Exception that proves the rule

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (November 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article. There might be a discussion about this on the talk page. (November 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (November 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

"The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested. Henry Watson Fowler's Modern English Usage identifies five ways in which the phrase has been used,^[1] and each use makes some sort of reference to the role that a particular case or event takes in relation to a more general rule.

Two original meanings of the phrase are usually cited. The first, preferred by Fowler, is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule".^[1] Most contemporary uses of the phrase emerge from this origin,^[2] although often in a way which is closer to the idea that all rules have their exceptions.^[1] The alternative origin given is that the word "prove" is used in the archaic sense of "test",^[3] a reading advocated, for example, by a 1918 Detroit News style guide:

The exception proves the rule is a phrase that arises from ignorance, though common to good writers. The original word was preuves, which did not mean proves but tests.^[4]

In this sense, the phrase does not mean that an exception demonstrates a rule to be true or to exist, but that it tests the rule, thereby proving its value. There is little evidence of the phrase being used in this second way.^[1][2][5]