Military Hardware, not Mere Spectacle

Here we are with what appears to be another case of a mildly exotic word being misunderstood.

In a recent issue of Radio Times, a 'former corresponent of The Times' writes of a jubilee tribute by the Prince of Wales to his mother that "he concentrates on the intimacy of family over the panoply of state". We may dismiss the sloppy use of the term 'over' as mere journalese: but consider this 'panoply of state'.

Panoply is a term derived from two elements of Greek: the 'pan' part signifies 'total' or 'complete' (Pan-Am means 'all-American'); while the 'oply' bit is from Greek 'hoplos' meaning a weapon. So the word 'panoply' correctly means 'complete weaponry'.

The 'complete weaponry' of state is surely not what the writer meant here. Almost certainly he was subconsciously thinking of the word 'pageantry', meaning 'formal or ceremonial display'.
He is contrasting family intimacy with public ceremonial grandeur, not with military armour. We could further comment that 'pageantry' (like 'intimacy') is an abstract concept; while armour and weapons are concrete. In the Bible St Paul, in his letter to the people of Ephesus, wrote "Put on the whole armour [Greek 'panoplia'] of God", and then went on to list (in metaphor) "the breastplate of righteousness", "the shield of faith", "the sword of the Spirit", and "the helmet of salvation". Concrete, not abstract; military hardware, not mere spectacle.

This misunderstanding of the term 'panoply' is fairly common.

Military Hardware, not Mere Spectacle