226 



NOTES AND QUERIES. [2-i s. vi. 142., skpt. is. 'ss. 



from the use of the same verb ? It has no more 

 to do with "aipikurios" than the English word 

 " pick." Buxtorf gives the Talmudic word as 

 the equivalent for Epicurus, iiriKovpoi vel intKov- 

 pfios, Epicureus — its meaning being various, as 

 might be expected from a mere " term of re- 

 proach " — homo levis, atheus, &c., a reprobate 

 denied heaven, — and with regard to the plural, 

 he very pertinently observes — ut imdta alia 

 Grasca in or, pluraliter sigma ahjiciunt — clearly 

 indicating that the word was borrowed from the 

 Greek; — and respecting o«e Rabbinical equiva- 

 lent (apikyrusuth) for " epicureismus," " epicu- 

 reitas," i. e. " insolentia," " dissentio," " hajresis 

 dissidium," &c., he says : " Varie scril^itur. Quo 

 quisque de vocis origina ignorantior, eo pravius 

 scripsit." In fact, its being identical with 'Eirc 

 Kovpeios was too obvious to require notice. 



Therefore, in saying that " the great Jewish 

 historian stigmatises the Egyptian as epicurean," 

 &c., by the use of the Hebrew verb " epic," Mr. 

 Elmes goes much too far — as Moses does nothing 

 of the sort, in any sense of the word, whatever 

 may have been his opinion of the " tyrant." Of 

 all the queer etymologies I have seen, this tracing 

 of " Epicurean " to the " epik " or " hepik " of 

 Exod. xiv. 5. is the most remarkable. 



Nor is Mr. Elmes more correct in assimilating 

 Epicurus and his proper followers to Fenelon and 

 his so-called (iuietists — even with the authority 

 of Sir William Temple. The views of the illus- 

 trious Fenelon were supposed to lead to a " false 

 spirituality which made all Christian perfection 

 conjiist in the repose or complete inaction of the 

 soul, and which, giving itself up to contemplation 

 alone, neglected entirely all external works." 

 As to Quietism, see Bayle, Diet., Dioscoride (Aa) 

 and Brachmanes (I.) Even supposing that Fene- 

 lon meant anything of the sort, it is clear that 

 Epicurus did not : — the comparison is one of those 

 very many loose and vague surmises which men 

 take up — commit to print — and which everybody 

 then quotes as matter of fact note-worthy. 



In sober sadness the " Jewish doctors " bor- 

 rowed the word aipikurios from the Gentiles when 

 it became " a term of reproach," and applied it — 

 after the manner usually suggested by the odium 

 theologicum — to those who thought proper " to 

 reject the doctrines of the Rabbis " — even to 

 the Christians — according to Buxtorf (Ze.r. 

 Chald.), who treats of the word largely. 



Nor is it difficult to point to the period wl>en 

 the word was adopted. At the beginning of the 

 Christian era the Hebrews dashed vigorously into 

 the study of Philosophy — under the inspiration 

 of Aristobulus and Philo, who was called the He- 

 brew Plato; and it was at Alexandria — the great 

 hot-bed of all manner of doctrine — that they 

 studied and imbibed from Greek sophism the 

 bitter juices out of which vegetated rankly their 



monstrous and incomprehensible Talmud— a mys- 

 tification of the doctrines of Moses. And at 

 Rome, too, they made a habitation — at tlie very 

 time when Cicero was denouncing the principles 

 of Epicurus and the practice of the Hebrews. 

 There, under a perpetual ban — utterly denied 

 all the rights of citizenship — unable to acquire 

 or hold property — they were compelled to make 

 money out of money by usury — hence their ever- 

 lasting practice — their stigmatised " occupation " 

 throughout the universe. It was Roman legisla- 

 tion — Roman intolerance that " turned the heart" 

 of the Jew to usury and all its concomitants — 

 for the sake of his stomach — how could he live 

 otherwise ? 



Now, in these circumstances, it would have 

 been indeed a strange thing it' the Hebrew lan- 

 guage had been exempted I'rom the lot of change 

 and amalgamation so evident in all other lan- 

 guages — the language, too, of a race which has 

 always been cosmopolite — long before the " dis- 

 p^sion" — upon which such stress is laid as if 

 it had not been driven out before — and as if 

 other nations have not been dispersed far away 

 from their natal soil. Although the Holy Lund 

 was the "country" of the Jews — their central 

 state — their Mecca — it is no paradox to affirm 

 that it was only exceptionally that they " dwelt" 

 there — even before our era. " Popular credulity 

 has preserved the legend of a Wandering Jew," 

 exclaims Alfred Maury, " but that Wandering 

 Jew is the personification of the Hebrew people. 

 There is not only one Wandering Jew — all Jews 

 are wanderers" — and were so from the begin- 

 ning, willingly or forced. Their spoken language 

 gives ample evidence of the fact. The rabbinical, or 

 modern Hebrew, was formed in the tenth century 

 by the Jews of Spain — its basis being a mixture of 

 Chaldean and Hebrew ; but it was impossible to 

 confine the vocabulary to these two languages, 

 insufficient as they were for the rising require- 

 ments of the new ideas which it became necessary 

 to express. Arabic, Persian, Syriac, Greek, and 

 Latin, and the languages of the various nations 

 amongst which they settled, gave numerous con- 

 tributions to their vernacular. If they have pre- 

 served the original pure Hebrew in their Liturgy, 

 it is certain that very few of them understand it 

 any better than the majority of Catholics under- 

 stand the Latin of theirs. 



Meanwhile, to their honour it must be admitted 

 that, in the eleventh century, the Jews were at 

 the head of the world's civilisation. At that 

 epoch the Jews kept alive the torch of Alexan- 

 drian erudition. Whilst Europe was immersed in 

 barbarism or only half-civilised, the Jews and the 

 Arabians their pupils cultivated with success all 

 the sciences — all the arts of life, and had not 

 only theologians, but also astronomers, mathema- 

 ticians, philosophers, physicians, learned lawyers, 



