Superior Words: nepotism to pedicular; with a digression on Astruc

All the words I give you are "big" but either have an interesting history or are useful to know and use. I do not give words simply to stymie or to confuse people. My selections, I hope, help make language and thought more precise and enjoyable. Let's see if that works.

Starting with Nepotism

Nepotism is derived from the Latin "nepos," which in classical Latin meant a "grandson" or "descendant" but which had also taken on the meaning of "nephew" in the 4th century and even "niece" in the 13th. Thus, to exercise nepotism is to hire your "nephews" instead of people who were probably more qualified. The use of the term in modern languages begins with nipotismo in Italian in the 1660s, but the concept goes back to the Middle Ages when Popes, most of whom were Italian, would place their "nephews" in positions of authority around the Papal States and local governments. These "nephews" could, in fact, be children of brothers and sisters but often were illegitimate sons of the Popes themselves. Thus, the term has a euphemistic origin, and it demonstrates once again (if demonstration is really needed), that the asperities of the priestly life are not for many people, even many ordained priests themselves.

I can dispense of nepotation much more quickly. Derived from the Latin nepotatio, meaning prodigality, it describes a person living a dissolute or uproariously prodigal life. It is interesting that the word nepos (nephew), when put in the verb form nepotari, means "to squander." Maybe that is what those wastrels do!

Pedicular

If someone asks you, "What are you up to today?" and you say, "Nothing in pedicular," you would be saying something about being lice-infested. Pedicular is an adjective meaning "of or relating to a louse or lice; lousy." So, we see that when we say, "I feel lousy," you are really saying that you feel as if lice are creeping all over your body. Here is a longer explanation of the term. But what struck me this time around is the French term maladie pediculaire, a fifteenth century term, which picks up on an earlier Latin medical term morbus pedicularis. This "lousy disease" has been cited by many scholars as the immediate consumptive disease that struck Herod in Acts 12. The Chambers Encyclopedia of 1728 so argued.

I found another use of pedicular, in a sort of theological way, in a work that deserves a slight digression. Robert Southey (1774-1843), poet laureate of England in the 1810s, prolific poet/writer and biographer of religious and national heroes (Lord Nelson, Wesley, Bunyan), wrote a book entited The Doctor in 1834, which has this choice sentence: "The souls of their friends who are undergoing penance in the shape of flees, or in loathsome pedicular form." The significant thing about Southey's book is not his use of pedicular, however; it is the book where the story of the Three Bears originated. I don't know how he got from fleas to the Three Bears--someone of my readers will have to get the book to find out...

Well, the morbus pedicularis was supposed to be treated by the herba pedicularis. One French physican, Jean Astruc (1684-1766), in a 1746 edition of his lectures on diseases of children, described the disease as follows:

"Though this subject is very nauseous and disagreeable to the physician, yet he should not be ignorant thereof, nor neglect its treatment, being very troublesome, and even dangerous, to children. It may happen to all, but it is more frequently observable in dirty, neglected infants. Some authors report, that they have seen infinite numbers of lice on all parts of the body; that they not only appeared on its surface, but also betwixt the cuticula and cutis, forming whitish superficial tumours. This kind of Phthiriasis I never observed: but have frequently seen it in the head, especially of those who are infected with a scabies, tinea, or crusta lactea, of that part."

This is the first time I have run into Astruc in his medical capacity, even though I have "seen" him previously. Where? Why in Biblical studies. How? Well, there is a story there, too. Anyone who studies the history of Biblical studies must consider the documentary hypothesis, which argued that several documents went into the composition of the Pentateuch (first five books of Moses). The beginnings of the theory were in 17th century England and the Continent, with the obvious recognition from Deut 34:6 and elsewhere that the Pentateuch, as we have it, consists of texts later than Moses.

After a preliminary documentary hypothesis was articulated by Hobbes and Spinoza, Astruc wanted to pick up on their work but turn it in a conservative direction. That is, Hobbes/Spinoza argued for several post-Mosaic documents in the Pentateuch, while Astruc would agree that many separate documents made up the Pentateuch but that Moses was the one who "edited" them. In 1753 he published his word (anonymously) entitled Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, dont il parait que Moses s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse ("Conjectures on the original memorials of which it appears Moses availed himself in composing the Book of Genesis"), which basically says it all. It was not at all unusual in the 17th-18th centuries for scholars to make contributions to multiple fields of investigation. Indeed, Astruc's views were foundational for 19th century source criticism (for example, he identified the divine names "Elohim" and "Yahweh" as standing behind different sources). But that is another long, long story.

Conclusion

Well, this is my way with words--you mention one or two, and then you tell stories. By doing this the world gradually "falls into place." It is a very long effort, but one that is utterly worth it.

[Next]

2865