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

[Victor Steinbok]

Hmm... can't speak to the original intent, but "married" does make sense
in the context of "found"--that is, "found" because the husband was
unaware (and, presumably, uninvolved). Given that, in this case, the
husband, in his 90s, absconded to England that same year there might be
some reasonable suspicion that the husband was not involved ;-)

But the other thing that makes me believe this is some of the Christian
ontology of sexual activity. To put it simply, an unmarried woman could
not have been guilty of adultery--a charge of fornication would have
sufficed. There are similar distinctions in Sharia "jurisprudence", if I
am not mistaken--and the punishments for an adulterer and a fornicator
are different (not to mention different punishments for men and women).
I don't know how early New England statutes listed such crimes, but I
suspect they would have made the same scriptural distinction--given that
the Puritans were literalists.

    VS-)

Alison Murie wrote:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "  (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
>
>

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