Notes and Asides - Letter to the Editor

Dear Mr. Buckley: I respectfully note that you misused the word "uxorious" in your column entitled "Pardon Clinton !#*!," which appeared in the Feb. 5 issue. "Uxorious" applies to a man who is excessively fond of his wife, but in your column you erroneously apply it to a woman's fondness for her husband-specifically to Mrs. Clinton's supposed fondness for Mr. Clinton.

But I sympathize entirely with the impulse informing your use of the word. There should be a word that means "excessively fond of one's husband."

(Make no mistake: This observation is prompted simply by my sense of justice, and in no way reflects on my own husband, who is a prince among men!)

Indeed, I have long marveled that Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland & Co. have not exploited the fact that English provides a word for a man who is excessively fond of his wife, but no comparable word for a wife whose affection for her husband exceeds his deserts, the gentlemen who codified our language apparently having deemed such a situation to be beyond the realm of possibility.

But then, of course, they never met Bill Clinton.

Cordially,

Dr. Brenda Megerle

Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Dear Mr. Buckley: In your column "Pardon Clinton !#*!," you discuss Mrs. Clinton's characterization of the impeachment proceedings as "a vast right-wing conspiracy." You go on to state, "We could smile at that kind of thing as nothing more than uxorious docility . . ."

The word "uxorious," from the Latin uxor (wife), means an excessive fondness for one's wife, with the negative connotation of "henpecked."

Surely you cannot apply this word to Mrs. Clinton! Or were you implying that the junior senator from New York's deference to her husband was a form of psychological self- mutilation?

Sincerely,

Raymond J. Heisler

Chicago, Ill.

Dear Mr. Heisler: Actually, I misused it, and there was mens rea in doing so. I mean, I knew that uxor is the wife, but I use(d) "uxorious" to suggest excessive docility in either direction, i.e., husband to wife, wife to husband. It is a liberty, but something less than a neologism.

Remember my rule, that for every word there was a felt need. And I felt (feel) the need to suggest the word as here used, and can find no other existing word that does it.

Cordially, WFB

Dear Mr. Buckley: In a recent column, "Pardon Clinton !#*!," you implied that President Clinton's wife (and I use the term loosely) was perhaps guilty of no more than "uxorious docility" when she classified Clinton's impeachment and the related uproar "all as the workings of a vast right-wing conspiracy." You then go on to further excoriate the Clintons for their continued obfuscations.

While I agreed with your mild castigation, I nonetheless had to pause. According to the American Heritage College Dictionary, the word "uxorious" means "excessively submissive or devoted to one's wife."

Allow me to suggest that the proper word in that phrase would be "uxorial," meaning "of a wife; regarded as befitting a wife."

When writing of the Clinton paterfamilias, one would indeed be hard pressed to find a word less appropriate than "uxorious."

Sorry for being so pedantic, but I am bringing this up only because you are a member of the aforementioned dictionary's Usage Panel, and I would hate to see Florence King, also a member of the panel, reprimand you without fair warning (if she hasn't done so already!).

Humbly,

Mark G. Brennan

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Brennan: Ah! You came up with it! Though "uxorial" is not quite the counterpart, is it? It doesn't carry the sense of excessive, going no further than dutiful.

Cordially,

-WFB

COPYRIGHT 2001 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group