Adultery

Use in the book

Condemnation, social privilege and inward desire

Burton can condemn the offence while exposing unequal punishment. In the preliminary satire a poor fornicator may lose family, property and reputation and undergo penance, while the powerful man’s conduct is treated ironically as no offence at all. His imagined commonwealth nevertheless proposes death for adultery; the adjacent marginal law attributed to Alfred gives different mutilations and remains uncollated. These passages occupy different argumentative positions, not one uniform legal code. The account of David’s desire likewise says that knowledge of wrong did not prevent taking another man’s wife and committing murder. Its continuation says the passions can be governed but often are not, rather than establishing that moral agency is impossible.

The discussion of erotic causes enlarges the contrast between restraint and act. In the quotation attributed to Gregory Nazianzen the speaker says he avoided outward fornication but stained virginal purity through secret thoughts; the cited intermediary has not been located. Later allegations about regional climates, luxurious cities and powerful men are rhetorical and attributed. The reported population and courtesan figures are introduced as what some say. Burton expressly says he does not know how truly Sander makes the allegation about Henry VIII; the supplied modern rendering follows Burton’s English explanation despite an extra negative in the Latin. The surrounding reports include forced recruitment of women, which must not be redescribed as their voluntary sexual conduct. Ovid’s Aegisthus is called adulter in a fragment whose omitted continuation answers the question about his conduct with idleness.

The eye passage expressly locates the danger in use, not the organ itself. It invokes Peter’s adulterous eye and Isaiah’s wandering gaze, then counters them with beautiful yet chaste devotional eyes, conditional on belief in the cited authorities. Elsewhere Burton repeats hostile beauty-and-chastity generalizations and the story of Venus’s creaking sandal. The supplied Philostratus comparison does not support all his additions about Vulcan’s surveillance and Mars’s reaction. The bald adulterer in the soldiers’ taunt against Caesar is similarly a reported insult, not a demonstrated physiognomic rule. Nor are men merely injured husbands: the Marullus verse explicitly describes married men seeking prostitutes despite their wives’ virtues, retaining male responsibility in both the Latin and Burton’s separate English.

Enlarged labels and sexual coercion

A definition by marital status does not exhaust every polemical use. Burton conditionally cites the maxim that an excessively ardent lover of his own wife is an adulterer. Beside it he reports severe claims about kissing, asks what would become of everyone, and then withdraws with a question about his own involvement. That withdrawal is not an explicit refutation. The supplied note identifies Jerome as quoting Xystus and explains that Aquinas’s judgment depends on intention rather than making every kiss intrinsically a mortal sin. Likewise the claim attributed to Ambrose that lust-driven spouses are fornicators, with Augustine brought into agreement, is immediately limited by Burton’s express permission for old people to marry for companionship, mutual help and comfort. The authorities’ exact loci remain uncollated.

A further transfer occurs in the attack on compulsory celibacy: Cyprian’s adulterum and Burton’s English adulterous condemn human arrangements said to violate divine order. The supplied comparison places Cyprian’s original argument amid schism and rival altars and priesthoods; Burton applies it to marriage restrictions. Witzel’s warning about inanibus stupris, fruitless sexual transgressions, is more explicitly sexual than Burton’s following English warning about eventual regret. Neither that fragment nor the overlapping accusations against monks and friars supplies an independently verified inventory of offences. Medical citations attached to the anti-monastic catalogues do not authenticate their criminal allegations.

Force must be established from the actual passage. In the jailer story the marginal stupravit conjugem reports illicit intercourse with his wife; it does not alone establish rape. The note’s comparison with a later English adaptation corroborates a narrative, not Burton’s exact intermediary. By contrast, the Tritons’ stupri causâ is accompanied by seizure and a threat of drowning if the women will not yield. It belongs to a marvellous tale attributed to Pierre Gilles, adjacent to a separately conditional claim about fish. In the sack of Rome the wives and daughters are constuprated, raped; the Sejanus comparison invokes a separate ancient assault. Seneca’s second constuprated passage is a rhetorical rape problem in which two victims choose incompatible forms of redress, not a documented event. The broad label fornicator used for its perpetrator does not make every occurrence of that noun synonymous with rapist. Nor does the Caledonian wife’s reported constuprant taunt have to carry the same force. Finally, the unchaste loves called Incestos in the attack on dance training need not involve incest, and Burton’s eventual verdict permits sober, modest dancing at a suitable time.

Suspicion, proof and competing replies

The jealousy discussion repeatedly changes the status of its claims. Struś’s marginal adulteri is embedded in a suspected attachment and an unfinished case description, more explicit than Burton’s body narrative. The preceding exchange records Vallés’s denial of a distinctive lover’s pulse alongside contrary authorities. These historical claims do not make pulse changes proof of adultery. The later ordeals likewise concern accusation and purported clearing, with unverified immunity to fire and competing demonic and angelic explanations. Burton asks whether severe laws themselves display jealousy. The example of an oath imposed on a wife also changes the emphasis of the cited Augustine passage; it does not demonstrate a reliable test.

In the consolation Burton first distinguishes an innocent wife from the hypothesis that the husband really has been wronged. Dishonest is explicitly negated in the first alternative. He then minimizes the injury and invokes its supposed prevalence, but the historical counts and catalogues remain allegations or literary examples. The three thousand mœchorum attributed to Dio are especially unsafe as a statistic of guilt: the supplied comparison describes indictments on a docket with few prosecuted, whereas Burton turns them into a simultaneous summons of adulterers. Philo’s uncollated coinage metaphor adds an anxiety about descent, not literal financial counterfeiting. Burton also expressly allows that there are virtuous men and women, and that dissolute husbands wrong good wives.

The question about divorce next separates apparent notoriety from evidential proof. Taken in the fact means caught in the act; fact is a deed, not a modern item of information. The concealment maxim si non caste, tamen cautè distinguishes chastity from caution. Even the accompanying Sulpitia example is problematic: the supplied note identifies Sulpicia and Calenus as spouses in Martial, so it cannot simply validate Burton’s illustration of concealed infidelity. The recommendation of patience is then challenged and modified through a dialogue. Burton accuses the husband of demanding fidelity he does not practise, but expressly says this does not excuse the wife. An imagined husband objects about the children’s descent; Burton answers provocatively before asking whether the suspicion is true at all. Birth timing, resemblance, conversation and laughter are criticized as grounds for rash inference. His story of Francis’s charitable interpretation is itself unverified.

The adapted Ovid locates an Adulter within despite guarding; Burton’s separate English turns that agent into inward Advoury. The continuation attacks confinement and distinguishes an unchaste wife who cannot be guarded from a chaste one who ought not to be. The Ausonius-attributed mæcha poisoning line illustrates a retaliatory argument, not an authenticated crime. The literary Combabus is falsely accused of incontinency after refusing the queen and is later cleared; accusation must not become fact in retelling. Burton’s account of tolerated brothels is also qualified: he concedes his opponents’ civic expediency and immediately opposes the practice in religion. He rejects or derides magical devices for fidelity. Divorce eventually appears only as a difficult, not altogether suitable last resort if other courses are unavailable. The fuller controversy belongs to Marriage; the historical coercive practices and self-injury stories are not present advice.

Corrupted goods and the possibility of repentance

Adulterine druggs offers a concrete nonsexual contrast. Even a well-intentioned physician, Burton says, may be undermined by an apothecary’s corrupted preparations. His later defence distinguishes abuse from use and praises medicine, so the earlier attack is not his final verdict on the profession. The marginal adulterini mercatorum panni supplies a parallel commercial image of adulterated cloth in the discussion of appearances hidden by darkness. Neither material adjective accuses the goods or their users of adultery.

Finally, the religious consolation prevents a condemnatory word from fixing an irreversible identity. The earlier question about an adulterer enjoying pleasure belongs to an argument that conscience’s distress may come later. Repentance is then said to welcome the fornicator, and the Latin margin also names an adulterer whom Burton’s English body omits. David, called adulterous and cruel, has been received; Solomon may be converted, and unrepentance remains the stated exclusion. These are Burton’s theological assurances against despair, preserving the distinction between acknowledged wrongdoing, accusation, forgiveness and permanent rejection.

Related entries

Jealousy: Suspicion, jealousy and the difference between imagined and established injury.

Will and nill: The will’s relation to passions in the David example.

Venery: The wider vocabulary of sexual activity.

Continence: Sexual restraint and the broader incontinence family.

Honest: Honest and dishonest as chastity or marital fidelity rather than general truthfulness.

Lust and lusty: Lust and the distinction between desire and an accomplished act.

Sodomy: A neighbouring polemical sexual category whose historical labels must remain distinct.

Marriage: Marriage, contested unions and the qualified divorce/separation controversy.

Celibacy and vows: Vows, enforced celibacy and attributed institutional accusations.

Affinity and consanguinity: Kinship and prohibited relationships, distinct from every unchaste use of incestus.

Wittal and cuckold: Labels for husbands’ positions and the horns imagery, rather than a finding of their wives’ guilt.

Law and justice: Law, punishment and unequal administration of justice.

Places to read

1. Democritus Junior to the Reader · paragraphs 17–19Unequal sanctions for fornication: the poor person’s punishment and the great man’s ironic exemption.
2. Democritus Junior to the Reader · paragraphs 1–7The imagined commonwealth’s death penalty for adultery, the differently punitive Alfred margin, and surrounding household and marriage rules.
3. Subsection 11. The Will · paragraphs 47–50David’s wrongdoing despite knowledge of the offence, followed by the distinction between powers that can govern and their failure to do so.
4. Subsection 7. A Collection of Other Events That Cause Melancholy: The Death of Friends, Losses, and So On · paragraphs 45–49The sack-of-Rome rape narrative, original marginal constupratæ, and separate Sejanus comparison within the account of wartime violence.
5. Subsection 4 Symptoms of Melancholy in Unmarried Women, Nuns and Widows · paragraphs 11–16Compelled celibacy and the polemical sexual-offence catalogue; medical references are not proof of the accusations.
6. Member 1 Subsection 1 Medical Treatment by Medicines · paragraphs 12–16Adulterine drugs in the conditional account of an honest physician undermined by an apothecary.
7. Member 1 Subsection 1 Medical Treatment by Medicines · paragraphs 22–28The consequential reply defending medicine and distinguishing use from abuse, with historical qualifications about treatment.
8. Section 2 Member 1, Subsection 1 Love Melancholy: Its Ancestry, Power and Reach · paragraphs 41–45Stupri causâ in the marvellous Triton assault, its explicit coercion, and the adjoining conditional fish claim.
9. Subsection 2 How Love Tyrannizes Over Human Beings. Love, or Heroical Melancholy: Its Definition and the Part Affected · paragraphs 29–35Bale-mediated anti-monastic accusations, conditional inferences and medical marginal citations in the wider polemical catalogue.
10. Member 2. Subsection 1. Causes of Heroic Love: Bodily Temperament, Plentiful Diet, Idleness, Place, Climate, and So Forth · paragraphs 5–10The quotation denying outward fornication while confessing inward impurity; the attributed Gregory/Chilo route is unlocated.
11. Member 2. Subsection 1. Causes of Heroic Love: Bodily Temperament, Plentiful Diet, Idleness, Place, Climate, and So Forth · paragraphs 21–40Regional allegations, reported urban counts, privilege, the expressly doubtful Sander allegation, forced recruitment, and Ovid’s adulter fragment about idleness.
12. Artificial Attractions of Love and Incitements to Lust Gestures Clothes Dowry and So On · paragraphs 27–31Adulterous use of the eye contrasted with the organ itself and attributed devotional counterexamples.
13. Persistence and Opportunity of Time and Place; Meetings, Conversation, Singing, Dancing, Music, Amorous Tales and Sights, Kissing, Familiarity, Tokens, Gifts, Bribes, Promises, Declarations, Tears, and So On · paragraphs 32–36The original marginal adulterated-cloth comparison amid claims about darkness, appearance and courtship.
14. Persistence and Opportunity of Time and Place; Meetings, Conversation, Singing, Dancing, Music, Amorous Tales and Sights, Kissing, Familiarity, Tokens, Gifts, Bribes, Promises, Declarations, Tears, and So On · paragraphs 47–50The conditional adulter maxim about one’s own wife; kissing, intention, source qualifications and Burton’s withdrawal.
15. Persistence and Opportunity of Time and Place; Meetings, Conversation, Singing, Dancing, Music, Amorous Tales and Sights, Kissing, Familiarity, Tokens, Gifts, Bribes, Promises, Declarations, Tears, and So On · paragraphs 33–37Incestos as unchaste loves in the hostile dance argument, with the altered Horace quotation and historical-source cautions.
16. Persistence and Opportunity of Time and Place; Meetings, Conversation, Singing, Dancing, Music, Amorous Tales and Sights, Kissing, Familiarity, Tokens, Gifts, Bribes, Promises, Declarations, Tears, and So On · paragraphs 58–60The later qualification allowing sober, modest dancing at the proper time.
17. Member 4 Subsection 1 Symptoms or Signs of Love Melancholy in Body and Mind Good and Bad Signs and So Forth · paragraphs 50–54Dispute over a lover’s pulse and Struś’s incomplete adulteri case in the original margin; suspicion remains a reported inference.
18. By Counsel and Persuasion, the Foulness of the Deed, the Faults of Men and Women, the Miseries of Marriage, the Consequences of Lust, and So Forth · paragraphs 33–43Receptive counsel, the adultery/fornication distinction, marriage suitability and reason’s claimed power; moral invective and the absolute kinship claim retain their historical limits.
19. Subsection 5 The Last and Best Cure for Love Melancholy Is to Let Lovers Have Their Desire · paragraphs 9–19Compulsory-celibacy controversy, Cyprian’s institutional adulterum and the harsher Latin warning about fruitless sexual transgressions.
20. Causes of Jealousy. Who Are Most Susceptible. Idleness, Melancholy, Impotence, Prolonged Absence, Beauty, Sexual Licence, Being Unfaithful Themselves. Temptations Arising From Time, Place and People; Mistreatment as a Cause · paragraphs 57–59Mœcharetur in the Venus surveillance story; the supplied Philostratus comparison limits Burton’s added details and generalization.
21. Causes of Jealousy. Who Are Most Susceptible. Idleness, Melancholy, Impotence, Prolonged Absence, Beauty, Sexual Licence, Being Unfaithful Themselves. Temptations Arising From Time, Place and People; Mistreatment as a Cause · paragraphs 7–10Married men’s adultery in the attributed Marullus poem and Burton’s separately translated English.
22. Causes of Jealousy. Who Are Most Susceptible. Idleness, Melancholy, Impotence, Prolonged Absence, Beauty, Sexual Licence, Being Unfaithful Themselves. Temptations Arising From Time, Place and People; Mistreatment as a Cause · paragraphs 25–27Mœchum in the soldiers’ bald-Caesar taunt; unsupported physiognomy and the following conditional licence claim.
23. Symptoms of Jealousy: Fear, Sorrow, Suspicion, Strange Actions, Gestures, Outrages, Confinement, Oaths, Trials, Laws, and So On · paragraphs 42–49Laws and suspected adultery, reported ordeals, opposing explanations, imposed oaths and a chastity reward; claimed tests are not established proof.
24. The Cure of Jealousy: Avoiding Occasions for It, Keeping Occupied; Good Counsel; Disregarding It, Not Watching Women or Locking Them Up; Concealing It, and So On · paragraphs 23–35Innocence versus hypothetical injury, mœchorum and the docket/summons discrepancy, the coinage metaphor, sexual taunts and the acknowledgment of faithful spouses.
25. The Cure of Jealousy: Avoiding Occasions for It, Keeping Occupied; Good Counsel; Disregarding It, Not Watching Women or Locking Them Up; Concealing It, and So On · paragraphs 36–45Caught in the act, cautious concealment, the problematic Sulpitia example, reciprocal blame and the imagined husband’s objection about descent.
26. The Cure of Jealousy: Avoiding Occasions for It, Keeping Occupied; Good Counsel; Disregarding It, Not Watching Women or Locking Them Up; Concealing It, and So On · paragraphs 46–52The challenge to suspicion, rejected paternity inferences, charitable interpretation, adapted Ovid’s inward Adulter and Burton’s separate Advoury verse.
27. The Cure of Jealousy: Avoiding Occasions for It, Keeping Occupied; Good Counsel; Disregarding It, Not Watching Women or Locking Them Up; Concealing It, and So On · paragraphs 1–4Guarding versus voluntary fidelity and the uncollated mæcha poisoning line in the retaliatory argument.
28. Prevention Before or After Marriage: Plato’s Community of Wives; Marrying a Courtesan; Love Potions; Brothels; Marrying Someone Equal in Age and Fortune, From a Good Family, Well Educated and of Good Standing; Treating Wives Well; and So On · paragraphs 43–53The Senecan rape problem, falsely accused Combabus, polemical policy claims about brothels and their immediate religious limitation, followed by rejected charms.
29. Prevention Before or After Marriage: Plato’s Community of Wives; Marrying a Courtesan; Love Potions; Brothels; Marrying Someone Equal in Age and Fortune, From a Good Family, Well Educated and of Good Standing; Treating Wives Well; and So On · paragraphs 16–19Fornicators/fornicarii applied to lust-driven spouses, immediately qualified by permission for old-age companionship.
30. Prevention Before or After Marriage: Plato’s Community of Wives; Marrying a Courtesan; Love Potions; Brothels; Marrying Someone Equal in Age and Fortune, From a Good Family, Well Educated and of Good Standing; Treating Wives Well; and So On · paragraphs 1–15; Section 4 · paragraph 16The jailer’s betrayal and marginal stupravit, reassurance, magical adulterare claim, and conditional difficult last-resort divorce; literary self-injury remains historical rhetoric.
31. Causes of Despair: The Devil, Melancholy, Meditation, Distrust, Weakness of Faith, Harsh Ministers, Misunderstanding Scripture, Guilty Consciences, and So On · paragraphs 53–55Pleasure before the later distress of conscience, including the adulterer example.
32. Treatment of Despair Through Medicine, Good Counsel, Consolation, and So On · paragraphs 44–48Repentance receiving offenders: the fornicator in the body and the additional adulterer in the original Latin margin.
33. Treatment of Despair Through Medicine, Good Counsel, Consolation, and So On · paragraphs 47–51David received despite adultery, Solomon’s possible conversion and the qualification concerning unrepentance.

In this edition

The English adultery and fornication usually remain recognizable, but their surrounding grammar carries essential distinctions. The modern coordinated sentence moves nowhere to the front and renders the plural offences by uncountable singular nouns. If she be not dishonest becomes If she is not unfaithful: the negation is part of the alternative, not a dispensable detail. Taken in the fact becomes caught in the act, preserving the difference between an alleged offence and detection. An adulterous eye refers to desire’s direction; David who was adulterous and cruel is a relative-clause recasting of Burton’s two adjectives and proper name.

The Latin agent forms are grammatical relatives, not interchangeable strings. Adulter is a nominative noun; adulteri is genitive in the suspected love case; adulterum in the repentance margin is an accusative person. In the Cyprian quotation, however, adulterum is a neuter adjective condemning an arrangement. Mœchorum and mœchis are respectively genitive and ablative plurals; mœchum is accusative singular, with calvum separately supplying bald. Uxor mæcha becomes The adulterous wife: the female agent noun in apposition is recast adjectivally, while uxor supplies wife. The selected naturæ monetam adulterantes becomes counterfeiters of nature’s coin, turning a participial expression into an agent noun. Adulterini mercatorum panni becomes the merchants’ adulterated cloth, with the possessive and material noun accounted for separately.

Mœcharetur occurs under negative-purpose ne; the modern prevention construction supplies her from Venus. Adulterare is governed by cannot in the magical purpose clause, whose claimed efficacy is not endorsed. Stupravit conjugem becomes had illicit intercourse with his wife: his comes from the jailer’s contextual relationship. The conditional nuptam stuprârit explicitly specifies a married woman. Stupri causâ is a complete purpose phrase, for the purpose of sexual violation; coercion is fixed by the surrounding assault. The passive constupratæ sunt becomes were raped in the original-margin translation. By contrast, the entire active constuprant taunt is recast passively as Roman women being debauched by men. Inanibus contributes fruitless to stupris, sexual transgressions; Incestos contributes unchaste to amores, loves. Neither fragment alone licenses a more specific offence than its context supports.

The edition also preserves differences between layers. Burton’s adapted Ovid names an inward Adulter, but his separate English verse has inward Advoury; the modern translates both separately rather than replacing one with the other. Struś’s incomplete margin is more explicit about suspected adultery than the body. The repentance margin includes adulterum where Burton’s English list does not. The full Combabus accusation is aligned across passive-to-active recasting: the original agent placed after the comparison becomes she herself, while him is supplied from the continuing subject. Supplied source notes can identify discrepancies and report comparisons, but they do not turn this lexicon’s reading into fresh collation of every cited historical witness. The article selects significant senses and arguments, with repetitions consolidated only where their local sense agrees.

adulter

Printed “adulter” (Latin; lemma).

A person engaging in sexual intercourse that violates a marriage.

Here: Adulter is the nominative masculine noun predicated of Aegisthus; the English indefinite article accompanies the noun.

Context: The Ovid fragment asks why Aegisthus became an adulterer and stops at &c.; the supplied source note identifies the omitted answer about idleness. Burton’s separate English calls him a whoremaster.

Source: original body

Source wording: Quæritur Ægystus quare sit factus adulter, &c.

Original wording: adulter

Modern rendering: an adulterer

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Further local use

Printed “adulteri” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: adulter.

Here: Adulteri is the genitive noun dependent on ablative amore: the phrase means with love for an adulterer. It is inside Struś’s incomplete case description, whose suspicion is more explicit than the body narrative.

Context: The original margin says whom I suspected, and ends with an unfinished husband clause and &c. Burton also records Vallés’s denial of a distinctive lover’s pulse; the case does not establish a diagnostic proof of adultery.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording: In nobilis cujusdam uxore quam subolfacerem adulteri amore fuisse correptam & quam maritus, &c.

Original wording: adulteri amore

Modern rendering: with love for an adulterer

Alignment scope: Equal-scope genitive-dependent noun and ablative construction in the original marginal quotation and its supplied English note translation

Word and construction: Adulteri is genitive dependent on amore, love, and is rendered for an adulterer; the ablative amore in the construction with seized is rendered with love. The full original quotation remains incomplete, and whom I suspected qualifies the case.

Modern container: note

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

Further local use

Printed “Adulter” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: adulter.

Here: Adulter is the imagined intruding lover, located within despite shutting everyone out. Intus supplies within and erit will be.

Context: Burton’s adaptation of Ovid changes body to mind elsewhere in the verse; it is an argument against guarding desire, not a report of an actual concealed man.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: intus Adulter erit

Modern rendering: the adulterer will be within

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

Further local use

Printed “adulterum” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: adulter.

Here: This accusative noun is an additional member of the Latin list of people whom repentance does not reject.

Context: The original margin attributed to Chrysostom includes the adulterer; Burton’s English body omits that member. The supplied English note preserves it, in a context requiring repentance.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording: non aversatur Idololatram, non adulterum, sed omnes suscipit, omnibus communicat

Original wording: adulterum

Modern rendering: adulterer

Alignment scope: Equal-scope selected unit in the original marginal quotation and its supplied English note translation

Word and construction: Word-level note-to-note alignment only. The negation and shared verb remain in the surrounding quotation and must not be dropped when interpreting the claim.

Modern container: note

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

Further local use

Printed “adulterer” (English; lemma).

Citation key: adulterer.

Here: The English agent noun has the same ordinary sense as Latin adulter.

Context: Burton attributes to Galen a contrast between Misnia near Pergamum and Rome. The spelling and geographical uncertainty are retained; the alleged regional prevalence is not a verified demographic fact.

Source: original body

Source and modern wording: an adulterer

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

adulter · Adulter

Printed “Adulter” (Latin; lemma).

A person who violates marital sexual fidelity.

Here: The quoted maxim transfers the condemnatory label to excessive desire for one’s own wife. Ardentior supplies the excessive ardour; the label’s exceptional application must not replace the ordinary marital distinction.

Context: Burton introduces Jerome conditionally, beside Ledesma and Aquinas, asks what would become of everyone, then withdraws with what have I to do with this. The supplied note identifies Jerome quoting Xystus and qualifies the Aquinas claim by intention; it is not a simple prohibition of every marital kiss.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: Adulter est quisquis in uxorem suam ardentior est amator

Modern rendering: Whoever is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The predicate-first Latin is reordered as an English whoever clause followed by its predicate; the scope is the complete maxim.

adulter · adulterum

Printed “adulterum” (Latin; lemma).

Illegitimate, corrupt or faithless.

Here: Here the neuter adjective condemns a human arrangement that violates divine order, rather than naming a person’s sexual act.

Context: Burton reapplies Cyprian to restrictions on marriage. The supplied source comparison locates Cyprian’s immediate subject in schism and rival altars and priesthoods, not celibacy.

Source: original body

Source wording: impium est, adulterum est, sacrilegum est

Original wording: adulterum

Modern rendering: adulterous

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Further local use

Printed “adulterous” (English; lemma).

Citation key: adulterous.

Here: The English adjective retains the institutional condemnation in Burton’s separate paraphrase, not a literal accusation of extramarital intercourse.

Context: The modern translates both the Latin quotation and Burton’s English restatement separately; the printed attribution Letter 8 is retained despite the supplied comparison’s different numbering.

Source: original body

Source wording: it is abominable, impious, adulterous, and sacrilegious, what men make and ordaine after their own furies to cross Gods lawes

Original and modern wording: adulterous

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: Word-level alignment within Burton’s English restatement and its modern rendering, distinct from the preceding Latin quotation.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

adulterine

Printed “adulterine” (English; lemma).

Adulterated, debased or made impure.

Here: The adjective describes medicinal substances whose composition or quality is corrupted. It does not refer to sexual conduct.

Context: Burton’s hypothetical attack allows that even an honest physician may be undermined by a bad apothecary. He explicitly distinguishes medical abuse from use and defends medicine; these are historical arguments, not treatment advice.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: adulterine druggs

Modern rendering: adulterated drugs

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Further local use

Printed “adulterini” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: adulterinus.

Here: Adulterini qualifies panni, cloth; mercatorum supplies the merchants’ possessive. The Latin plural cloths is rendered by the English mass noun.

Context: The original marginal simile compares concealed cosmetic appearances with merchants’ debased fabric; it belongs to an attributed misogynistic discussion of darkness and courtship.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording: Ut adulterini mercatorum panni.

Original wording: adulterini mercatorum panni

Modern rendering: the merchants’ adulterated cloth

Alignment scope: Equal-scope selected unit in the original marginal quotation and its supplied English note translation

Word and construction: Equal-scope noun phrase; the comparison word Ut, like, remains outside both selected units.

Modern container: note

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

adulterium

Printed “adulterium” (Latin; lemma).

Sexual intercourse violating marital fidelity.

Here: Adulterium is accusative after per, which supplies through; this poem explicitly charges married men with seeking prostitutes despite their wives’ virtues.

Context: The verse is attributed to Marullus without a secure poem locator. Its four Latin lines and Burton’s two English lines are separately translated, retaining male agency.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: per adulterium

Modern rendering: through adultery

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Further local use

Printed “adulterii” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: adulterium.

Here: Adulterii is genitive after insimulata, accused; the allegation is not a finding of guilt.

Context: Cunigunde’s reported ordeal is an attributed historical/hagiographical story; the immunity to fire is not independently established.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: insimulata adulterii

Modern rendering: accused of adultery

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

adultero · adulterare

Printed “adulterare” (Latin; lemma).

Engage in sexual intercourse that violates a marriage.

Here: Adulterare is an infinitive governed by non possit, cannot; mulier supplies a woman, cum aliquo with anyone, and ut the purpose.

Context: This is a magical promise Burton says practitioners foist upon readers. The recipe is incomplete in the source and is neither completed nor recommended here.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: ut mulier cum aliquo adulterare non possit

Modern rendering: So that a woman cannot commit adultery with anyone

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

adultero · adulterantes

Printed “adulterantes” (Latin; lemma).

Falsifying, debasing or counterfeiting.

Here: Adulterantes is a present participle; naturæ supplies of nature and monetam coin. The English turns the participial agents into the noun counterfeiters.

Context: Burton attributes the metaphor to Philo: adultery is represented as falsification of descent. The precise Philo source remains unestablished, and the adjacent Dio numerical claim is qualified in the supplied note.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: naturæ monetam adulterantes

Modern rendering: counterfeiters of nature’s coin

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: Complete participial construction recast as an agent noun plus of phrase; no literal counterfeit currency offence is asserted.

adulterous · local use 1

Printed “adulterous” (English; lemma).

Expressing desire for sexual relations that violate marital fidelity.

Here: The adjective qualifies the eye’s use or gaze. It does not prove that the person has performed an adulterous act; Burton expressly denies that the eye itself necessarily entices.

Context: Burton invokes 2 Peter 2:14 and contrasts wanton gazing with scriptural and devotional examples of beautiful yet chaste eyes; his claims about Christ and Mary are attributed to Gerson and Bonaventure.

Source: original body

Source wording: an adulterous eye

Original and modern wording: adulterous eye

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

adulterous · local use 2

Printed “adulterous” (English; lemma).

Sexually unfaithful to a spouse.

Here: The adjective describes David’s conduct; cruel is a separate modifier. The modern expands the premodifying adjectives into a relative clause.

Context: Burton’s argument against despair says David has been received; it does not erase the wrong. Solomon’s conversion remains may be, and unrepentance is the stated exclusion.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: an adulterous cruell David

Modern rendering: David who was adulterous and cruel

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: An adjective-modified proper name is recast as a proper name with a finite relative clause; who was and coordinating and make the predication explicit.

adultery

Printed “adultery” (English; lemma).

Sexual intercourse violating a marriage through a partner outside it.

Here: The immediate case is a man desiring another man’s wife. The adjoining fornication case distinguishes a chaste unmarried woman; their moral comparison does not make the terms identical.

Context: Burton’s Christian counsel calls adultery a mortal sin and urges avoidance; this is his moral argument, not a present legal definition.

Source: original body

Source wording: adultery is expresly forbidden in Gods commandment

Original wording: adultery

Modern rendering: Adultery

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Further local use

Printed “adultery” (English; lemma).

Citation key: adultery.

Here: Adultery names an offence in the proposed commonwealth; the modern supplies the coordinating and between the two nouns.

Context: Burton proposes this penalty in his imagined polity. The Alfred marginal attribution is uncollated and describes different mutilations; neither is a statement of present law.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: Murder, adultery shall be punished by death

Modern rendering: Murder and adultery shall be punished by death

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

Further local use

Printed “adulteries” (English; lemma).

Citation key: adultery.

Here: Plural adulteries means instances of adultery; the modern uses an uncountable singular alongside fornication and supplies coordination. The modern moves nowhere to the front and inverts are.

Context: This is Burton’s sweeping allegation about Rome and courtly luxury; nearby reported counts and particular royal accusations are not independently verified.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: fornications, adulteries, are nowhere so common

Modern rendering: Nowhere are fornication and adultery so common

Alignment scope: Complete coordinated predication with reordered negative adverb and number recasting

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

Further local use

Printed “adultery” (English; lemma).

Citation key: adultery.

Here: The offence is suspected, not established by the word itself.

Context: Burton reports Cunigunde’s ordeal through historical and hagiographical authorities; immunity to hot ploughshares is not independently established.

Source: original body

Source and modern wording: suspected of adultery

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

adultery · Advoury

Printed “Advoury” (English; lemma).

Sexual unfaithfulness to a spouse.

Here: This printed spelling occurs in Burton’s English verse about desire surviving confinement. Lurking within the heart does not establish a completed bodily act.

Context: Burton separately paraphrases the preceding adapted Ovid; the Latin personifies an adulterer within, whereas his English names adultery.

Source: original body

Source wording: Though body be kept close, within her heart Advoury lurks

Original wording: Advoury

Modern rendering: Adultery

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

constuprate

Printed “constuprated” (English; lemma).

Sexually violated by force; raped.

Here: The sack-of-Rome narrative explicitly describes sexual violence against wives and daughters; the comparison with Sejanus’s daughter concerns a separate ancient assault.

Context: Burton’s account condemns wartime atrocity and uses women’s family relationships in its description. The narrative is not evidence that victims committed adultery.

Source: original body

Source wording: Their wives & loveliest daughters constuprated by every base culion

Original wording: constuprated

Modern rendering: raped

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Further local use

Printed “constupratæ” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: constupro.

Here: The feminine plural passive participle with sunt is rendered by the English past passive; it refers to the wives in the original marginal quotation.

Context: This is the marginal Latin’s rape statement, translated in the supplied note; it is distinct from the ancient Sejanus comparison in Burton’s body.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording and original alignment: constupratæ sunt

Modern rendering: were raped

Alignment scope: Equal-scope selected unit in the original marginal quotation and its supplied English note translation

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Modern container: note

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

Further local use

Printed “constuprated” (English; lemma).

Citation key: constuprate.

Here: The same forced-sex sense is fixed here by the rhetorical rape case, not merely by the accompanying word fornicator.

Context: The supplied source note identifies Seneca the Elder, Controversies 1.5; the supposed victim-choice law belongs to that declamation, not a documented event.

Source: original body

Source wording: A fornicator in Seneca constuprated two wenches in a night

Original wording: constuprated

Modern rendering: raped

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

constupro

Printed “constuprant” (Latin; lemma).

Debauch or sexually dishonour.

Here: Constuprant is an active plural verb with homines as subject and vos Romanas as object; the modern recasts the entire clause passively. This reported taunt does not itself establish the specific force of the rape cases.

Context: The original margin transmits the Caledonian wife’s retort to Julia Augusta. Burton intensifies the sexual insults in his English body; the supplied note identifies a Dio parallel without adopting the accusation.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording and original alignment: vos Romanas autem occulte passim homines constuprant

Modern rendering: but you Roman women are secretly debauched by men indiscriminately

Alignment scope: Equal-scope selected unit in the original marginal quotation and its supplied English note translation

Word and construction: Complete active clause recast as passive: homines becomes by men, vos Romanas becomes you Roman women, and the adverbs remain within both selected units.

Modern container: note

dishonest

Printed “dishonest” (English; lemma).

Sexually unfaithful.

Here: Dishonest concerns marital fidelity, and is explicitly negated in the first alternative. Burton then separately supposes the worst case of actual cuckoldry.

Context: The consolatory argument first addresses groundless suspicion and then hypothetical injury. It must not be paraphrased as an assertion that the wife is unfaithful.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: If she be not dishonest

Modern rendering: If she is not unfaithful

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

fornication

Printed “fornication” (English; lemma).

Sexual intercourse outside marriage.

Here: Here it is the proposed seduction or sexual dishonouring of a chaste unmarried woman; abuse does not by itself specify force. Almost equal to adultery is Burton’s moral comparison, not a synonym equation.

Context: The passage distinguishes dishonouring from marrying her, and advises reflection on whether a prospective marriage is suitable.

Source: original body

Source wording: if to abuse, ’tis fornication, a foul fact

Original and modern wording: fornication

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Further local use

Printed “fornication” (English; lemma).

Citation key: fornication.

Here: The same sexual offence is used to expose unequal treatment of poor and powerful offenders.

Context: Burton satirizes family sanctions, loss of property and reputation, and penance; the next paragraph ironically treats the great man’s identical conduct as no offence. These are not one uniform legal procedure.

Source: original body

Source wording: As put case it be fornication

Original and modern wording: fornication

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

Further local use

Printed “fornicationis” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: fornicatio.

Here: The Latin genitive names the sexual act whose disgrace the speaker says he avoided; he nevertheless condemns his inward thoughts.

Context: The quotation is attributed to Gregory Nazianzen through an unlocated source chain. Its first-person denial must remain distinct from its confession of mental impurity.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: fornicationis

Modern rendering: fornication

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

Further local use

Printed “fornication” (English; lemma).

Citation key: fornication.

Here: Venial means a lesser sin; the construction reports an assessment of fornication, rather than redefining the act. The modern as makes the predication explicit.

Context: Burton attributes this classification to opponents he calls Pseudocatholikes. His ensuing concession to civic policy is immediately opposed on religious grounds; it is not an independent account of Catholic doctrine.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: fornication a venial sin

Modern rendering: fornication as a venial sin

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

fornicator · fornicators

Printed “fornicators” (English; lemma).

People engaging in illicit sexual intercourse.

Here: The quoted censure exceptionally applies the label to spouses said to couple for lust rather than children, denying their status as husbands rhetorically.

Context: Burton attributes the claim to Ambrose and agreement to Augustine without securely collated loci. The next paragraph expressly permits elderly marriage for companionship, mutual help and comfort.

Source: original body

Source wording: are not husbands, but fornicators

Original and modern wording: fornicators

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Further local use

Printed “fornicarii” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: fornicarius.

Here: The Latin nominative plural names the same condemned category; non tam conjuges quam makes the comparison not so much spouses as fornicators.

Context: The original marginal quotation is separately translated; the following allowance for elderly companionship remains part of the argument.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording: non tam conjuges quam fornicarii habentur

Original wording: fornicarii

Modern rendering: fornicators

Alignment scope: Equal-scope selected unit in the original marginal quotation and its supplied English note translation

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Modern container: note

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

fornicator

Printed “fornicator” (English; lemma).

A person engaging in illicit sexual intercourse.

Here: The broad sexual label identifies the man; constuprated and the declamatory situation establish rape in this particular case. Fornicator alone does not encode every detail of force.

Context: Seneca the Elder’s rhetorical problem gives two victims incompatible choices of redress, death or marriage. It is not a documented event or a current legal rule.

Source: original body

Source and modern wording: A fornicator

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Further local use

Printed “fornicator” (English; lemma).

Citation key: fornicator.

Here: The person is included among those whom repentance does not repel.

Context: Burton’s religious consolation receives rather than permanently excludes offenders; the surrounding text makes repentance essential.

Source: original body

Source wording: This doth not repel a fornicator

Original and modern wording: a fornicator

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

Further local use

Printed “fornicatorem” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: fornicator.

Here: The accusative names the object of non... abnuit, does not refuse, in the marginal Latin.

Context: Attributed to Chrysostom, this list is translated in the supplied note; it also includes adulterum, which Burton’s English body omits.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording: non fornicatorem abnuit

Original wording: fornicatorem

Modern rendering: a fornicator

Alignment scope: Equal-scope selected unit in the original marginal quotation and its supplied English note translation

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Modern container: note

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

incestus

Printed “Incestos” (Latin; lemma).

Unchaste or sexually impure.

Here: Incestos is the accusative plural adjective agreeing with amores, loves. It need not mean sexual relations between close kin.

Context: Burton adapts Horace’s singular verb to plural in an attack on girls’ dance training. His final judgment expressly allows sober, modest dancing at the proper time.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: Incestos amores

Modern rendering: unchaste loves

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

incontinency

Printed “incontinency” (English; lemma).

Lack of sexual restraint; sexual misconduct.

Here: The noun states the charge. The narrative says he did not yield, parallels Bellerophon’s false accusation, and subsequently clears him.

Context: The Combabus story is literary, transmitted under Lucian’s name; its alleged misconduct must not be converted into an established offence or its self-injury offered as a remedy.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: was accused to Seleucus of incontinency, (as that Bellerophon was in like case, falsely traduced by Sthenobia, to King Prætus her husband, cum non posset ad coitum inducere) and that by her

Modern rendering: she herself accused him to Seleucus of sexual misconduct—just as Bellerophon, in a similar case, was falsely denounced by Sthenoboea to her husband King Proetus “when she could not induce him to have intercourse.”

Alignment scope: Complete accusation and comparison recast from passive to active, with reordered agent

Word and construction: The original and that by her becomes the modern subject she herself; him is supplied from the continuing subject of the original passive. The Bellerophon comparison and its quoted Latin circumstantial clause are inside both selected spans.

mœcha

Printed “mæcha” (Latin; lemma).

A woman engaging in sexual intercourse that violates a marriage.

Here: Uxor supplies wife, and mæcha labels her an adulteress; the modern renders that noun apposition adjectivally as adulterous.

Context: Burton attributes the poisoning line to Ausonius, uncollated. The following prose about unjust suspicion is not a full translation or an authenticated case history.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: uxor mæcha

Modern rendering: The adulterous wife

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: Noun plus appositional noun is recast as adjective plus noun, with the English article supplied.

mœchor

Printed “mœcharetur” (Latin; lemma).

Engage in sexual intercourse that violates a marriage.

Here: The imperfect subjunctive is governed by negative-purpose ne. The modern recasts the negative purpose as prevention and supplies her from Venus.

Context: Burton’s surveillance story is attributed to Philostratus, but the supplied comparison says the letter describes a sandal betraying adultery, not Vulcan making surveillance shoes or Mars protesting. The broader beauty-versus-chastity claim is polemical.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: ne mœcharetur

Modern rendering: to prevent her committing adultery

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: Negative purpose clause becomes an infinitival prevention construction; her resolves the understood Venus subject.

mœchus

Printed “mœchorum” (Latin; lemma).

An adulterer: a person engaging in sexual intercourse that violates a marriage.

Here: Tria millia supplies three thousand; mœchorum identifies those counted. Burton separately calls them cuckold makers.

Context: Burton attributes a simultaneous summons to Dio; the supplied source comparison instead reports three thousand indictments on the docket with few prosecuted. This is not a verified count of guilty people.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: tria millia mœchorum

Modern rendering: three thousand adulterers

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Further local use

Printed “mœchis” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: mœchus.

Here: Mœchis is ablative plural after de, here concerning or against adulterers in legislation.

Context: This is the original marginal summary of Severus’s laws, translated in the supplied note; the source-note docket-versus-summons qualification remains essential.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording and original alignment: de mœchis

Modern rendering: against adulterers

Alignment scope: Equal-scope selected unit in the original marginal quotation and its supplied English note translation

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Modern container: note

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

Further local use

Printed “mœchum” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: mœchus.

Here: Mœchum is accusative singular; calvum supplies bald. The phrase is the object of we are bringing home.

Context: The soldiers’ taunt against Caesar is cited through Suetonius. It does not verify Burton’s generalization about bald men; the next paragraph qualifies a claimed licence with if all be true.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: mœchum calvum

Modern rendering: the bald adulterer

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

si non caste, tamen cautè

Printed “si non caste, tamen cautè” (Latin; phrase).

If not with chastity, then at least with caution.

Here: Caste means chastely, cautè cautiously; si non supplies if not and tamen the concessive at least. The maxim distinguishes moral conduct from concealment.

Context: Burton cites a strategy attributed to concealed offenders while discussing difficulty of proof; it is not his endorsement of adultery.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: si non caste, tamen cautè

Modern rendering: If not chastely, at least cautiously

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

stupro

Printed “stupravit” (Latin; lemma).

Had illicit or sexually dishonouring intercourse.

Here: Stupravit is the finite perfect verb; conjugem supplies spouse, rendered wife here. His is supplied from the jailer’s relationship in the story. The verb alone does not establish force.

Context: The original margin summarizes the prisoner’s betrayal of a jailer. A supplied note reports corroboration in a later English adaptation, not fresh collation of Burton’s Greek or Latin intermediary.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording and original alignment: stupravit conjugem

Modern rendering: had illicit intercourse with his wife

Alignment scope: Equal-scope selected unit in the original marginal quotation and its supplied English note translation

Word and construction: Finite verb plus object aligned to finite phrase plus object; the English possessive his is contextual supply, not a separate word in the selected Latin.

Modern container: note

Further local use

Printed “stuprârit” (Latin; lemma).

Citation key: stupro.

Here: The contracted verb describes illicit intercourse; nuptam specifies a married woman, and the conditional Si quis supplies if someone, rendered if a man.

Context: The marginal law attributed to Alfred prescribes mutilation and differs from Burton’s body death penalty. Its source is uncollated and its Latin agreement irregular; no current legal authority is claimed.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording and original alignment: Si quis nuptam stuprârit

Modern rendering: If a man has illicit intercourse with a married woman

Alignment scope: Equal-scope selected unit in the original marginal quotation and its supplied English note translation

Word and construction: The indexed form contributes the defined sense to this complete aligned unit.

Modern container: note

Sense relation: Same defined lexical sense; this attestation retains its own construction, agency and contextual qualifications.

stuprum · stupri

Printed “stupri” (Latin; lemma).

Sexual dishonouring or violation.

Here: Stupri is genitive after causâ, for the sake or purpose of. The surrounding story’s seizure and threatened drowning explicitly establish coercion.

Context: Burton attributes the attacking Tritons to Pierre Gilles. The adjoining claim about fish wasting for love is conditional on accepting Gomesius’s authority. These are marvellous reports, not verified zoological evidence.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: stupri causâ

Modern rendering: for the purpose of sexual violation

Alignment scope: Equal-scope Latin purpose phrase and its paired English body rendering

Word and construction: Stupri supplies sexual violation; causâ supplies for the purpose of. The surrounding seizure and drowning threat establish coercion.

stuprum · stupris

Printed “stupris” (Latin; lemma).

Sexual transgressions or illicit sexual acts.

Here: Stupris is ablative plural after de in the wider quotation; inanibus supplies fruitless or empty. Nothing in this fragment itself specifies rape.

Context: Burton attributes the warning against rash vows to Witzel. The Latin sexual warning is harsher and more specific than Burton’s following English lest they repent it; the intermediary source remains uncollated.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: inanibus stupris

Modern rendering: fruitless sexual transgressions

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: The selected noun phrase includes the adjective in both languages; the wider de supplies of after complain and remains outside both selected units.

taken in the fact

Printed “taken in the fact” (English; phrase).

Detected while doing the deed.

Here: Fact means deed or act, not a piece of verified information. The larger clause says such detection is unlikely, while the wrongdoing cannot evidently be proved.

Context: Burton’s counsel about divorce distinguishes alleged notoriety from proof, though his illustrative use of Sulpitia is problematic: the supplied note identifies Sulpicia and Calenus as spouses in Martial.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: taken in the fact

Modern rendering: caught in the act

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase/construction in the paired body texts

Word and construction: Equal-scope passive participial phrase; the surrounding negative likelihood is preserved in explanation rather than incorporated into either selected unit.