Corn, however, was not always weighed during a dearth, and certainly the price is not a famine price.

"A penny," the denarius, was a labourer's hire for a day.Matt. xx. A chænix, the measure of wheat or barley, was somewhat more than a man's allowance for a day; and as bread in ancient times was generally made of barley,' a labourer could purchase, with the hire of a day, as much of the prime necessaries of life, as would abundantly support him for four days.

Now, there can be no doubt, that food, during a famine, was formerly far dearer, and the daily allowance much less, than the price and quantity indicated by the seal, as is evident from the following facts:—When Sylla2 besieged Athens, the medimnus, or a bushel of wheat, sold for 1000 drachms, more than thirty pounds sterling. In the typical siege of Jerusalem, Ezekiel3 had only twenty shekels, between nine and ten ounces, of an inferior bread, every day. And, when the Goths besieged Rome," the daily allowance of three pounds of bread was reduced to one half, to one third, to nothing."

THE ZUGOS.

Archdeacon Woodhouse, in his work on the Apocalypse, has an observation to this effect: Zugos, Rev., vi. 5, cannot mean a pair of balances, because, in every other part of the scriptures, it signifies a yoke, unless the connexion, or word joined to it, necessarily determines the signification to scales; and that here, as in other parts of the Bible, it must mean a state of bondage or an oppressive government. The criticism of the Archdeacon is fully confirmed by the symbolical language of the scripture: for scales do not, I believe, occur in the Bible, as a symbol, but a zugos, or yoke, is used, both symbolically and figuratively, to denote an oppressive government, as in the following passages: 5“ Thus saith the Lord to me, make thee bonds and yokes and put them on thy neck, and send them to the king of Moab," &c. And in the petition of grievances which the Israelites presented to Rehoboam, they call his father's oppressive government a yoke (zugos), because of the heavy tributes he had exacted.

1 John, vi., 9; 2 Kings, iv., 42. 4 Gib., vol. iv., p. 114.

2 Plutarch in Sylla.

3 c. 4, 10.

5 Jeremiah, xxvii., 2, 3. 11; xxviii., 11. 14.

Thy father' (they represent to him) made our yoke grievous; now, therefore, ease somewhat of the grievous servitude of thy father, and his heavy yoke that he put upon us, and we will serve thee." The zugos or yoke, then, as interpreted by the symbolical and figurative language of the Old Testament, represents a tyrannical government, which oppresses and enslaves the subjects by grievous exactions.2

66 SEE THOU HURT NOT THE OIL AND THE WINE."

Since the word translated "hurt," signifies either hurt or do wrong, it is doubted whether this part of the seal should be translated "hurt not," or do no wrong as regards, the oil and the wine. As the same word occurs again in the prophecy twice (vii. 2; ix. 4.), where it appears to be rightly rendered, "hurt,” it would seem that this part of the authorized version ought to be retained. But there being no word in the original corresponding with "see," and the Greek construction being the same with that of the commandments,3 "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt do no murder," "Thou shalt not steal," we shall translate, thou shalt not hurt (or thou shalt do no wrong as regards) "the oil and the wine." It is, therefore, a prohibitory law. And the power that enacts it, and makes the proclamation "a measure of wheat for a penny," and "three measures of barley for a penny," must, in the first instance, be the Roman government in its heathen state; for the earth, or the Roman empire, is the place where the vision is fulfilled, and it begins to be fulfilled before the fall of paganism. And as wheat and barley, wine and oil, are important subjects of the prophecy, the predicted miseries must be caused by measures that especially affect this most valuable portion of agricultural produce.

The symbols and language of the seal, as thus explained, are to be illustrated by corresponding events in the historical sequence of things which accelerated the fall of the empire, and

1 2 Chron. x. 4. Compare Is. xlvii. 6.

2 M. Elliot (Horæ Apocalyptica) appears to have first pointed out the scope of this part of the seal.

3 Luke, xviii. 20; James, ii. 11.

L

aggravated the sufferings of her immense population; for we have seen that the Apocalypse is a prophetic system-one vision preparing another, and subsequent visions being connected with the foregoing.

The first symptom and cause of the decline and fall of the empire was the insubordination and violence of the soldiers. The second cause historians find in the exorbitant exactions it became necessary to make, in order to maintain and gratify the armies. These exactions were raised in the shape of a landtax, which was levied chiefly from wheat and barley, wine and oil.

The civil wars breaking out at the end of Nero's reign, not only weakened and destroyed the imperial armies, dissolved their discipline, and altered their constitution, but by disclosing the secret of the empire, taught the soldiers that they could control the government, and dispose of the treasures of the state. Hence, even the best established emperors were compelled to conciliate their affection by privileges, and purchase their favour by donatives. The expenses of such a government would necessarily be very great at all times, but it is obvious that this inevitable expenditure would be increased enormously, and produce fiscal difficulties, if an emperor were unusually lavish, or if a civil war should break out, when the candidates for the throne would find it necessary to purchase the good will of their soldiers at any price. Now, it so happened, that from the accession of Vespasian to the death of Marcus Antoninus, the emperors were raised to the throne with the appearance of regularity, governed ably (except Domitian), were popular with the armies, and maintained domestic tranquillity. But on the murder of Commodus, who surpassed most men in dissolute extravagance, civil wars again broke out, when there were four competitors for the empire-one of whom, Severus, promised to every one of his soldiers £400 a-piece, if they would make him emperor. Accordingly, Severus appears to be the first who oppressed the provinces by levying large contributions; which Caracalla (his son) converted into a regular system of taxation, and thereby entailed the most frightful calamities on every class of the community.

This connexion of events, the time and the evils of these

oppressive exactions, are thus noticed by historians: "There has been much denunciation," says Michelet, "of the violence and rapacity of the soldiers, who, for increase of pay, made and unmade emperors; and the cruel exactions of Severus and Caracalla, and the princes who drained the country to maintain the soldiery, have been severely blamed.”

The rapacity of Severus, after his victory, is, in like manner, noticed by Gibbon, who says, "The most considerable of the provincials who, without any dislike to the fortunate candidate, had obeyed the governor under whose authority they were accidentally placed, were punished by death, exile, and especially by confiscation of their estates. Many cities of the East were stripped of their ancient honours, and obliged to pay into the treasury of Severus four times the amount of the sum contributed by them for the service of Niger."

But from this and every other kind of direct imperial oppression, the provincials had been hitherto exempted, even in the worst of times; for, according to Tacitus,3 "they reaped equally with the Romans the advantage of good princes, but living at a distance they were not exposed to the cruelty of the tyrants who assailed the nearest" only.

The passage has been noticed and thus expanded by Gibbon:

"It had been, throughout, the peculiar felicity of the Romans, and in the worst of times, that the virtue of the emperors was active, and their vices indolent. Augustus, Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus, visited their respective dominions; and their progress was marked by acts of wisdom and beneficence. The tyranny of Tiberius, Nero, and Domitian, who resided almost constantly at Rome, or in the adjacent villas, was confined to the senatorial and equestrian orders; but Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the murder of Geta. The rest of his reign was spent in the several provinces of the empire, particularly those of the East; and every province was, by turns, the scene of his rapine and cruelty. The most wealthy families were ruined by partial fines and confiscations, and the great body of his subjects oppressed by ingenious and aggravated taxes."4

I Michelet Hist. of France, vol. i. p 24.

2 Gib. c. 5, p. 146.

3 Tacit. His. iv. c. 74. 4 Decline and Fall, vol. i. c. 6, pp. 163, 164.

Gibbon' thus explains the imposition of these taxes, and their fatal consequences:

"The dissolute tyranny of Commodus, the civil wars occasioned by his death, and the new maxims of policy introduced by the house of Severus, had all contributed to increase the dangerous power of the army, and to obliterate the faint image of laws and liberty that was still impressed on the minds of the Romans. The personal characters of the emperors, their victories, laws, follies, and fortunes, can interest us no farther than as they are connected with the general history of the decline and fall of the monarchy. Our constant attention to that great 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 flowed not, however, from the sentiments of a generous mind; it was the sordid result of avarice; . . for he crushed alike every part of the

empire under the weight of his iron sceptre. When all the provincials became liable to the peculiar impositions of Roman citizens, they seemed to acquire a legal exemption from the tributes which they had paid in their former condition of subjects; such were not the maxims of government adopted by Caracalla and his pretended son. The old and the new taxes were, at the same time, levied in the provinces. 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 army and the capital.

"The whole land property of the empire (without excepting the patrimony of the monarch), was the subject of ordinary taxation; and every purchaser contracted the obligations of the former proprietor. An accurate census and survey was the only equitable mode by which every citizen should be obliged to contribute for the public service; and from the well known period of the indiction, there is reason to believe that this difficult and expensive operation was repeated at the regular distance of fifteen years. The lands were measured by surveyors, who were sent into the provinces; their nature, whether arable or pasture, vineyards, or woods, was distinctly reported, and an estimate was made of their common value from the average produce of five years. A large portion of the tribute was paid in money. remainder of the taxes, according to the proportion determined by the

1 Decline and Fall, c. 6, pp. 190, 200.

The