The swords of the Greeks and Romans continued in times long subsequent to be of copper. Specimens also of swords of this metal, supposed to have belonged to the Phoenicians, and their descendants the Carthaginians, have been dug up in various countries. Specimens found in Ireland, Cornwall, and elsewhere, in countries known to these

ANCIENT SWORDS AND DAGGERS.-FROM MONTFAUCON.
a, Greek; b, Roman; c, Ancient, but uncertain; d, Dacian.

b

a

people, have been found to coincide with others dug up at Canne, where the Carthaginians sustained their great overthrow, and which are supposed to have belonged to them. Such weapons must be of peculiar interest in our inquiry, as they may thus, with great probability, be traced to the near neighbours of the Israelites in Canaan, whence we may be allowed to suppose that theirs, after their settlement in that country, were of similar form and material. There are specimens of them in Sir William Hamilton's collection in the British Museum. In their general form they resemble the Roman swords in the centre of the group represented in the preceding wood-cut; but are not generally so broad in proportion to their length, and are without the cross bar as a guard. They are straight and tapering, with two edges and a sharp point, adapted either for cutting or thrusting; and their breadth somewhat contracts towards the haft, as in the second figure from the right hand in the above cut. These sort of weapons vary in length, from a dagger of two spans, to a sword of two feet three inches; the last being the size of the largest of those found in Ireland, and described by Governor Pownall in the Archæologia,' vol. iii. The general resemblance of these swords to those in most common use among the Romans is accounted for by the fact that they borrowed the shape of the blade from Spain, which country had immemorially been the seat of commercial colonies of the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, and à considerable part of which the latter people ultimately held in military possession. As copper is a soft metal, and easily blunted, it may be asked how it could be adapted to form cutting instruments? Some means must certainly have been resorted to for the purpose of hardening it. Tempering seems to have been the means most commonly used. The ancient writers themselves say this; and the observations which have been made on Greek and Roman antiquities seem to confirm this account. The Irish weapons were assayed by Mr. Alchorn, who says, "the metal appears to me to be chiefly copper, interspersed with particles of iron, and perhaps some zinc, but without containing either gold or silver: it seems probable, that the metal was cast in its present state, and afterwards reduced to its proper figure by filing. The iron might either be obtained with the copper from the ore, or added afterwards in the fusion, to give the necessary rigidity of a weapon. But I confess myself unable to determine any thing with certainty." (Archæologia, iii. 355.) Governor Pownall, in the same paper, says of this metal, that it is of a temper which carries a sharp edge, and is in a great degree firm and elastic, and very heavy. It does not rust, and takes a fine polish. He indeed thinks it superior to iron for its purpose, until the art of tempering steel was brought to a considerable degree of perfection. It is probably on account of this perfection to which the preparation of copper had been brought in consequence of the want of iron, that it continued to be preferred long after the art of working iron had been acquired.

a, Syrian Sabre; b, Syrian Dervish's Sabre; e, Turkish Sabre; d, Dagger of the Prince Royal of Persia; e, Albanian Knife-Dagger; f, Yataghan of a domestic of the Turkish Grand Vizier; g, Janissary's Dagger; h, Bedouin Arab's Dagger and Sheath.

As a general remark upon ancient swords, it may be observed that the swords of civilized nations were straight, and those of barbarians curved. The swords used by cavalry were long; but antiquity had no such thin-bladed narrow swords as are in use in modern Europe; a guard for the fingers is also usually wanting in the most ancient swords. The Egyptian swords seem to have been cutting swords; one sort is straight with a curved point, and reminds one of a carving knife; another resembles a scimitar, or curved razor. There is also a sort of straight tapering dagger quite similar to one that is still used in Western Asia, but not so broad in the blade. These swords and daggers are usually represented with cords and tassels at the hilt. Dr. Meyrick calls these sorts Egyptian-Greek; and does not notice any others. Conceding this point to so high an authority, we are left at liberty to conclude that other swords, not noticed by him, but which often occur in the Egyptian paintings, are pure and ancient Egyptian. One of these has a remarkable resemblance to a sickle (see the cut to Exod. xiv. 7); and the other looks like a broad-bladed and curved knife (see the second cut to Exod. xv.) It is interesting to note these forms, from the probability that the weapons of the Israelites in the wilderness were of a similar character. We learn from Scripture that the Israelites had daggers and swords, some of the latter with two edges, and were "girded upon the thigh." It does not appear that they wore them continually, but only as occasion required. The ancient Persians wore their swords suspended from a belt on the right side. Herodotus speaks of "golden swords" as among the spoils taken by the Greeks from the Persians; by which he 412

must probably be understood to mean that the Persians had the art of inlaying with gold the hilts and blades of their swords -a practice in which that people still excel. The cut from the ancient sculptures of Persia will exhibit the variety and style of their swords. Some of them have a resemblance to the Phoenician copper swords which we have mentioned; and their straightness would, according to the above quoted Roman rule, show the civilization of that people. But the same rule would make the Egyptians, with their curved weapons, "barbarous ;" whereas, in truth, both the Persians and the Egyptians were people at least as civilized as those who applied that degrading epithet to them. The early Greeks wore the sword under the left arm-pit, so that the pummel touched the nipple of their breast; it hung by a belt, and its length was nearly equal to that of the arm. The scabbard, of the same breadth as the sword, terminated in a knob like a mushroom. Dr. Meyrick describes different sorts of Greek swords, but we cannot enter into the account further than to state that some sorts were straight for cutting and thrusting; some, intended for cutting, were curved, and had the edge on the inner curve of the blade. The hilts were sometimes of ivory and gold, and occasionally guarded by a cross-bar. The Romans, when they relinquished brass and copper for the blade, retained it for the hilt. Our cut will show the principal varieties of the Roman swords. The resemblance of the favourite weapon to the Phoenician or Carthaginian has already been mentioned and accounted for. Several of those which the cut exhibits are only slight varieties of the same weapon; and those with the most obtuse points are thought the most ancient. The Romans wore the sword on the right thigh, probably that it might not obstruct the free motion of the buckler; but in ancient monuments the soldiers are sometimes seen to wear them on the left side. As the Jews were at different periods connected with all the people to whose swords we have alluded, and probably used the same kinds of weapons, these accounts form, with the cuts, the most suitable elucidations we can furnish. The cut of modern Oriental swords and daggers forms a useful supplement, as the ancient forms of common articles are still retained in the East. The Arabian dagger, for instance, is unquestionably most ancient-perhaps patriarchal.

14. "Moses was wroth," &c.—This is thought to imply that Moses had previously given the army particular instructions on the subject; but that, instead of following them, the soldiers had extended to the Midianites the comparatively favourable treatment allowed by the general war-law to all the nations except the devoted nations of Canaan. Of the latter, they were to save alive nothing that breathed" (Deut. xx. 16); but in their wars with other people they were only to slay the males bearing or able to bear arms, and not even so until terms of peace had been offered and refused. No such offer had been made to the Midianites, and their cities were utterly destroyed; and in these two respects they had already been more unfavourably dealt with than any except the devoted nations. But Moses was angry that they had saved the women alive, considering the calamities which their enticements had brought upon Israel, and fearing probably from the same cause a repetition of the crime and the punishment; he therefore directed the younger females, as less tainted with idolatry and crime, to be spared, but all the others, and also the male children, to be destroyed. If we estimate the number of the women who had seduced the Israelites to sin, by that of the men slain for that sin, and also by the proportion of the young females who were spared, we shall conclude that most of those whom Moses sentenced to perish were actually guilty in the affair of Baal-peor; and it is therefore easier to understand the grounds of their destruction than why the male children were involved in the same fate. Here also, however, we are to understand that the word "children" comprehends all under twenty years of age, the majority of whom would therefore be old enough to be imbued with the abominable principles and practice of the Midianites. We shall also fail to form a true estimate of this order, without recollecting that the war principles, among all known nations, were very different from those which now prevail in civilized Europe; and that, after all, enormous as their offence against God and against Israel was, they were dealt with less severely than the devoted nations of Canaan. There are some writers who think that, in issuing this order, Moses acted on his own views of policy, as we do not read that the Lord gave him any instructions on the subject. But as it was the Divine command, in the case of the seven nations of Canaan, that they should be wholly extirpated for their infinite abominations, and as we find it imputed to the Israelites as a crime that they did not give full effect to this sentence, we cannot perhaps do better than to consider the Midianites as being placed in the same condition; that is, under a judicial sentence, which the Almighty might have executed by plague, or famine, or fire, or flood, but which he saw proper to execute by the swords of the Israelites, and the full effect of which they had no right to compromise or modify. For further remarks, derived from the generally stern character of ancient warfare, we must refer to Deut. xx.

19. "Purify both yourselves and your captives."—It is an idea, of which we discover frequent traces in Scripture, that the life of man was a thing so sacred that no man could take life from another, even in a just cause, by war, or by accident, or even touch the corpse of the slain, without contracting defilement, for which some process of purification, generally by water, was necessary. Under the operation of this respect for human life, the man-slayer was obliged to leave his own home and flee to a city of refuge: and because he was a man who had shed much blood in war, David was not allowed to build the Temple. We discover the same feeling among other nations of antiquity. Thus, in Homer, Hector, fresh from battle, declines to pour out a libation to Jove:

"I dare not pour, with unwash'd hands, to Jove
The rich libation forth; it cannot be

That I should supplicate, thus foul with stains
Of gory battle, the tempestuous God."--Cowper.

And Æneas is made to speak much to the same effect in Virgil:

"These hands, yet horrid with the stains of war,
Refrain their touch unhallow'd, till the day
When the pure stream shall wash their guilt away."

."-PITT.

27. "Divide the prey into two parts."—It will have been observed in this chapter, that "the spoil" and "the prey" are mentioned as distinct things. (See verses 11 and 12.) The spoil (, shalal) means properly the spolium, exuviæ, the clothes, armour, and valuables of the enemy, together with their moveables and money. These were not divided in common, as we see in the sequel, but belonged individually to the captors. It is true that, in the present instance, the soldiers made an oblation of the spoil (verse 50);, but this was voluntary, and did not take place till after the division of the prey had been made. The "prey" (p, malkoch) consisted of the live stock and the captives, and was divided into two parts, one for those who went to the battle, and the other for the whole congregation; both parts being subject to a deduction for the use of the sanctuary. The principle of distribution here adopted seems to have been only intended for the particular occasion; but as it is the only rule on the subject which the Pentateuch contains, and evidently formed the basis of subsequent practice, it may be well to give it particular attention, with a view to the illustration of the whole subject. Perhaps the value of this part only of the booty, and the mode of its distribution, will be best exhibited tabularly:

This distribution is greatly to the advantage of the soldiers. They had the sole right to the "spoil;" and in the division of the "prey," each man who went to the war had about fifty times as much as those who remained at home, for the congregation half was to be divided among 591,550 persons, and the warriors' half only among 12,000. Besides, the congregation had to give a fiftieth part of their half to the Levites, whereas the soldiers had only to contribute a five-hundredth part, ten times less, to the use of the sanctuary. It was but equitable that those who had undergone the fatigue and danger of the service should be thus liberally distinguished; and the principle, if followed out, was calculated to encourage bold enterprises, since the fewer the actual combatants were, the larger would be the proportion which each received. But, on the other hand, it was equally fair that the people at large should be considered, since they were all in an equal degree soldiers, and all liable and ready to have been called into active service. In fact, in a body constituted like the Hebrew host, the men of full age occupied the place of the men who in an army stay to guard the baggage while others are engaged in actual conflict. There is, however, no other example in which half the prey was given to the congregation at large; there may have been other instances, however, though not recorded. The custom probably fell gradually into disuse with the increase of the population and the change in the condition of the people. When the subject is again brought under our notice (1 Sam. xxx.), we find the custom was, that only the actual army divided the prey, but that those who kept the baggage, or were disabled by weariness or wounds, shared equally with those who were engaged in the fight. On one occasion, in David's vagabond troop, four hundred men who went to battle, murmured at having to divide the prey with two hundred who, from weariness, had remained behind at the brook Besor. But this only gave occasion for the regulation to be more firmly established. If we may trust the Rabbins, the army only divided thus half the prey among themselves after the monarchy was established; for that the king had the "spoil" of precious articles, or at least so much as he chose to take of it, and also half the "prey," as distinguished from the "spoil." If we understand the matter, the "spoil" was the king's proper portion; and the half of the prey” was still nominally the portion of the people, but claimed by him, as head of the people, to be employed for the public service. Or, in other words, that the spoil" was his portion as commander-in-chief of the army, and the moiety of the "prey" as head of the nation. We do not know on what authority the Rabbins make this statement. But it is by no means improbable, and it well accounts for the enormous wealth which David was enabled to accumulate and leave to his son Solomon. In the time of the Maccabees, something like a return to the old system took place, for we read that the army which defeated Nicanor under the conduct of Judas did not confine the distribution to the army, but made the maimed, orphans, widows, and the aged also, equal in spoils with themselves."

Many very interesting illustrations of the facts we have thus condensedly stated might be der ved from the writings of classical antiquity, particularly from the Iliad of Homer. A greediness for spoil in general characterizes all the kings and chiefs who figure in the Trojan war. The plenary power over the spoils which the Rabbins assign to the commander, or the king when there was one, we see fully possessed by the Grecian commander Agamemnon, to whom the kings and chiefs acting with him brought the spoil they obtained, of which he reserved what he pleased, and gave what he pleased to the others. Achilles himself gives the best account of the process. He says:

"I have destroy'd
Twelve cities with my fleet, and twelve, save one,
On foot, contending in the fields of Troy.
From all these cities precious spoils I took
Abundant, and to Agamemnon's hand
Gave all the treasure. He within his ships
Abode the while, and having all received
Little distributed, and much retain'd;

He gave, however, to the kings and chiefs
A portion, and they kept it."-Cowper.

Every one also knows that the interest of this famous poem hinges upon the disgust of Achilles, which was occasioned by the harsh exercise, on the part of Agamemnon, of a right to reclaim the spoil he had once awarded.

The rule concerning the equal division of the spoil, as well to those who stayed with the baggage as to those who fought, was also in use among the Romans; and it is interesting to hear Polybius applauding, as one of the masterpieces of Roman discipline, a custom which was, so many ages before, in practical operation among the Hebrews. Perhaps his account may tend to illustrate the brief indications of the Sacred text, for where the principle was the same, we may suppose that there was some analogy in the details. He is speaking particularly of the pillage of a city, and states that a certain number of cohorts, never exceeding half the force, were employed in this work. When it was accomplished, a sale was made of all that had been taken, and the money divided into equal shares, which were allotted to all alike: not only to those who were stationed under arms in the several posts, but to those that were left in the camp, also to the sick, and even to those who had been sent away from the camp on distant service. And that no part of the plunder might be concealed, the soldiers, before they began to march, were obliged to swear, that whatever they took from the enemy they would faithfully bring to the camp. Polybius then expatiates on the advantages of this arrangement, and the fatal consequences which followed in other nations from allowing every man to keep what he might take; the men then, in their ardour for gain, throwing off all restraint, and often bringing the army into the utmost danger; whilst, under the Roman system, every man remained quiet and steady at his post, being as certain of his due portion as if he were actually engaged in the pillage.

It will not fail to be observed that the right of spoil is distinctly recognised in the Mosaical law. This is explained when we recollect that the Hebrew army received no pay: and as Michaelis observes (Art. 178)-"Where there are no soldiers paid by the state, but all the citizens take the field, either as volunteers or by selection, it is quite obvious that to take spoil must be permitted; for the man who hazards his life must have some means of recompense put in his power; and what his country does not give him, he must have to hope for from the enemy....Where there is not a regular and paid army, spoil must be the reward of victory."