The doting wife: servuxorial?

Trying to think of a response for you, Paul, concerning your response to "uxorious," I ran across this article from the National Review, a conservative biweekly magazine. They are actually letters concerning an article about Bill Clinton and Hillary written by William F. Buckley. He apparently "misused" the word uxorious, applying it to Hillary and her apparent attitudes and actions toward her husband (let's keep in mind, by the way, that this is from 2001). He received a deluge of pedanticism reprimanding him (well, I'm being hyperbolically savage about it; we all know I love words and discussions of their usage). He has, as Paul pointed out, a good excuse. There seems to be no word for a woman who is submissively doting to her husband.

Except, perhaps, uxorial, which is suggested in one of the letters. Buckley seems to agree, to a degree, with this proffer; he points out, thankfully, that uxorial "doesn't carry the sense of excessive, going no further than dutiful." Perhaps a clever elision with a good adjective might carry us there. (see subject)

Incidentally, Buckley uses a wonderful Latin phrase, mens rea, in one of his responses. It means "the intention to commit a wrongful act, the element that establishes criminal responsibility; a criminal mind."

I don't know a lot about Buckley (and I just know someone, or myself, will look up other articles he's written and I'll eat my words), but I'm quite fond of his reply to accusations of his "misapplication." As he says, "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." Awwwwww. I feel for you, bro. His soi-disant linguistic rule, "for every word there was a felt need."

I feel the need

the need for speed!!!! (Cue high-five)