Definition
A term of art in criminal pleading. "Traitorously" is a word of legal necessity in indictments for treason, required to properly charge the offense. It functions as a formal averment that the act alleged was committed with the quality of treason — not merely a criminal act, but one constituting a betrayal of sovereign allegiance. The word cannot be replaced by equivalent language, paraphrase, or circumlocution; its absence is a defect in the indictment going to the sufficiency of the charge itself.
The requirement is procedural as well as substantive: once "traitorously" has been properly laid in the principal statement of the treasonous act, it need not be repeated in the description of each overt act supporting the charge.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "In a traitorous manner; treacherously."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Treacherously; by betrayal of trust.
In ordinary use, "traitorously" is simply an adverb describing conduct that is disloyal or treacherous. In law, the word carries a specific technical obligation: it is not merely descriptive but constitutive. Its presence or absence in an indictment determines whether the charge is legally sufficient. No amount of surrounding language conveying the same meaning can substitute for it.
Common Confusion
"Traitorously" should not be confused with similar pleading adverbs such as "feloniously," "wilfully," or "maliciously," which serve parallel functions in indictments for other offenses. Each term is tied to its specific charge: "feloniously" to felonies, "traitorously" to treason. Substituting one for the other — or omitting "traitorously" while relying on other charged language — does not cure the defect. The rule reflects the common law principle that treason, as the most severe offense against the sovereign, demanded precise and unambiguous formal accusation.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working with historical indictment records, criminal pleading treatises, or early American and English treason prosecutions will encounter "traitorously" as a fixed formula rather than expressive language. Its presence signals that the document charges treason specifically, not sedition, espionage, or a related offense — distinctions that may not be obvious from surrounding text in older records.
The word's significance diminishes sharply in modern practice. Contemporary pleading standards, particularly under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and analogous state rules, have moved away from rigid common law pleading requirements. Researchers should not assume that the absence of "traitorously" in a modern charging document represents the same defect it would have in an eighteenth- or nineteenth-century indictment. The historical rule is well-documented in the corpus but does not carry over wholesale into modern practice.
Connections within the Law Mind corpus: entries for TREASON, FELONIOUSLY, INDICTMENT, and AVERMENT provide essential context for understanding how "traitorously" functions within the broader system of common law criminal pleading. The pleading requirement for "traitorously" is part of a larger pattern in which certain grave offenses required specific adverbial terms to be legally stated.
One research trap: Rapalje & Lawrence list "traitorously" alongside an unrelated entry ("Transact All Business") in what appears to be an alphabetical grouping, not a substantive connection. Do not read proximity in historical dictionaries as implied legal relationship.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries are in strong agreement on the core rule: "traitorously" is an essential, non-substitutable word in treason indictments. Black's (both editions) and Burrill's each cite Wharton's American Criminal Law at page 100 for the proposition. Bouvier adds the important gloss — absent from Black's and Burrill's — that the word need not attach to each overt act once properly laid in the main charge. Rapalje & Lawrence cite Starkie's Criminal Pleading (pages 80–81) instead of Wharton, offering an English common law source alongside the American authority.
None of the historical dictionaries address what happens when the word is omitted — whether the defect is jurisdictional, subject to amendment, or waivable. Treatises such as Wharton's and Starkie's, cited by the dictionaries but not reproduced in them, are the appropriate next sources for that level of analysis.
The historical record is consistent and narrow: this term exists in the dictionaries solely to document a pleading requirement, not to define substantive treason law.
Jurisdictional Note
The strict common law pleading requirement associated with "traitorously" was a product of English practice carried into early American courts. Modern American jurisdictions have largely displaced technical pleading formulas through procedural rules requiring notice of the charge rather than precise adverbial form. Researchers working in English legal records or early American materials should apply the historical rule; those working with modern federal or state practice should consult applicable procedural rules rather than the common law standard.