these words denote merely the different states through which the locust passes after leaving the cs^g, viz. the larva, the pupa, ami the perfect insect — all which much resemble each other, except that the larva has no wings, and that the pupa possesses only the rudiments of those members, which are fully developed only in the adult locust (Michaelis, Supplem. ad Lex. Ilebr. ii, 667, 1080). But this supposition is manifestly wrong with regard to several of these terms, because, in Lev. xi, 22, the word iJi'Cp, "after his kind," or species, is added after each of them (compare ver. 14, 15, 16). It is most probable, therefore, that all the rest are also the names of species. But the problem is to ascertain the particular species intended by them respectively.
(1.) Arbeii' (na'IX, occurs in Exod. x, 4 ; Sept. d/cpi- da TToXX//!', a vast flight of locusts, or perhaps indica- ting that several species were emploj'ed, Yulg. locustam ; and inverses 12, 13, 14, 19, a/cpi'c and locusta, Eng. "lo- custs;" Lev. xi, 22, /Jpoi^xoi', bruchus, "locust;" Deut. xxviii, 38, uKpig, locusta?, "locust;" Judg. vi, 5; vii, 12, aKpig, locustarum, "grasshoppers;" 1 Kings viii, 87, (SpovXOQ, locusta, " locust ;" 2 Chron. vi, 28, a/cp/c, lo- custa, "locusts;" Job xxxix, 20, oKpiSig, locustas, "grasshopper;" Psa. Ixxviii, 46, aKpiSt, Symm. aKwXr]- Ki, locusta, "locust;" Psa. cv, 34, aKpiQ, locusta, "lo- custs;" Psa. cix, 23, uKpiStg, locusta, "locust;" Prov, xxx, 27, aKple;, locusta, "locusts;" Jer. xlvi, 23, c'tKpica, locusta, "grasshoppers;" Joel i, 4; ii, 25, ciKpi^, locusta, "locust;" Nah. iii, 15, (ipovxog, bruchus, "locusts;" ver. 17, drTsXaj3og, locustce, "locusts"). In almost every passage where arbeh occurs, reference is made to its ter- ribly destructive powers.
It is the locust of the Egyptian plagues described in Exod. X, where, as indeed everj'where else, it 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 the Sept. and Vulgate. 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, of which this is named first (Psa. Ixxviii, 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 iu Exodus " the east wind," since Bochart proves that the word which properly signifies "east" often means " south" also. The word cn-beh may be used in Lev. xi, 22 as the collective name for the locust, and be put first there as denoting also the most numerous species ; but in Joel i, 4, and Psa. Ixxviii, 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 ^\ord fly, sometimes as a collective name, and at others for a particular species of insect, as when speakuig of the hop, turnip, meat fly, etc. When the Hebrew word is used in reference to a particular 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 countrj' in unexampled numbers, consisting of various species never previously seen there (comp. Exod. x, 5, 6, 15).
It is one of the flying creeping creatures that were allowed as food by the law of Moses (Lev. xi, 21). In this passage it is clearly the representative of some spe- cies of winged saltatorial orthoptei'a, which must have possessed indications of form sufficient to distinguish the insect from the three other names which belong to the same division of orthoptera, and are mentioned in the same context. The opinion of Michaelis (^Si/ppl. 667, 910), that the four words mentioned in Lev. xi, 22 denote the same insect in four different ages or stages of its growth, is quite untenable, for, whatever particu- lar species are intended by these words, it is quite clear from verse 21 that they must all be winged orthopitera. The Septuagint word fipoiJxog there clearly shows that
LOCUST
482
LOCUST
the translator uses it for a winged species of locust, con- trary tu the Latin fathers (as Jerome, Augustine, Greg- ory, etc.), who all dertne the bruc/ius to be the unfledged young or larva of the locust, and who call it utteUihus when its wings are partially developed, and locnsta wlien abli! to fly ; although both Sept. and Vulg. ascribe flight to the bruc/ius here, and in Xah. iii, 17. The Greek fa- thers, on the other hand, uniformly ascribe to the j3pou- X(>(; both wings and flight, and therein agree with the descriptions of the ancient Greek naturalists. Thus Theophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle, who, with his pre- ceptor, was probably contemporaneous with the Septua- gint translators of the Pentateuch, plainly speaks of it as a distinct species, and not a mere state : " The aKpi- Cit; (the best ascertained general Greek word for the lo- cust) are injurious, the nrriXaiioi still more so, and those most of all which they call l3povxoi" (De Anim). The Sept. seems to recognise the peculiar destructive- ness of the (ipovxpq in 1 Kings viii, 37 (but has merged it in the parallel passage, 2 Chron.), and in Nah. iii, 15, by adopting it for arbeh. In these passages the Sept. translators may have understood the G. mif/ratorius or gregarius (Linn.), which is usually considered to be the most destructive species (from i3pioaK(D, I devour). Yet, in Joel i, 4 ; ii, 25, they have applied it to the yelel; which, however, appears there as engaged in the work of destruction, Hesychius, in the 3d century, explains the lipovxog as " a species of locust," though, he ob- serves, applied in his time by different nations to differ- ent species of locusts, and by some to the rirrf Xa/ioc. May not his testimony to this effect illustrate the vari- ous uses of the word by the Sept, in the minor prophets? Our translators have wrongly adopted the word "grass- hopper" in Judges and Jer. xlvi, 23, where " locusts" •would certainly have better illustrated the idea of " in- numerable miUtitudes ;" and here, as elsewhere, have departed from their professed rule '"not to vary from the sense of that which they had translated before, if the word signiiied the same in both places" (translators to the reader, ad finem).