Sivut kuvina

to armour.

elad in the same manner. Of this, our cut of a Dacian warrior on horseback is a curious specimen ; and in the cut used wa rol. i. p. 614, to illustrate the note on spears and shields, there is represented a Persian warrior, having his body, and even his face, covered with an exquisitely mailed tunic, the fore part of his horse also being clad in complete mail. The construction of such mailed armour had been brought to a state of astonishing perfection. In some instances, particularly in scale-armour, we see figures covered completely in suits fitted to the body with consummate accuracy, and displaying not only the shape of the wearer but even the muscular parts of the person ; that is to say, the armour was so flexible that it yielded readily to the pressure of the muscles and to the various motions of the body. Now, Guliath's “ coat of mail” was of scales; and affords the most ancient specimen of scaled armour on record.' That it was such, does not appear in our translation, which omits the descriptive epithet O'opup, which is found in the text, and shich is the same that, in the feminine plural, is employed in Lev. xi. 9, and Ezek. xxix. 4, to express the scales of a fish. Whether this kind of scaled armour was adopted by the Jews does not appear. We should think it very probable ; though it is certainly true that this is the only instance in which the word Diwpop is used in application

Having thus noticed the various methods in which ancient armour was made, it is desirable to notice the parts of which it consisted.

The thorar or breastplate. There is no question that this, as Sir S. Meyrick suggests, was the most ancient piece of am pur for the protection of the upper portion of the body. When men began to extend to that the protection which the helmet had given to the head, a defence for the breast was naturally the first desired and attempted. This was the principal use of the shorar, which for a long time continued to be, under various modifications of form, the sole bodyamour of ancient nations; and which, under further modifications, was used in addition to other pieces of armour, subsequently introduced. It probably originated with the Egyptians, among whom, according to Meyrick, it was the caly body-armour ; a position to which we apprehend that some exceptions must be allowed. It hung over the breast and shoulders, in the manner of a tippet ; and was made of linen, several times folded and quilted in such a manner as to resist the point of a weapon. These linen pectorals came into extensive use among the neighbouring nations; and these of Egyptian manufacture were particularly valued. A linen thorax of this kind seems to have been worn in the Trojan war by the Lesser Ajax, who

« With a guard

Of linen texture light his breast secured.” Sir S. Meyrick thinks that the Persians were the first who gave a metallic character to the thorax; and it is also his opinion that it was the principal piece of body-armour among the Hebrews.

The Corselet, called by the Greeks mithree, was of various forms ; and composed, progressively, of the sundry materials ve hare deseribed. It was a sort of waistcoat, sometimes consisting of two compact pieces, one covering the front and the other the back, and commonly fastened to each other at the sides. At first these cuirasses, whether compact or mailed, fere cut short round at the loins ; as in the cut of the Greek warrior, which illustrates many of the details we are now giving This is also seen in the figure of the outermost Roman soldier in the cut to vol. i. p. 612; for these short corselets contieved to be worn by certain descriptions of warriors long after that more complete cuirass had been introduced, which llowed the line of the abdomen; and which, whether of leather or metal, was, as we see in the Roman cuirasses, hammered so as to fit exactly to the natural convexities and concavities of the body; with the natural marks of which, as of the navel, &c., it was often impressed. These cuirasses were sometimes plain, but were often highly enriched with embossed figures, of common or precious metals, in wreathings, borders, animal heads, and other figures. The Putans, in particular, affected the Gorgon's head on the breast, as an amulet.

The garde. This was of more importance with the thorax only, or with the short corsetet, than with the cuirass which covered the abdomen. Its use is seen in the cut of the Greek warrior ; but it was often broader than it there apears. It was a part of their armour on which the ancient warriors set high value. It was often richly ornamented ; and the gift of a warrior's girdle to another was a testimony of the highest consideration. Thus it is not forgotten to state that Jonathan gave his girdle to David ; and we read in the Iliad (vii. 305), that when Hector and Ajax ex chanzed gifts, in testimony of friendship, after a hard combat together, the latter presented the former with his girdle. It is often mentioned in Scripture ; and from its use in keeping the armour and clothes together, and in bearing the sword, as well as from its own defensive character, " to gird” and “to arm” are employed as synonymous terms.

The skirt or petticoat fell below the girdle, and with the short cuirass covered only the hips and top of the thighs, but sith the long cuirass covered great part of the thighs. It was sometimes a simple skirt, but often formed a piece of amour, and frequently consisted of one or more rows of leathern straps, sometimes plated with metal and richly bordered or fringed. In many of the Roman cuirasses, particularly those of superior officers, the shoulders were protected in a similar manner.

The long corselet which covered the person from the throat to the abdomen, and, by means of the skirt, to the thighs, may be said to combine the several parts we have described, except the girdle, as may be seen particularly in fig. of the miscellaneous cut. They were in fact defensive tunics; and having

mentioned them above, we have only to repeat that they were, in different times and countries, composed of all the materials we have specified at the outset. These Steral parts of armour when put on separately, or when united in such long cuirasses as this, together with helmet and greates, left only the arms, the lower part of the thighs, and the face, unprotected and not always the face, as some of the ancient helmets had visors. But some parts being exposed, a step further was made by investing the body from throat to heel in a complete dress of mail: this step, however, was never taken by the classical nations of antiquity, it being in their view the attribute of such a barbarians” as the Sarmatians, Dacians, and Parthians.

We trust that this cursory statement will assist the general ideas of the reader when armour is spoken of in Scripture ; which is the more necessary, as, in the absence of any distinct intimations concerning the Hebrew armour, we can only form our notions on the subject by considering the kinds of armour which were generally worn by ancient nations. It will be observed that the various words which occur in our version, as "coat of mail, brigandine, haberzkoa. harness, breastplate" (except that of the high-priest, which has a different word) are expressed by what is essentually the same word, in Hebrew, with such variations of orthography as occur in other instances. The most usual fern of this word is now, sirion. Sir S. Meyrick is of opinion that this always or generally means the thurax of which we have spoken, and which the Hebrews probably derived from Egypt. He thinks that, in reinote times, it was attached to a short tunic, in the same way that the sacred breastplate was fastened upon the ephod. “Beneath the Pectoral were belts plated with brass or other metal, and the uppermost of them was bound upon the bottom of the turie which connected the pectoral with the belts, and all of them together formed a tolerably perfect armour for the frost of the whole body. These belts," called in Hebrew Fian, chagor, “were generally two, one above the other, and appear similar to those that are represented in ancient Greek sculpture, though in some degree higher up. This mode of arming perfectly explains the passage in Scripture where Ahab is said to have been smitten with an arrow Opn12 between the openings or joints, that is, of the belts, D'U']) and between the thorax or pectoral. The pectorals of the Egyptians were made of linen ; and perhaps anciently those of the Jews were the same. In after times they seem to have been covered with plates of metal, and in the New Testament we meet with the words Iwguras ciòngevs, or pectorals of iron (Rev. ix. 9). The military sagum or cloak is called in our translation a habergeon, but the original (X900) is of doubtful signification, and occurs only twice (Exod. xxxviii. 32 ; xxxix. 23). But of whatever kind the garment may have been, it had an aperture at the upper part through which the head was passed when it was put on the body. Strutt conjectures that it was the tunic upon which the thorax was put, and bore the same relation to the thorax that the ephod did to the sacred pectoral.” Sir S. Meyrick is so great an authority on these subjects, that it is difficult to dissent from him; but we think his statement toő restrictive. So far from supposing that the Hebrew sirion means only the thorax, we are convinced that it has a more extended signification, and implies perhaps, as understood by our translators, almost any kind of body armour, being rather a general than a specific term. `Indeed, he himself states, incidentally, that the same word means a cuirass in the description of Goliath's armour. Doubtless the Hebrews did wear such armour as he describes ; but surely not such exclusively, We rather imagine that they were at different periods acquainted with most of the forms of defensive armour which we have noticed.

[ocr errors][merged small]

6. “Greaves of brass upon his legs.”—These were a kind of boots, without feet, for the defence of the legs, made eithe of bull's hide or of metal, generally brass or copper. The ancient greare usually terminated at the ancle, and rose i front nearly to the top of the knee. It was open behind, but the opposite edges at the open part, nearly met when th greave was buckled, buttoned, or tied to the leg. There were some kinds that did not reach so high as the knee. Thi piece of armour was useful not only in combat, but for the purpose of guar:ling the leg against the impediments, sue as iron spikes, &c., which the enemy strewed in the way, as well as to enable the warrior to make his way more easil among thorns and briers. It appears from ancient sculptures that greaves with the open part in front, and defendin the calf rather than the shin, were sometiines in use. Sometimes a greave was worn on one leg only, and that was th left; that leg, and indeed the left side generally, being advanced in action on account of the buckler, which was boru on the left arm. Homer's heroes usually wore brass greaves ; indeed the Greeks are continually called "brazen-greave Achaians;” whence some suppose that this defence was first, and for a time exclusively, used by that people. Th instance before us shows the contrary; and besides, greaves were worn by the Trojans as well as the Greeks. Thus when Paris was armning for the combat with Menelaus,

“ His legs he first in polish'd greaves enclosed,

With silver studs secured." We leam from this, that in arming, the greaves were first put on. The use of greaves was not confined to warriors but they were worn by others whose occupations required a defence against thorns. Thus, when Laertes is described as collecting thorns for a fence, it is said,

“ Leathern were his greaves, Thong-tied, and also patch’d-a frail defence

Against sharp thorns.” 10. Give me a man, that we may fight together."-Single combats at the head of armies are of continual recurrence the history and poems of ancient times; and in many of these instances it was a condition, as in the one before us, that the result of such combat should determine the national quarrel. A remarkable example of this is the combat between Paris and Menelaus, as described by Homer; to which, and other similar instances, we refrain from particularly adverting, in order to make room for the following striking illustration, drawn from the existing practices of the Bedouin Arabs, as described by Burckhardt (* Notes on the Bedouins,' p. 174):-“When two hostile parties of Bedonin cavalry meet, and perceive from afar that they are equal in point of numbers, they halt opposite to each other, cut of the reach of musket-shot; and the battle begiis by skirmishes between two men. A horseman leaves his party, and gallops off towards the enemy, exclaiming, 'O horsemen, O horsemen, let such a one meet me!' If the adversary fez whom he calls be present, and not afraid to meet him in combat, he gallops forwards ; if absent, his friends reply that he is not amongst them. The challenged horseman, in his turn, exclaims, ' And you, upon the gray mare, who ale you?' The other answers, 'I am *** the son of ***.?. Having thus become acquainted with each other, they legin to fight; none of the bystanders join in the combat, to do so would be reckoned a treacherous action ; but if one of trec mbatants should turn back and fly towards his friends, the latter hasten to his assistance and drive back the pursuer, who is in turn protected by his friends. After several of these partial combats between the best men of both parties, the whole corps join in promiscuous combat.... Should a horseman not be inclined to accept the challenge of an adversary, but choose to remain among the ranks of his friends, the challenger laughs at him with taunts and reproaches, a) makes it known as a boast during the rest of his life, that such a one *** would not venture to meet such a one *** in battle." This process is precisely the same as prevailed in the ancient times of Arabia, and which is continually exhibited in the old heroic story of Antar. From thence it seems, however, that the challenger did not always call out the particular pezscn whom he wished to combat; but, like the Philistine, defied any that would come against him. If the chamPuo's reputation or appearance made any warrior unwilling to come forward from the adverse party, he paraded before tien. Iwasting in a loud voice of his own exploits, recapitulating the wrongs they had committed, heaping insults and abuse upon them, and perhaps declaring that he was the author of some particular act of revenge or cruelty, against their tribe or some of its most esteemed members. In the accounts of the numberless combats in which Antar and thers were engaged, we generally find this last declaration the most effective in calling forth an adversary. When they stand before each other, they generally each make a speech, or rather recite extemporary verses, before they begin, full of vauntings, threatenings and abusiveness, as before. A few short extracts from these speeches will show the analogy between them and those of Goliath. Thus, in one of Antar's battles with the tribe of Fazarah, Hassein (sizes forward, and in his challenge of Antar says,—“O my mother, sleep and be satisfied, and rejoice; this day will I cliere my thirst with Antar. When thou seest the birds mangle his carcase under the dust, then extol and thank me. The slave! This day I will leave him on the face of the earth, where he shall lie dead on the barren waste. I will znake him taste thrusts from my spear-head, and I will smite him with my bright and unfailing scimitar. I will leave the beasts to run at him, and prowl around him on the wings of the turbid night. I will wipe out my shame with the svind and spear; and I will wreak my vengeance on the swarthy slave.” On a subsequent day of the same engageLeat

. Antar himself, in responding to the challenge of Mocri-ul-wahsh, says, among other things, "Hey! O Mocri-ulsalsh, return thee home before thou remainest embowelled: I will soon relieve the Arabs from thee; and truly Masetka" the beloved of the other)" shall be my wife. I will plunder her property, and slay her father, and I will leare ter abode a desert with my sword.” The other retorts with interest: “Soon will I slay Antar with the sword of conquest, and I will leave him dead on the sand. I will seize Ibla” (Antar's beloved), “and return home, and she shall Seste my wife as her mistress. I will take numerous camels, and will, in happy mood, return towards Maseeka. - I am ther the warrior of warriors, and this day will I consummate my glory.” The terms of abuse and insult in these passages are quite gentle compared with others that might be cited.

15. " Dand went and relurned from Saul.”— It will be seen that this corroborates the view stated under ch. xvi. 15; as dees indeed the whole tone of the history here given. A considerable number of modern Biblical critics, such as Keaneutt, Michaelis, Dathe, Houbigant, Boothroyd, &c., consider that the order of the history is rightly given ; but that the whole passage, from verse 12 to 31 inclusive, is an interpolation, by which the coherency of the narrative is disturbed. The passage is not in the Vatican copy of the Septuagint; nor was it in the Alexandrian copy, till inserted by Origen. (See Boothroyd's note in this place.)

25. ** Make his father's house free in Israel.”—This is understood to mean that the family should be exempted from all the taxes, impositions, and services which were incumbent on the great body of the Israelites.

34. “ A lion and a bear came.”—Not both at once, but at different times. The context shows this ; and besides, the lica and the bear never seek prey together. Concerning lions, and the character of such an exploit as that of destroy az one, see the notes on Judges xiv. David applies the same narrative to each respectively. When he speaks of berizing by the beard, the expression can only apply to the lion, not to the bear; the word however rendered - beard” Sornetines denotes the chin. that is, the part on which the beard grows ; so that the meaning is that David seized the so by the beard, and the bear by the chin or lower jaw. There are several references to tie bear in the Scriptures, wtieb show that it was rather common and dangerous in that country, and was particularly injurious to the flocks abe bear thus mentioned must always be understood as the brown bear, to which almost every climate is congenial. fin the shores of the Frozen Ocean to the burning wastes of Libya and Numidia ; whilst the white and black bears, being confined to more northern latitudes, must have been unknown to the inhabitants of Palestine. The brown bear is still found in different parts of Western Asia ; but is no where common. It even continues to occur in the wilder nesses bordering on Palestine, but instances have now become exceedingly rare of a bear having been met with in the country itself.

The account which David gives clearly illustrates the danger attending pastoral occupations in times and conntries where the beasts of prey have not altogether given place to inan. The dangers of such occupations, and the courage and presence of mind which they required, account for the honourable character which they bore in the early history of nations. A proprietor of Aocks and herds could not always feel safe, in intrusting so hazardous a charge to the zeal of hired servants, or even of slaves; and therefore it came to pass that they frequently committed them to the care of their sons; and the sons even of the most considerable persons were not thought above the performance of this duty. But when beasts of prey were extirpated in the progress of civilizatioa, this employment, in ceasing to be dangerous, lost its honourable distinctions, and gradually sunk to the level of other rural occupations.

The manner in which David records his exploits shows, as we may readily suppose, that it is no common circumstance for a shepherd to deliver his flock from a lion o. 9 bear. Indeed, for even an armed man to slay a lion, was considered a memorable circumstance in the history of the most famous ancient heroes. We have often been reminded of this first exploit of David by the first feat of the Arabian hero Antar, which occurred while he also was tending his father's flocks." But there is this serious difference, that David ascribes the glory to God, while Antar exults in the prowess of his own arm. The story runs: “He used to employ himself in tending the flocks, and as he conducted them, he wandered about the deserts and plains, and loved solitude and retirement... One day he was thus wandering over the deserts with the flocks, and when the sun was burning hot he left his people, and climbed up a tree and took shelter from the heat, whilst the focks grazed and he watched them; when, lo! a wolf started from behind the trees, and dispersed them. But Antar, seeing how the animal had dispersed the herds, he descended, and ran after him till he overtook him, and struck him with his staff; he made the oil of his brains fly out from between his ears, and slew him ; he then cut off his head and his legs, and returned growling like an angry liun... He put the head and legs into his scrip; and leaving the carcase, he returned to the rocks.” David's exploits were more heroic; but Antar is said at this time to have been only ten years of age. It is observable that this Arabian shepherd, like David, had a scrip with him, and also a staff, sueh, perhaps, as that which offended the giant, when he said, “Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with a staff?”


as they played, and said, “Saul hath slain his

thousands, and David his ten thousands. 1 I. 8 And Saul was very wroth, and the say

10 seeketh to kill him in his fury, 12 feareth him for his good success, 17 offereth him his daughters ing 'displeased him ; and he said, They for a snure. 22 David persuaded to be the king's have ascribed unto David ten thousands, son in law, giveth two hundred foreskins of the and to me they have ascribed but thouPhilistines for Michal's dowry. 28 Saul's hatred, sands: and what can he have more but the and David s glory increaseth.

kingdom? And it came to pass, when he had made an 9 And Saul eyed David from that day end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of and forward. Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, 10 | And it came to pass on the morand Jonathan loved him as his own soul. row, that the evil spirit from God came upon

2 And Saul took him that day, and would Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the let him go no more home to his father's house: and David played with his hand, as house.

at other times : and there was a javelin in 3 Then Jonathan and David made a co- Saul's hand. venant, because he loved him as his own 11 And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, soul.

I will smite David even to the wall with it. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the And David avoided out of his presence robe that was upon him, and gave it to Da- twice. vid, and his garments, even to his sword, 12 | And Saul was afraid of David, beand to his bow, and to his girdle.

cause the Lord was with him, and was de5 ( And David went out whithersoever parted from Saul. Saul sent him, and 'behaved himself wisely: 13 Therefore Saul removed him from and Saul set him over the men of war, and him, and made him his captain over a thouhe was accepted in the sight of all the peo- sand; and he went out and came in before ple, and also in the sight of Saul's servants. the people.

6 And it came to pass as they came, when 14 And David behaved himself wisely David was returned from the slaughter of in all his ways; and the LORD was with the 'Philistine, that the women came out of him. all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to 15 Wherefore when Saul saw that he bemeet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and haved himself very wisely, he was afraid of with 'instruinents of musick.

him. 7 And the women answered one another 16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, 1 Or, prospered, Or, Philistines. B Heb. three-stringed instrumenis. Chap. 21. 11, and 29. 5. Ecclus. 17. 6,

99b, wus evil in his eyes. 6 Or, prospered.

because he went out and came in before son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and them.

lightly esteemed? 17 [ And Saul said to David, Behold my 24 And the servants of Saul told him, elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee saying, 'On this manner spake David.

to wife: only be thou 'valiant for me, and 25 And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to ! fight the LORD's battles. For Saul said, David, The king desireth not any dowry,

Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, hand of the Philistines be upon him.

to be avenged of the king's enemies. But 18 And David said unto Saul, Who am I? Saul thought to make David fall by the and what is my life, or my father's family in hand of the Philistines. Israel, that I should be son in law to the 26 And when his servants told David king?

these words, it pleased David well to be the 19 But it came to pass at the time when king's son in law: and the days were not Merab Saul's daughter should have been expired. given to David, that she was given unto 27 Wherefore David arose and went, he Adriel the Meholathite to wife.

and his men, and slew of the Philistines two 20 And Michal Saul's daughter loved hundred men; and David brought their David : and they told Saul, and the thing foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to *pleased him.

the king, that he might be the king's son in 21 And Saul said, I will give him her, law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughthat she may be a snare to him, and that the ter to wife. hand of the Philistines may be against him. 28 And Saul saw and knew that the Wherefore Saul said to David. Thou shalt Lord was with David, and that Michal this day be my son in law in the one of the Saul's daughter loved him. twain.

29 And Saul was yet the more afraid of 22 | And Saul commanded his servants, David; and Saul became David's enemy saying, Commune with David secretly, and continually. say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, 30 Then the princes of the Philistines and all his servants love thee: now therefore went forth: and it came to pass, after they be the king's son in law.

went forth, that David behaved himself 23 And Saul's servants spake those words more wisely than all the servants of Saul; in the ears of David. And David said, so that his name was much "set by. Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's 1 Heb. a son of valour. 8 Heb. was right in his eyes. 9 Heb. According to these words.

10 Hel. fulfiiled.

11 Heb. precioas.

Verse 4. Gave it to David."-See the notes on Gen. xli. 42, and xlv. 22., where we have mentioned the eastern method of doing persons honour by presenting them with robes. We have now to add, that the honour thus conferred becomes infinitely more honourable when a king or prince bestows on the favoured person a dress or robe which has been worn by himself. This has always been the highest and most coveted honour in the East, and is so at this day. In the book of Esther, the king of Persia, to confer on Mordecai the highest distinction which a subject could receive, directed him to be invested with the royal apparel " which the king useth to wear;" and, in the same country, the same usage remains unaltered. Mr. Morier relates a rather amusing illustration. When the Russian and Persian plenipotentiaries were concluding a treaty of peace in 1813, the former had the names of so many orders of knighthood after his own in the preamble, that the Persian ambassador, who had no such honours, “ at first was at a loss how to make himself equal in personal distinctions to the other negotiator; but recollecting that, previous to his departure, his sovereign had honoured him with a present of one of his own swords, and of a dagger set with precious stones, to wear which

is a peculiar distinction in Persia, and, besides, had clothed him with one of his own shawl-robes, a distinction of still greater value, he therefore designated himself in the preamble of the treaty as endowed with the special gifts of the monarch, lord of the dagger set in jewels, of the sword adorned with gems, and of the shawl-coat already worn.” ("Second Journey,' p. 299.) This illustration is very complete, since it shows the distinction not only of wearing robes, but arms which had been used by the king; and with both his arms and robes the king's son honours David in the instance before us.

And when, as in the present case, a distinguistąd person takes his own robes or weapons immediately from his own person, and bestows them on another, it is impossible that a higher mark of consideration should be given, it being regarded not as a mark of favour only, but also of attachment. It is therefore a very rare honour; as Oriental princes, however profuse in their bestowal of marks of consideration, are chary of giving indications of attachment. It is therefore difficult to find instances of this rare favour. One occurs in D'Herbelot's • Bibliothèque Orientale,' art. Medinah. He says, that when the sultan Selim I. arrived at Aleppo, after he had defeated Cansou Gauri, the Mameluke sultan of Egypt, and assisted for the first time at public prayers in that city, the imaum concluded prayers with the words,"God preserve sultan Selim, the servant and minister of the holy cities of Mecca and Medinah.” The sultan was so pleased with this title that he took off his pelisse and gave it to the imaum. He assumed the phrase as one of his titles, and his successors have continued to bear it in their quality of sultans of Egypt.

In Tavernier's Travels there is a striking history of a lad whom the great Shah Abbas, when out hunting in the mountains, found playing on a pipe as he tended a flock af goats, Struck by the intelligence of his answers, the king

« EdellinenJatka »