serpent of Genesis, whom he destroys, is a monstrous reptile bristling with a dorsal line of four Sword-blades, like flesh-knives, typifying destruction. The Hebrews borrowed their metallurgy, like all their early science, from Egypt. M. de Goguet remarked that they were not destitute of technological skill if they could calcine the golden calf and reduce the metal (probably by using natron) to a powder which could be drunk in water—_aurum potabile_. The Hebrews called the Sword ‘Chereb’ (חרב, pl. Chereboth), a word that occurs some two hundred and fifty times in the ‘Old Testament.’ Its root, like the Arabic ‘khrb,’ means to waste, to be wasted; and the noun denotes any wasting matter.[589] Mostly it means a Sword (Gen. xvii. 40; xxxiv. 25, &c. &c.); in other places it is a knife (Josh. v. 2, 3). So we find in Ezekiel (v. 1), ‘Take thee a sharp knife [Chereb]; take thee a barber’s razor’: elsewhere it becomes a chisel (Exod. xx. 25); an axe or pick (Jer. xxxiv. 4; Ez. v. 1, and xxvi. 9), and, finally, violent heat (Job xxx. 30). The Arabic ‘Harbah’ signifies a dart. We gather from the Hebrew writings that the Sword was originally of copper: hence the allusion to its brightness and its glittering: this would be followed by bronze, and lastly by iron, ground upon the whetstone (Deut. xxxii. 41). It was not of flint; the ‘sharp knives’ alluded to in Joshua (v. 2), were mere silex-flakes like the Egyptian. The Sword was used by foot-soldiers and horsemen, the latter adding to the ‘light Sword’ a ‘glittering spear’ (Nahum iii. 3). The ‘Chereb’ was not a large or heavy weapon, and we may safely assume that its forms were those of the Egyptian hieroglyphs. The weight of Goliath’s Sword is unfortunately not given (1 Sam. xvii. 45), like that of his spear and his armour; nor are we told anything about the blade which David refused because he had not proved it (_ibid._ 39). But the ease with which the son of Jesse drew out of the sheath thereof and used the Philistine’s ‘Chereb,’ suggests a normal size and weight (_ibid._ 51 and xxi. 9). It was much admired, for the victor said, ‘There is none like that’ (1 Sam. xxi. 9). From the same chapter and verse we learn that the blade was ‘wrapped up in a cloth,’ still an Eastern practice, ‘behind the ephod’ or priest’s robe.[590] And the fact of a man falling upon his Sword (1 Sam. xxxi. 4, 5) shows that the blade was stiff, short, and straight, like the Egyptian leaf-blade. Ehud the Benjamite, when about to murder Eglon, King of Moab (Jud. iii. 16), ‘made a two-edged Sword-dagger of a cubit length’ (or eighteen inches), apparently without a sheath. The frequent mention of the double-edged Sword (or straight cut-and-thrust?) suggests that there were also single-edged blades, back-Swords or, perhaps, falchions. It is hard to understand why Meyrick tells us that the Jews wore the Sword ‘suspended in front, in the Asiatic style.’ Ehud (_ibid._ 16, 21) girt his weapon