CHARGOL (9nri ; Sept. '00ioAciv7s ; Vulg.
Ophioynachus; A.V. Beetle; found only in Lev. xi. 22). This word cannot mean the beetle. No species of scarabseus was ever used as food by the Jews, or perhaps any other nation. Nor does any known species answer to the generic descrip tion given in the preceding verse : ' This ye may eat of every winged creeper which goeth upon four (feet) ; that which bath joints at the upper part of its hind legs, to leap with them upon the earth' (comp. Niebuhr, Descrip. de I' Arable, Copen hague, 1773, p. 33). Hence it is plain that the chargol is some winged creeper, which has at least four feet, which leaps with its two hind jointed legs, and which we might expect, from the permission, to find actually used as food. This description agrees exactly with the locust-tribe of insects, which are well-known to have been eaten by the common people in the East from the earliest times to the pre sent day. This conclusion is also favoured by the derivation of the word, which comes from inn, to shake, and the foot, like the English grass hopper, and French sauterelle. The Arabic is derived from a word signifying a troop or swarm, and is explained by Gallus as a species of locusts without wings. It seems, indeed, to be so generally agreed among the learned that chargol denotes the locust, that the matter of dispute is rather what particular species of locust is intended, or whether the word describes any one of those several states through which the locust passes, in each of which it greatly resembles the perfect insect, the only difference being, that in the larva state it is entirely destitute of wings and wing-cases, and that in the pupa state it possesses only the rudiments of those members gathered up so as to form four little buttons on the shoulders. Swam merdam observes that the want of attention to these particulars, in former writers, had led to a very unnecessary multiplication of names, Aldro vand, Johnson, Mouffet, and others, having de scribed the locust in these several states under the names bruchi, atelabi, aselli, etc., suppos ing them to be so many distinct spedies. Mi chaelis, on the other hand, contends that the several words in this passage, nziN, ?lb0, denote only the four successive states of locusts, produced by casting off their several skins or coverings.
Their first state, he thinks, is before they have cast off their first cuticle ; but that, since in this state they are so small as not to be readily used for food, Moses enumerates only their four remaining states (Supplement. ad Lexicon Hebraic., pt. iii. pp. 667-669, and 910-912). To this view, however, it is justly objected by Rosenmdller (apud Bochart), that the phrase 'after its kind or species,' added to each of these terms, is not consistent with the vari ous states merely through which the locust passes. Tychsen maintains that the words refer to four different species of locusts, and endeavours to shew that ;1111 is the gryllus gregarius,Forskalii; that nlbo is the gryllus eversor de asso apud Rceselium; )111, the gryllus gorges de asso, et gryllus verruci vorus, Linn. ; and that the 1)11 is the gryllus coronatus, Linn. (Tychsen, Comment. de Locustis Biblicis, subjoined to Don Ignacio de Asso y del Rio's, von den Heuschrecken stud Waren, etc., Rostock, 1787-88).
In attempting to ascertain the particular species of locust intended by the word 'chargol,' great deference is due to the term adopted by the Sep tuagint and repeated by Jerome, which is evidently derived from 60ts and p.dxn, and indicates a crea ture that fights with serpents. Inapplicable as such a description may seem to be to the habits of any known species of locust, it may, nevertheless, help to identify the species of which we are in search. Now the ancients have certainly referred to the notion of locusts fighting with serpents (Aristot. Hist. A111712. ix. 9 ; Plin. Hist. Nat. xi.
35). Although this notion is justly discarded by Cuvier (Grandsagne's edition of Pliny, Tonsils, 1828, p. 451, note), yet it may serve to account for the application of the term 6q5topdxns to a species of locust. For this word instantly suggests a refer ence to the ichneumon, the celebrated destroyer of serpents and other vermin ; and it is remarkable that Hesychius, in the second century, applies the word dcptoAcixos both to the ichneumon, and a species of locust having no wings. If, then, any species of locust can be adduced whose habits re semble those of the ichneumon, may not this resem blance account for the name, quasi the ichneumon (locust) ; just as the whole genus of insects called Ichneumonidm were so denominated because of the supposed analogy between their services and those of the Egyptian ichneumon ? and might not this name, given to that species of locust at a very early period, have afterwards originated the erroneous notion referred to by Aristotle and Pliny ? Now, there is one kind of locusts, the genus truxalis (fierce or cruel), inhabiting Africa and China, and comprehending many species, which hunts and preys upon insects. It is also called the truxalis nasutus, or long-nosed. May not, then, this winged, leaping, insectivorous locust, and its vari ous species, be the chargol, after its kind,' and the 60tottdris of the Septuagint ? or might the name have arisen from the similarity of shape and colour, which is striking, between the truxalis nasutus and the ichneumon ; just as the locust generally is, at this time, called cavalette by the Italians, on account of its resemblance in shape to the horse? We know that the ancients indulged in tracing the many resemblances of the several parts of locusts to those of other animals (Bochart, Hieroz. pt. ii. lib. iv. c. 5, 13. 475). It may he ob served, that it is no objection to the former and more probable supposition, that a creature which lives upon other insects should be allowed as food to the Jews, contrary to the general principle of the Mosaic law in regard to birds and quadrupeds, this having been unquestionably the case with regard to many species of fishes coming within the regulation of having fins and scales,' and known to exist in Palestine at the present time—as the perch, carp, barbel, etc. (Kitto's Physical History of Palestine, article Fish Es). The fact that the Chargol is never made the means of the divine chastisements (for which purpose a locust preying upon insects could scarcely be used), concurs, at least, with the foregoing speculationt—J. F. D.
not appear to have been different from their chariots, the splendid military appointments of which rendered them fit for purposes of royal pomp. This view of the matter is confirmed by our finding that, although the same word (rizz-in, nzercabah) is again used for chariots of state in Gen. xlvi. 29 ; t Sam. viii. I r ; 2 Sara. xv. I, it un doubtedly denotes a war-chariot in Exod. xv. 4 ; Joel ii. 5. In Is. ii. 7, the same word appears to comprehend chariots of every kind which were found in cities. This may be accounted for by the fact that chariots anciently in the East were usal almost entirely for purposes of state or of war, being very rarely employed by private persons. We also observe that where private carriages were known, as in Egypt, they were of the same shape as those used in war, and only differed from them by having less complete military accoutrements, although even in these the case for arrows is not wanting. One of the most interesting of the Egyp tian paintings represents a person of quality arriv ing late at an entertainment in his curricle, drawn (like all the Egyptian chariots) by two horses. He