Loading...
Breastplates of fire - jacinth, and brimstone - That is, red, blue, and yellow; the first is the color of fire, the second of jacinth, and the third of sulphur.
And the heads of the horses - Is this an allegorical description of great ordnance? Cannons, on the mouths of which horses' heads were formed, or the mouth of the cannon cast in that form? Fire, smoke, and brimstone, is a good allegorical representation of gunpowder. The Ottomans made great use of heavy artillery in their wars with the Greeks of the lower empire.
And thus I saw the horses in the vision - That is, he saw them as he proceeds to describe them, for the word “thus” - οὕτως houtōs- refers to what follows. Compare Robinson‘s Lexicon on the word (b), and see Matthew 1:18; Matthew 2:5; John 21:1; Hebrews 4:4. Prof. Stuart, however, refers to what precedes. The meaning, as it seems to me, is, that he fixed his attention on the appearance of the immense army - the horses and their riders, and proceeded to describe them as they struck him. And them that sat on them - He fixed the attention on horse and rider. Their appearance was unusual, and deserved a particular description. Having breastplates of fire - That is, those who sat on them had such breastplates. The word rendered here as “breastplate” denoted properly a coat of mail that covered the body from the neck to the thighs. See the notes on Ephesians 6:14. This would be a prominent object in looking at a horseman. This was said to be composed of “fire, and jacinth, and brimstone”; that is, the part of the body usually incased in the coat of mail had these three colors. The word “fire” here simply denotes red. It was burnished and bright, and seemed to be a blaze of fire. The word “jacinth” - ὑακινθίνους huakinthinous- means “hyacinthine.” The color denoted is that of the hyacinth - a flower of a deep purple or reddish blue. Then it refers to a gem of the same color, nearly related to the zircon of the mineralogists, and the color mentioned here is deep purple or reddish blue. The word rendered “brimstone” - θειώδης theiōdēs- means properly “sulphurous,” that is, made of sulphur, and means here simply yellow. The meaning of the whole then is, that these horsemen appeared to be clad in a special kind of armor - armor that shone like fire, mingled with blue and yellow. It will be necessary to look for the fulfillment of this in cavalry that was so caparisoned. And the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions - Resembled, in some respects, the heads of lions. He does not say that they were the heads of lions, or that the riders were on monsters, but only that they, in some respects, resembled the heads of lions. It would he easy to give this general appearance by the way in which the head-dress of the horses was arrayed. And out of their mouths issued - That is, appeared to issue. It is not necessary to understand this as affirming that it actually came from their months, but only that, to one looking on such an approaching army, it would have this appearance. The pagan poets often speak of horses breathing out fire and smoke (Virgil, Geor. vol. ii. p. 140; iii. 85; Ovid, Met. vol. vii. p. 104), meaning that their breath seemed to be mingled smoke and fire. There is an image superadded here not found in any of the classic descriptions, that this was mingled with brimstone. All this seemed to issue from their mouths - that is, it was breathed forth in front of the host, as if the horses emitted it from their mouths. Fire and smoke and brimstone - The exact idea, whether that was intended or not, would be conveyed by the discharge of musketry or artillery. The fire, the smoke, and the sulphurous smell of such a discharge would correspond precisely with this language; and if it be supposed that the writer meant to describe such a discharge, this would be the very language that would be used. Moreover, in describing a battle nothing would be more proper than to say that this appeared to issue from the horses‘ mouths. If, therefore, it should be found that there were any events where firearms were used, in contradistinction from the ancient mode of warfare, this language would be appropriate to describe that; and if it were ascertained that the writer meant to refer to some such fact, then the language used here would be what he would adopt. One thing is certain, that this is not language which would be employed to describe the onset of ancient cavalry in the mode of warfare which prevailed then. No one describing a charge of cavalry among the Persians, the Greeks, or the Romans, when the only armor was the sword and the spear, would think of saying that there seemed to be emitted from the horses‘ mouths fire, and smoke, and brimstone.
Verse 17
The first part of this description may have reference to the appearance of these horsemen. Fire, representing a color, stands for red, “as red as fire” being a frequent form of expression; jacinth, or hyacinth, for blue; and brimstone, for yellow. And these colors greatly predominated in the dress of these warriors; so that the description, according to this view, would be accurately met in the Turkish uniform, which was composed largely of red, or scarlet, blue, and yellow. The heads of the horses were, in appearance, as the heads of lions, to denote their strength, courage, and fierceness; while the last part of the verse undoubtedly has reference to the use of gunpowder and firearms for purposes of war, which were then but recently introduced. As the Turks discharged their firearms on horseback, it would appear to the distant beholder that the fire, smoke, and brimstone, issued out of the horses’ mouths, as illustrated by the accompanying plate. *DAR 482.2
Respecting the use of firearms by the Turks in their campaign against Constantinople, Elliott (Horae Apocalypticae, Vol. I, pp. 482-484) thus speaks: —DAR 483.1
“It was to ‘the fire and the smoke and the sulphur,’ to the artillery and firearms of Mahomet, that the killing of the third part of men, i. e., the capture of Constantinople, and by consequence the destruction of the Greek empire, was owing. Eleven hundred years and more had now elapsed since her foundation by Constantine. In the course of them, Goths, Huns, Avars, Persians, Bulgarians, Saracens, Russians, and indeed the Ottoman Turks themselves, had made their hostile assaults, or laid siege against it. But the fortifications were impregnable by them. Constantinople survived, and with it the Greek empire. Hence the anxiety of the Sultan Mahomet to find that which would remove the obstacle. ‘Canst thou cast a cannon,’ was his question to the founder of cannon that deserted to him, ‘of size sufficient to batter down the wall of Constantinople?’ Then the foundry was established at Adrianople, the cannon cast, the artillery prepared, and the siege began.DAR 483.2
“It well deserves remark, how Gibbon, always the unconscious commentator on the Apocalyptic prophecy, puts this new instrumentality of war into the foreground of his picture, in his eloquent and striking narrative of the final catastrophe of the Greek empire. In preparation for it, he gives the history of the recent invention of gunpowder, ‘that mixture of saltpeter, sulphur, and charcoal;’ tells of its earlier use by the Sultan Amurath, and also, as before said, of Mahomet’s foundry of larger cannon at Adrianople; then, in the progress of the siege itself, describes how ‘the volleys of lances and arrows were accompanied with the smoke, the sound, and the fire of the musketry and cannon:’ how ‘the long order of the Turkish artillery was pointed against the walls, fourteen batteries thundering at once on the most accessible places:’ how ‘the fortifications which had stood for ages against hostile violence were dismantled on all sides by the Ottoman cannon, many breaches opened, and near the gate of St. Romanus, four towers leveled with the ground:’ how, as ‘from the lines, the gallies, and the bridge, the Ottoman artillery thundered on all sides, 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:’ how ‘the double walls were reduced by the cannon to a heap of ruins:’ and how the Turks at length ‘rushing through the breaches,’ ‘Constantinople was subdued, her empire subverted, and her religion trampled in the dust by the Moslem conquerors.’ I say it well deserves observation how markedly and strikingly Gibbon attributes the capture of the city, and so the destruction of the empire, to the Ottoman artillery. For what is it but a comment on the words of our prophecy? ‘By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the sulphur, which issued out of their mouths.’”DAR 483.3