Nov. 1. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



351 



Roma. As it is a good specimen of what may be 

 called "learned trldlng," I subjoin a copy of it : — 

 " Roma dablt oram, Maro, 

 Ramo, armo, mora, et amor. 



" Roma tuum nomen quam non pertransiit Oram 



Cum Latium ferreiit szecula prisca jiiguni ? 

 Non deerat vel faina tibi, vel carmina faraa;, 



Unde Maio laudes duxit ad astra tuas. 

 At nunc exsucco similis tua gloria Ramo 



A veteri trunco et nobilitate cadit. 

 Laus antiqua et honor perierunt, te velut /Irmo 



Jam deturbarunt tempora longa suo. 

 Quin tibi jam desperatje Mora nulla medctur ; 



Qua Fabio quondam sub duce nata salus. 

 Hinc te olim gentes miratte odere vicissim; 



Et cum sublata laude recedit Amor." 



II. C. K. 



Amongst George Herbert's Poe?ns is an ana- 

 gram, which I shall only allude to, as it is upon a 

 sacred subject; andFulke Greville, Lord Brooke, 

 has left us a play upon his own name, which 

 would scarcely satisfy the requirements of Me. 

 Breen. However, I am glad of any opportunity 

 of referring to our great English Lucretius, and 

 will transcribe it : — 



" Let no man aske my name, 

 Nor what else I should be ; 

 For Greiv-Ill, paine, forlorne estate 

 Doe best decipher me." 

 " Caelica," sonnet Ixxxiii. Works, p. 233. Lond. 1633. 

 To me the most satisfactory anagram in the 

 English language is that by the witty satirist 

 Cleveland upon Oliver Cromwell : 



Protector. O Portet C. R. 

 Cleveland's Works, p. 343. Lond. 1687. 



Et. 

 Warmlngton, Oct. 18. 18.t1. 



THE I.0CDST3 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

 (Vol. iv., p. 255.) 



The Romaic version of Matt. iv. 4. is almost 

 verbally taken from the Greek, "^ Se roocpi) avrov 

 Jjv uKpiSes Ka\ fi€\i &ypiov." In Mark i. 6., the ex- 

 pression is ((relwv aKpiSas. The only other place in 

 the New Testament where the word aKols is found, 

 is in Rev. i.x. 3. 7., where it plainly means a locust. 



In the Septuagint version the word is commonly 

 used for the IIei)rew naiX, a locust, of the mean- 

 ing of which there is no dispute; as in Exodus, x. 

 4. 12, 1.3, 14. ; Deut. xxviii. 38. ; Joel, i. 4., ii. 25. ; 

 Pd. cv. 34., &c. 



In other jilaces the word aKfih in the Septua- 

 gint corresponds to 3?n in the Hebrew, as in 

 Xumb. xiii. 33. ; Is. xl. 22. ; and that this was a 

 species of locust which was eatable, appears from 

 Lev. xi. 21, 22.: 



"Yet there may ye eat of every flyi'iff creeping 

 thing that goeth upon all fours, which have legs above 

 their feet, to leap withal upon the eartli ; even those of 

 them ye may eat, the locust (PI^'lNn JlX, rov fipoixov) 

 after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the 

 beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper (2Jnn TIN^ 

 TJjJ' aKpioa) after his kind." 



That locusts were eaten in the East is plain from 

 Pliny, who in xi. 29. relates this of the Parthians ; 

 and in vi. 30. of the Ethiopians, among whom was 

 a tribe called Acridophagi, from their use of the 

 dicph for food. 



There seems, then, no reason to suppose that in 

 INIatt. iv. 4., ]\Iark i. 6., the word aKolSes should be 

 taken to mean anything but locusts. 



It was, however, a very ancient opinion that the 

 word aKpiS^s here means a.Kp6Spva, or a/coa Spvau, or 

 aKpefioyes, Or aKplff/MaTa, the ends of the branches of 

 trees ; although the word aKplCes is never used in 

 this sense by pure Greek writers. T. C. 



Durham. 



The interpretation of uKpiSes (Matt. iii. 4.) sug- 

 gested to Boue'as is not new. Isidorus Pelusiota 

 (Epist. i. 132.) says : 



" at dxpiSes, aXs 'loiivvr]^ fTpi<peTo, oh ^uid elaiv, &s 

 rives owyTaiafia9(os, Kavddpnis aireoiicoTa- /xr) yevoiTO • dW 

 axpifioves fioTavHiv ^ qivraiv." 



Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, either 

 adopt or quote the same interpretation, as may be 

 seen by referring to Suicer, Thes. EccL, under 

 the word 'AkoIs. 



But in the absence of any direct proof that the 

 word was ever used in this sense, I do not think it 

 safe to adopt interpretations which possibly i-ested 

 only on some tradition. 



There is positive proof that locusts were eaten 

 by some people. In Lev. xi. 22. we have, 



" These of them ye may eat ; the locust after his kind, 

 and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after 

 his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind." 



In this passage we find dxplda used by the LXX. 

 for the Hebrew ^JH, the last of the four kinds 

 specified. I find in several commentators whom 

 I have consulted, reference to Bochart's Hiero- 

 zoicon, ii.4. 7., but as I have not the book by me, 

 I must be content with referring your corre- 

 spondent to it ; and if he will look at the com- 

 mentaries of Eisner and Kuinoel, and Schleusuer's 

 Lexicon, he will find references to so many au- 

 thors in confirmation of the fiict in question, that 

 I think he will not disagree with me in concluding 

 that where the balance of learned opinion, as well 

 as of evidence, is so great in favour of one inter- 

 pretation, we ought not rashly to take up another, 

 however intelligent the party may be by whona it 

 was suggested. 



I have just looked into Wolfius on the i^ew 

 Testament, and there find a list of writers who 



