Few
dictionaries, not even the Oxford English Dictionary, give room to this word,
so it is left mostly to non-lexicographers to define it, which they often do in
terms such as “good writing on a trivial or base subject”. Near, but not quite
right.
It’s a
modern word to describe an ancient way to train young people in the art of
rhetoric. They would be challenged to compose a speech praising an unpleasant
idea such as poverty, ugliness, drunkenness or stupidity. So a better
definition would be “rhetorical praise of things of doubtful value”. Anthony
Munday published a book on the method in 1593, a translation of an Italian
work, under the title The Defence of Contraries. It contained brief
disquisitional examples on topics such as “ignorance is better than knowledge”
and “it is better to be poor than rich”. Its preface claimed that it would be
particularly useful to lawyers.
The root is
Latin adoxus, paradoxical or absurd, but not from the classical language. It
was first used by the Dutch scholar Erasmus around 1536, who took it from an
identical ancient Greek word that meant inglorious. It was based on the root doxa,
opinion or belief, which is also the basis of doxology, a formula of praise to
God, and also of paradox.
The noun was
first used in 1909 in The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire by
Terrot Glover, though it was preceded by the adjective, adoxographical, which
appeared in the American Journal of Philology in 1903. Dr Alex Leeper, the
Warden of Trinity College, Melbourne, commented in Notes and Queries that year
that it was an “ungainly word” and that it “will not, it is to be hoped, take
root in the language.” His hope wasn’t fulfilled, though it remains rare.
No comments:
Post a Comment