Early "mis[s]"(1652) as title?

[Alison Murie]

On Aug 28, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Early "mis[s]"(1652) as title?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 8/28/2009 04:55 PM, Mark Mandel wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From the "Province and Court Records of Maine", Vol. 1 (1928), page
>>> 176, dated 1652 [NS] March 8:
>>>
>>> "We present Mis Batcheller for Adultery."
>>>
>>> [No period in this.  It is of course a transcription, so would need
>>> confirmation from the manuscript.]
>>>
>>> For "miss, n2", the OED's draft revision June 2009 has
>>> ...
>>>     2.  "In form Miss, as a title."  Earliest quotation "1667 S.
>>> PEPYS Diary 7 Mar. (1974) VIII. 101 Little Mis Davis did dance a
>>> Jigg
>>> after the end of the play."
>>>
>>> So does the Maine 1652 quotation antedate sense 2?  It must be
>>> admitted, of course, that since she is presented for adultery "Mis
>>> Batcheller" was married at the time.
>>
>> Was she? Adultery takes two.
>> OED:
>>
>> Violation of the marriage bed; the voluntary sexual intercourse of
>> a married
>> person with one of the opposite sex, whether unmarried, or married to
>> another (the former case being technically designated single, the
>> latter
>> double adultery).
>
> In the above the OED does not recognize the different definition in
> colonial Massachusetts law, and in the Bible.  See below.
>
>
>> Where was the man? Charged separately? Not charged or otherwise not
>> mentioned, for whatever reason?
>
> In this case the man does not appear. Often the man could not be
> found; in some cases the man could not be identified.  (A married
> woman would, reasonably, be presumed to have committed adultery if
> she was found with child.)
>
> In the well-known case (in 1651) in which the married Mary Batcheller
> was presented for adultery, the man was also.  She was with
> child.  Both were found guilty.
>
>> If he was married, it was adultery even if she was unmarried.
>
> No.  In colonial Massachusetts (that is, under the first charter),
> the act was only adultery if the woman was married (or
> espoused).  See, for example, _The Laws and Liberties of
> Massachusetts, 1641--1691_, ed. John Cushing, page 12 (1648 code; but
> the law was the same throughout the colonial period).  And see the
> Bible, as cited in that law:  Lev. 20. 19. and 18. 20. Deu. 22. 23.
> 27.  [The citations here are a little mysterious, or perhaps even
> incorrect.  I would point to Deuteronomy 22, verses 22-24 (King James
> Version).]
>
>> Which of the three possible combinations -- married but
>> not to each other, he married and she single, she married and he
>> single --
>> could result in a "presentation" of "Mis Batcheller for Adultery"
>> would
>> depend on the law at the time.
>
> Yes.  I wrote that the time was 1652.
>
> But this all has nothing to do with whether the "Mis" means "Miss"
> and antedates one or the other of two senses in the OED.
>
> Joel
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"  (A married
woman would, reasonably, be presumed to have committed adultery if
she was found with child.)"    ??????????????????
UNmarried, surely.
AM

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org