reprobrious
(adj.) [reˈprəʊˌbriːəs] — reproachful, abusive (OED)
reprobate
(n. & v. & adj.) [ˈrɛprəˌbeɪt] — (n.) one rejected by God and so, lost in sin; by extension, a reprehensible or immoral person; (v1a.) Theology: of God: to reject or cast off (a person); spec. to predestine (a person) to eternal damnation; (v1b.) to reject, refuse; to put away, set aside; (v1c.) to repudiate, cast off, disown (a person); (v2a.) to disapprove of, censure, condemn. In early use frequently in past participle; (v2b.) to abhor to do a thing. Obsolete, rare; (v3.) to utter reproaches; to rail against someone or something. Obsolete, rare; (adj.) (1a.) Theology: rejected by God; spec. predestined by God to eternal damnation. Opposed to elect; (1b.) rejected or condemned as worthless, inferior, or impure. Now rare; (2a.) of the mind, a mental process, etc.: depraved, debased, morally corrupt; (2b.) of a person, his or her character, actions, etc.: lacking all religious or moral sense; wicked; unprincipled; (3.) of a meaning or intention: nefarious, dishonourable, base. Now rare; (4.) deserving or worthy of condemnation or reproof; relating to or characteristic of a reprobate (OED)
reprobation
(n.) [ˌrɛprəˈbeɪʃən] — (1a.) rejection of a person or thing; condemnation as worthless or spurious; (1b.) Theology: rejection by God; spec. the action by which those not forming part of God’s elect are predestined to eternal damnation. Also: the fact of being so predestined; any doctrine which holds this to be true; belief in such a doctrine. Opposed to election in the doctrine of predestination; (1c.) disapproval, censure, reproof; (1d.) a mark of condemnation; a disfigurement. Obsolete, rare; (2.) disgrace, shame. Obsolete, rare; (3.) Chiefly Law: the action of raising objections or exceptions (against a thing or person); a legal objection or exception. Obsolete. (OED)
Today’s WOTD is, rather obviously, actually a family of words, which we must acknowledge does not list as it should the following cluster of consanguineous relatives: reprobationary; reprobationer; reprobative; reprobator and its variants reprobater and reprobature; reprobatory; and reprobitant. It is curious, however, that reprobe, the word that one might suppose would be the fundament, as it were, of all this exclusion and disapproval just means “to probe for a second (or third, fourth, etc.) time,” something an assiduous historian or thorough experimental biologist might be expected to do as a matter of course and neither would thereby be subject to censure for doing so.
Of this collection, reprobate uttered in common usage as a noun intended roughly in sense (n1.) to identify someone as “a reprehensible or immoral person” is the only variant I can recall ever hearing, though even then it seemed implicit that it was being applied a bit hyperbolically to the ne’er-do-well black sheep of an otherwise respectable, entirely proper and conventionally unoffending household living in the big white house down the block. But that was a few decades ago. Nowadays, however, reprobrious, a word the sound of which I find pleasing to the ear, to the mind’s eye and to the exercise of the musculature of the mouth, is my choice for a word with a reprobationary pedigree.
To be sure, not every believer in the Puritan, “nonconformist” doctrine of predestination—and in their idea that you may unwittingly be a member, as it were, of the Elect and not reprobate (in adjective sense 1a.), or if you’re just a believer inclined to reprobating one or another of your fellows for behavior of which you don’t approve—is similarly disposed to celebrating reprobrious as their preferred vehicle for conveying that disapproval. By far the most frequent appearance of reprobrious chastisement is effected through the employment of the verb form, with one or another of the nominals—reprobate or reprobation—coming in a distant second.
Nonetheless, what is more than a little astonishing is the sheer number of examples of these words being actually used, examples that have been assembled and presented by the dictionary. But even if such use is often “obsolete” or “rare,” and even if we are far less inclined to openly and sternly judge the behavior of others as reprobrious—preferring instead to call much “outlandish” or “outrageous” or “offensive” conduct “inappropriate”—there are far too many usage examples to even consider adequately sampling here. Consequently, a mere three will have to carry the freight, so to speak. I suggest, should you be interested, that you consult the OED and read the full set of quotations accompanying the entries for these words to get the full range and flavor of what it means to be reprobrious or, for that matter, reprobate.
One of the earlier occurrences of the word is in a short 17th century apologia in which its author, one Samuel Crisp—Samuel had a number of progenitors and descendants, including most notably Tobias Crisp, who were also given to composing works involving not a little reprobatory reflection—attempts to defend himself against the charge of antinomianism. I won’t go into this matter here as it would take me way too far off the reprobatory track, and anyway, who cares any more about antinomianism? But a small portion of his discussion of the history of reprobated is especially noteworthy, since it includes an example of what he claims is a Biblical instance of the use of the word in expressing divine displeasure with the behavior of “Israel,” which in this context seems to mean “the people of Israel,” and which displeasure, I feel confident if there is indeed a god, he or she or “they” (should god be of ambiguous or indeterminate gender) would also feel and express in reaction to the behavior of “Israel” today. First let us attend to Samuel Crisp:
The same word [Reprobasti] is in Psal. 78. 15 imeas meod be-israel, [which] we render, He greatly abhorred Israel: Mortanus, Et reprobavis valde in lsrael, which is, And he reprobated exceedingly against Israel. And though our Translators have been very shy, of rendring [sic] that word maas for reprobating, yet in Jer. 6. 30. there they take the word, as Montanus doth, for Reprobation …”1
For confirmation of Crisp’s revised rendering of “reprobavis” in this passage, one need only consult the KJV of the Bible and locate therein Psalm 78, where at verses 56-59, one would find the following:
56 Yet they [that would be the Israelis] tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies:
57 But turned back, and dealt unfaithfully like their fathers: they were turned aside like a deceitful bow.
58 For they provoked him to anger with their high places, and moved him to jealousy with their graven images.
59 When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel:
Another translator might easily have instead rendered, as Crisp allows, “he reprobated exceedingly against Israel,” as indeed these days we all should all the time. And let it be emphasized, gratuitously perhaps, that such reprobation of Israel should not even imply antisemitism, unless one wants to contend that god is also implicitly antisemitic.
For the fastidious, there are no less than 17 reprobate[d]’s in Samuel’s little 125 page book used as verbs or verbals, reprobate used twice as an adjective, once as a noun, and two occurrences of reprobation.
Leaping ahead to the early 20th century, we find a very contemporary 21st century sentiment expressed in reprobationary terms. Today, almost anywhere in the U.S., especially among any population forced to survive under the close supervision and oppression of the police, one might hear the phrase “snitches get stitches.” About 120 years ago, we might have read, in somewhat more formal language, that
Telling tales is reprobated by English public-school boys.2
La plus ça change, and a very good thing it is too.
Finally, in a somewhat autobiographical, ethnographic/sociological study of the Scots, Iain Finlayson addresses the often destructive effects of alcohol consumption on the native population.
The problem the Scots are said to experience with drink is not one of alcoholism or alcohol abuse. Most Scots learn at an early age how to drink moderately and continue to do so, with pleasure, for the rest of their lives. {Let’s hear it for the Scots! Too bad the Irish didn’t take their cue from them.] The problem may be that hard drinking and high thinking never came to terms. The Presbyterian conscience reprobated drink, but the natural gaiety of the Celtic Scot required whisky. [Another of those dilemmas which, if not successfully resolved, might have been the ruin of the population and the culture!] Whisky induced, it was thought, a careless attitude to life, a fecklessness that was no use to anybody. The thoroughness, too, with which the Scot took to things was thought to make him a certain drunkard if spirits so much as touched his lips. Abstinence was, then, the only means of avoiding intemperance and the sure ruin of self, family, and, by extension, the entire social order. This logical progression still convinces many Scots who regard the figure of John Barleycorn as a fifth horseman of the Apocalypse.3
And so much single-malt might never have been distilled and made available for consumption but for the early training of the Scots and the application of the reprobrious “Presbyterian conscience” keeping John Barleycorn in the cask or the bottle where, for the most part, he belongs.
Samuel Crisp, Christ Exalted and Dr. Crisp Vindicated. in Several Points called Antinomian, being Cleared, From Neonomian Suggestions Alledged, By some Remarks on Mr. A——— his Rebuke to Mr. Lob. Shewing from Scripture, and most Orthodox Authors, the Invalidity of his Rebuke, in taxing the Doctor to be Apocryphal, and his Doctrine Antinomian. WITH Some Observations on the Bishop of Worcester’s Letter concerning the great Point of the Change of Persons between Christ and Believers, wherein he differs from the Doctor, but yet mildly and genteely treats him, though he comes short of the Truth, as contained in the Doctrine of the Church of England. With a Table to find the Heads insisted on. (LONDON, Printed for the Author; and are to be had at Mr. John Marshall’s at the Bible in Grace-church-Street, 1698.), p. 100. See Christ exalted, and Dr. Crisp vindicated, ... 1698 : Crisp, Samuel. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Westminster Gazette, 12 February 1903. p. 2, column 3.
Iain Finlayson, Scots (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.), p. 215. See The Scots : Finlayson, Iain : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive