ARBEH (rgiN) occurs in Exod. x. 4, Sept.
brptSci roXX15v (` a vast flight of locusts,' or perhaps indicating that several species were employed), Vulg. locustanz ; and, in ver. 12, 13, 14, 19, etliptS and locusta, Eng. locusts ; Lev. - xi. 22. PpO9X0V, bruchus, locust ; Deut. xxviii. 3S, cimts, locusto, locust ; Judg. vi. 5 ; vii. 12, locustarum, grasshoppers; 1 Kings viii. 37, ppoiixos, locusta, locust ; 2 Chron. vi. 2S, apices, locusta, locusts ; Job xxxix. 20, imptoes, locustas, grasshoppers ; Ps. lxxviii. 46, Elva, Symm. amantit, locusta, locust ; I's. cv. 34, anpis, locusta, locust ; Ps. cix. 23, thipaSES, iOCUSetE, locust; Prov. xxx. 27, cinpts, lo costa, locust ; Jer. xlvi. 23, dnpt5a, iocusta, grass hoppers; Joel i. 4; ii. 25, avis, Ay:is/a, locust ; Nahum iii. 15, Ppofixos, bruchus, locusts; ver. cirrAapos, Zocus/ce, locusts. In the foregoing con spectus the word riZiN, in Exod. x., as indeed everywhere else, occurs in the singular number only, though it is there associated with verbs both in the singular and plural (ver. 5, 6), as are the corresponding words in Sept. and Vulg. This it might be, as a noun of multitude; but it will be rendered probable that four species were employed in the plague on Egypt, T:171, and (Ps. lxxviii. 46, 47 ; cv. 34). These may all have been brought into Egypt from Ethiopia (which has ever been the cradle of all kinds of locusts), by what is called in Exodus, the east wind,' since Bochart proves that the word which properly signi fies east' often means south' also. The word ilaiN may be used in Lev. xi. 22, as the collective name for the locust, and be put first there as de noting also the most numerous species ; hut in Joel i. 4, and Ps. lxxviii. 46, it is distinguished from the other names of locusts, and is mentioned second, as if of a different species; just, perhaps, as we use the word fly, sometimes as a collective name, and at others for a particular species of insect, as when speaking of the hop, turnip, meat fly, etc. When the Hebrew word is used in reference to a particu lar species, it has been supposed, for reasons which will be given, to denote the gryllus gregarius or migratorius. Moses, therefore, in Exodus, refers Pharaoh to the visitation of the locusts, as well known in Egypt; but the plague would seem to have consisted in bringing them into that country in unexampled numbers, consisting of various spe cies never previously seen there (comp. Exod. x. 4, 6, 15). The Sept. word poles (Lev. xi. 22) clearly shews that the translator uses it for a winged species of locust, contrary to the Latin fathers (as Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, etc.), who all define the bruchus to be the unfledged young or larva of the locust, and who call it attelabus when its wings are partially developed, and locusta when able fly; although both Sept. and Vulg. ascribe flight to the bruchus here, and in Nab. iii. 17. The Greek fathers, on the other hand, uniformly ascribe to the poiixos both wings and flight, and therein agree with the descriptions of the ancient Greek naturalists. Thus Theophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle, who, with his preceptor, was probably contemporary with the Sept. translators of the Pentateuch, plainly speaks of it as a distinct spe cies, and not a mere state : xaXoral oby &vacs, xallorthrepot of drz€Xa,dot, xal robrcov AdXio-ra oils KaXoCat Ppou' nour.-` The finpiSes (the best ascertained general Greek word for the locust) are injurious, the drzaapot still more so, and those most of all which they call ppolinoe (De Anise). The Sept. seems to recognise the peculiar de structiveness of the in t Kings viii. 37 (but has merged it in the parallel passage, 2 Chron.), and in Nab. iii. 15, by adopting it for rilitt In these passages the Sept. translators may have understood the G. migratorius or (Linn.), which is usually considered to be the most de structive species (from I devour). Yet
in, Joel i. 4; 25, they have applied it to the which, however, appears there as engaged in the work of destruction. Hesychius, in the third century, explains the PpoOKos as dicpiSwp Enos, a species of locust,' though, he observes, applied in his time by different nations to different species of locusts, and by some to the cirrAatIos. May not his testimony to this effect illustrate the various uses of the word by the Sept. in the minor prophets ? Our translators have wrongly adopted the word grasshopper' in Judg. and Jer. xlvi. 23, where locusts' would certainly have better illustrated the idea of innumerable multitudes ;' and here, as else where, have departed from their professed rule, not to vary from the sense of that which they had translated before, if the word signified the same in both places' (Translators to the reader, ad finem). The Hebrew word in question is usually derived from r131, to multiply ' or be numerous,' be cause the locust is remarkably prolific ; which, as a general name, is certainly not inapplicable ; and it is thence also inferred that it denotes the G. migratorius, because that species often appears in large numbers. However, the largest flight ot locusts upon record, calculated to have extended over soo miles, and which darkened the air like an eclipse, and was supposed to come from Arabia, did not consist of the G. migratorius, but of a red species (Kirby and Spence, /ntrod. to Entomology, i. 210) ; and according to Forskal, the species which now chiefly infests Arabia, and which he names G. gregarius, is distinct from the G. migra torius of Linn. (Ency. Brit. art. Entomology,' p. 193). Others derive the word from )tsl, to lie hid' or in ambush,' because the newly-hatched locust emerges from the ground, or because the locust besieges vegetables. Rosenmiiller justly re marks upon such etymologies, and the inferences made from them, Quinn infirmum verb sit hujus modi e solo nominis etymo petitum argumentum, unusquisque intelliget ipse.' He adds, Nec alia est ratio reliquarum specierum ' (Schol iu ,7oel i. 4). How precarious truly the reasoning is, derived in this manner from the mere etymology of the word, everybody may understand for himself. Nor is the principle otherwise in regard to the rest of the species.' He also remarks that the references to the destructiveness of locusts, which are often de rived from the roots, simply concur in this, that locusts consume and do mischief. Illustrations of the propriety of his remarks will abound as we proceed. Still it by no means follows from a coin cidence of the Hebrew roots, in this or any other meaning, that the learned among the ancient Jews did not recognize different species in the different names of locusts. The English word fly, from the Saxon pan, the Heb. and its representative fowl' in the Eng. Version (Gen. i. 20, etc.), all express both a general and specific idea. Even a modern entomologist might speak of the flies' in a room, while aware that from 5o to too different species annually visit our apartments. The scrip tures use popular language ; hence the multitude,' ` the devourer,' or the darkner,' may have been the familiar appellations for certain species of locusts. The common Greek words for locusts I and grasshoppers, etc., are of themselves equally indefinite ; yet they also served for the names of species, as citcpis, the locust generally, from the tops of vegetables, on which the locust feeds ; but it is also used as the proper name of a particular species, as the grasshopper : rerparreptAXis,' four-winged,' is applied sometimes to the grasshopper ; rpc4aXXis, from rpth-yee, ' to chew,' sometimes to the cater pillar. Yet the Greeks had also distinct names restricted to particular species, as Bess, /..coXoupts, Kepta,57rn, etc. The Hebrew names may also have served similar purposes.--J. F. D.