“A sin that tops all sins in shame · Is outrage to another’s dame”

The expression “A sin that tops all sins in shame / Is outrage to another’s dame” makes the violation of another man’s marriage a supreme offense. Framed as direct moral counsel, it moves from a stark ranking of sin to a warning: desire must be restrained before it brings ruin upon a household and its line.

The Maxim and Its Moral Claim

The phrase first declares that some acts stand above others in disgrace, then identifies the offense it condemns: “Is outrage to another's dame,” The wording presents the wrong not as a private indulgence without consequences, but as an assault on another person’s marriage. Its force comes from the absolute comparison: the offense is set at the summit of shame.

The lines do not elaborate a legal penalty or a wider doctrine. Their emphasis is instead on moral judgment, delivered without qualification. By calling the act the worst kind of sin, the maxim gives the warning a clear priority: respect for another’s wife is a boundary that must not be crossed.

The Surrounding Warning

The maxim appears amid images of danger: “When royal homes with fire are red, / And arrowy nets around are spread.” The surrounding counsel then points to the scale of the ruler’s household, saying that “A thousand wives thy palace fill,” and that “countless beauties wait thy will.” This abundance is not offered as permission to pursue another man’s wife; it sharpens the appeal to be content with what is already one’s own.

The warning culminates in two linked commands: “O rest contented with thine own,” and “Nor let thy race be overthrown.” Restraint is thus joined to consequence. The passage connects illicit desire not only with personal shame but with the possible destruction of a ruling lineage.

Rhetorical Force and Significance

The maxim’s compact, verdict-like form makes its moral claim memorable, while the movement around it supplies the stakes: danger surrounds royal homes, the addressee already possesses a vast household, and the final appeal invokes the survival of the line. The contrast between abundance and forbidden desire is central to the rebuke. The speaker’s argument is that having many wives and attendants does not excuse violating another’s marriage; it makes the demand for contentment all the more pointed.