the people.” This occurred A.D. 1025. “Twenty-five years” after this would make A.D. 1050. To this add the period here referred to, and we have respectively, as above, the years A.D. 1446, or A.D. 1451, and 106 days. Both periods are near the time of the taking of Constantinople and the downfall of the Eastern empire (A.D. 1453), and the latter strikingly so; and, considering the general nature of the statement of Mr. Gibbon, and the great indefiniteness of the dates in chronology, may be considered as remarkable.――But we have the means of a still more accurate calculation. It is by determining the exact period of the investiture of Togrul with the authority of caliph, or as the “temporal lieutenant of the vicar of the prophet.” The time of this investiture, or coronation, is mentioned by Abulfeda as occurring on the 25th of Dzoulcad, in the year of the Hegira 449; and the date of Elmakin’s narrative, who has given an account of this, perfectly agrees with this. Of this transaction Elmakin makes the following remark:――“There was now none left in Irak or Chorasmia who could stand before him.” The _importance_ of this investiture will be seen from the charge which the caliph is reported by Abulfeda to have given to Togrul on this occasion:――“The caliph commits to your care all that part of the world which God has committed to his care and dominion; and intrusts to thee, under the name of vicegerent, the guardianship of the pious, faithful, and God-serving citizens.”[312] The exact _time_ of this investiture is stated by Abulfeda, as above, to be the 25th of Dzoulcad, A.H. 449. Now, reckoning this as the time, and we have the following result:――The 25th of Dzoulcad, A.H. 449, would answer to February 2, A.D. 1058. From this to May 29, 1453, the time when Constantinople was taken, would be 395 years and 116 days. The _prophetic_ period, as above, is 396 years and 106 days――making a difference only of 1 year and 10 days――a result that cannot but be considered as remarkable, considering the difficulty of fixing ancient dates. Or if, with Mr. Elliott (i. 495‒499), we suppose that the time is to be reckoned from the period when the Turkman {240} power went forth from Bagdad on a career of conquest, the reckoning should be from the year of the Hegira 448, the year before the _formal_ investiture, then this would make a difference of only 24 days. The date of that event was the 10th of Dzoulcad, A.H. 448. That was the day in which Togrul with his Turkmans, now the representative and head of the power of Islamism, quitted Bagdad to enter on a long career of war and conquest. “The part allotted to Togrul himself in the fearful drama soon to open against the Greeks was to extend and establish the Turkman dominion over the frontier countries of Irak and Mesopotamia, that so the requisite strength might be attained for the attack ordained of God’s counsels against the Greek empire. The first step to this was the siege and capture of Moussul; his next of Singara. Nisibis, too, was visited by him; that frontier fortress that had in other days been so long a bulwark to the Greeks. Everywhere victory attended his banner――a presage of what was to follow.” Reckoning from that time, the coincidence between the period that elapsed from that, and the conquest of Constantinople, would be 396 years and 130 days――a period that corresponds, with only a difference of 24 days, with that specified in the prophecy according to the explanation already given. It could not be expected that a coincidence more accurate than this could be made out on the supposition that the prophecy was designed to refer to these events; and if it _did_ refer to them, the coincidence could have occurred only as a prediction by Him who sees with perfect accuracy all the future.

(13) The effect. This is stated, in ver. 20, 21, to be that those who survived these plagues did _not_ repent of their wickedness, but that the abominations which existed before still remained. In endeavouring to determine the meaning of this, it will be proper, first, to ascertain the exact sense of the words used, and then to inquire whether a state of things existed subsequent to the invasions of the Turks which corresponded with the description here.

(a) The explanation of the language used in ver. 20, 21. ¶ _The rest of the men._ That portion of the world on which these plagues did not come. One-third of the race, it is said, would fall under these calamities, and the writer now proceeds to state what would be the effect on the remainder. The language used――“_the rest of the men_”――is not such as to designate with certainty any particular portion of the world, but it is implied that the things mentioned were of very general prevalence. ¶ _Which were not killed by these plagues._ The two-thirds of the race which were spared. The language here is such as would be used on the supposition that the crimes here referred to abounded in all those regions which came within the range of the vision of the apostle. ¶ _Yet repented not of the works of their hands._ To wit, of those things which are immediately specified. ¶ _That they should not worship devils._ Implying that they practised this before. The word used here――δαιμόνιον――means properly _a god_, _deity_; spoken of the heathen gods, Ac. xvii. 18; then a genius, or tutelary demon, _e.g._ that of Socrates; and, in the New Testament, a demon in the sense of an evil spirit. See the word fully explained in the Notes on 1 Co. x. 20. The meaning of the passage here, as in 1 Co. x. 20, “they sacrifice to devils,” is not that they literally worshipped _devils_ in the usual sense of that term, though it is true that such worship does exist in the world, as among the Yezidis (see Layard, _Nineveh and its Remains_, vol. i. pp. 225‒254, and Rosenmüller, _Morgenland_, i.i. 212‒216); but that they worshipped beings _which were inferior to the Supreme God_; created spirits of a rank superior to men, or the spirits of men that had been enrolled among the gods. This last was a common form of worship among the heathen, for a large portion of the gods whom they adored were heroes and benefactors who had been enrolled among the gods――as Hercules, Bacchus, &c. All that is necessarily implied in this word is, that there prevailed in the time referred to the worship of spirits inferior to God, or the worship of the spirits of departed men. This idea would be more naturally suggested to the mind of a Greek by the use of the word than the worship of evil spirits as such――if indeed it would have conveyed that idea at all; and this word would be properly employed in the representation if there was _any_ homage rendered to departed human spirits which came in the place of the worship of the true God. Comp. a dissertation on the meaning of the word used here, in {241} Elliott on the _Apocalypse_, Appendix I. vol. ii. ¶ _And idols of gold, and silver_, &c. Idols were formerly, as they are now in heathen lands, made of all these materials. The most costly would, of course, denote a higher degree of veneration for the god, or greater wealth in the worshipper, and all would be employed as symbols or representatives of the gods whom they adored. The _meaning_ of this passage is, that there would prevail, at that time, what would be properly called _idolatry_, and that this would be represented by the worship paid to these images or idols. It is not necessary to the proper understanding of this, to suppose that the images or idols worshipped were acknowledged _heathen idols_, or were erected in honour of _heathen gods_, as such. All that is implied is, that there would be such images――εἴδωλα――and that a degree of homage would be paid to them which would be in fact idolatry. The word here used――εἴδωλον, εἴδωλα――properly means an image, spectre, shade; then an idol-image, or that which was a representative of a heathen god; and then the idol-god itself――a heathen deity. So far as the _word_ is concerned, it may be applied to any kind of image-worship. ¶ _Which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk._ The common representation of idol-worship in the Scriptures, to denote its folly and stupidity. See Ps. cxv.; comp. Is. xliv. 9‒19. ¶ _Neither repented they of their murders._ This implies that, at the time referred to, murders would abound; or that the times would be characterized by that which deserved to be _called_ murder. ¶ _Nor of their sorceries._ The word rendered _sorceries_――φαρμακεία――whence our word _pharmacy_, means properly _the preparing and giving of medicine_, Eng. _pharmacy_ (Rob. _Lex._). Then, as the art of medicine was supposed to have magical power, or as the persons who practised medicine, in order to give themselves and their art greater importance, practised various arts of incantation, the word came to be connected with the idea of magic sorcery, or enchantment. See Schleusner, _Lex._ In the New Testament the word is _never_ used in a good sense, as denoting the preparation of medicine, but always in this secondary sense, as denoting sorcery, magic, &c. Thus in Ga. v. 20, “the works of the flesh――idolatry, _witchcraft_,” &c. Re. ix. 21, “Of their _sorceries_.” Re. xviii. 23, “For by thy _sorceries_ were all nations deceived.” Re. xxi. 8, “Whoremongers, and _sorcerers_.” The word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament; and the _meaning_ of the word would be fulfilled in anything that purposed to accomplish an object by sorcery, by magical arts, by trick, by cunning, by sleight of hand, or by _deceiving the senses in any way_. Thus it would be applicable to all jugglery and to all pretended miracles. ¶ _Nor of their fornication._ Implying that this would be a prevalent sin in the times referred to, and that the dreadful plagues which are here predicted would make no essential change in reference to its prevalence. ¶ _And of their thefts._ Implying that _this_, too, would be a common form of iniquity. The word used here――κλέμμα――is the common word to denote _theft_. The true idea in the word is that of privately, unlawfully, and feloniously taking the goods or movables of another person. In a larger and in the popular sense, however, this word might embrace all acts of taking the property of another by dishonest arts, or on false pretence, or without an equivalent.

(b) The next point then is, the inquiry whether there was any such state of things as is specified here existing in the time of the rise of the Turkish power, and in the time of the calamities which that formidable power brought upon the world. There are two things implied in the statement here: (1) that these things had an existence before the invasion and destruction of the Eastern empire by the Turkish power; and (2) that they continued to exist after that, or were not removed by these fearful calamities. The supposition all along in this interpretation is, that the eye of the prophet was on the Roman world, and that the design was to mark the various events which would characterize its future history. We look, then, in the application of this, to the state of things existing in connection with the Roman power, or that portion of the world which was then pervaded by the Roman religion. This will make it necessary to institute an inquiry whether the things here specified prevailed in that part of the world before the invasions of the Turks, and the conquest of Constantinople, and whether the judgments inflicted by that formidable Turkish invasion made any essential change in this respect.