Ancient Somerset court actions record "fornication" in cases between two consensual (my word) unmarried parties resulting in issue. They record "adultery" for a married person discovered in liaison with someone else. They record "rape" upon a complaint of the victim. These were three distinct violations of three distinct laws. While anyone is welcome to project Puritan Plymouth sensibilities upon the Somerset court, or their own modern belief matrix on the ancients, or imagine that the court treated, say, non-Anglican marriages as criminally invalid, the records themselves give no breath of credence to any of these imaginative extrapolations. The actions as documented make sense as they stand. Unless one has explicit additional evidence to the contrary, it is simply best practice to read the document as written. When one says: >>>>This is yet another reason to take our ancestors' recorded deeds with a healthy bit of skepticism at times. It is often impossible to say for sure what really happened 100s of years ago.<<<< one is venturing into fictional overlays of one's own prejudices or wishes onto a recorded set of evidence. At this point, you're on your own recognizance. Here, you're entering Groucho Marx territory, essentially asking "Who're you gonna believe: me or your lying eyes?" For myself, I have more skepticism about armchair opinions from three centuries remove than about stated records from the moment. Men and women violators of the bastardy laws were, indeed, treated differently and more harshly. If a woman refused to identify her correspondent she was often subjected to flogging, along with her fine. This did not happen to the man. In general, I can easily imagine a vast spectrum of situations in which "consensual", as I used it above, is probably not a term that really applied. But, in effect, it's what the woman was concurring to by not claiming anything else. And that's the data we have to go on. Of course, you're invited to present a specific case in which you have other facts to sustain your skepticism on a Somerset court action as not reflecting the real situation.. John -----Original Message----- From: Dave & Jane Kearney <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 8:21 pm Subject: Re: [LDR] Ann the fornicator > Fornication and adultery were two different things. This Ann Shiles, > whoever she was, was a single woman. The county prosecuted fornication > yielding issue to guarantee that someone accepted responsibiliy for > raising the offspring. _____________________ I don't mean to question the clear line suggested between fornication and adultery in this particular matter, but, it's not clear to me that all sources in all situations agree the distinction is always entirely clear (mutually exclusive), either in common usage, or at law. See, for instance, "Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony," a paper in the Plymouth Colony Archive Project, in which the author, Lisa M. Lauria of the University of Virginia writes, "Like Hebrew law, seventeenth century Puritans defined adultery as any act of fornication with a married or betrothed woman," thus clearly reflecting that adultery in Plymouth Colony was defined as a specific type of fornication. Yet, Ms. Lauria also distinguishes throughout her article between the two Plymouth Colony crimes of adultery and fornication. http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/Lauria1.html#I. Other sources attempt to clarify the differences between fornication and adultery, but acknowledge differences of interpretation. See, for example, "Fornication and Adultery (What's the Difference?)," which states that "Many Christians are seeking the 'Bible Definition' of these terms;" attempts to set out a clear distinction; but acknowledges that, "The definition of these two terms is often confusing ... ." http://www.rmsbibleengineering.com/Page2/Adultery/Page2_1.html. On a related note, I share Elizabeth's thought that the accused deed and the actual deed don't always necessarily match. This is yet another reason to take our ancestors' recorded deeds with a healthy bit of skepticism at times. It is often impossible to say for sure what really happened 100s of years ago. (The Plymouth Colony paper cited above discusses differences in how men and women were treated in Plymouth Colony in connection with sexual crimes -- sometimes in ways predictable and perhaps sometimes in ways a bit surprising.) Dave *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

> Ancient Somerset court actions record "fornication" in cases between > two consensual (my word) unmarried parties resulting in issue. They > record "adultery" for a married person discovered in liaison with > someone else. They record "rape" upon a complaint of the victim. > These were three distinct violations of three distinct laws. > While anyone is welcome to project Puritan Plymouth sensibilities upon > the Somerset court, or their own modern belief matrix on the ancients, > or imagine that the court treated, say, non-Anglican marriages as > criminally invalid, the records themselves give no breath of credence > to any of these imaginative extrapolations. The actions as documented > make sense as they stand. Unless one has explicit additional evidence > to the contrary, it is simply best practice to read the document as > written. > > When one says: >>>>This is yet another reason to take our ancestors' > recorded deeds with a healthy bit of skepticism at times. It is often > impossible to say for sure what really happened 100s of years ago.<<<< > one is venturing into fictional overlays of one's own prejudices or > wishes onto a recorded set of evidence. At this point, you're on your > own recognizance. Here, you're entering Groucho Marx territory, > essentially asking "Who're you gonna believe: me or your lying eyes?" > For myself, I have more skepticism about armchair opinions from three > centuries remove than about stated records from the moment. > > Men and women violators of the bastardy laws were, indeed, treated > differently and more harshly. If a woman refused to identify her > correspondent she was often subjected to flogging, along with her fine. > This did not happen to the man. > > In general, I can easily imagine a vast spectrum of situations in which > "consensual", as I used it above, is probably not a term that really > applied. But, in effect, it's what the woman was concurring to by not > claiming anything else. And that's the data we have to go on. > > Of course, you're invited to present a specific case in which you have > other facts to sustain your skepticism on a Somerset court action as > not reflecting the real situation.. _____________ John, I found the Plymouth Colony paper on the broad subject matter we're discussing "imaginative," but in a positive way. The paper obviously doesn't address the specific laws, interpretations, judgments, or customs involved in connection with the ancient Somerset case involving "Ann," but yet might provide some additional interesting perspective on some of the issues. As for entering Groucho Marx territory, the line ... "Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" ... appears to be properly attributed not to Groucho, but to Chico (as Chicolini in Duck Soup). Of course, I'm generally gonna believe my own eyes (although I also know that sometimes I should not). I think we've all seen and heard and read and experienced enough in our lives to know that at least SOMETIMES "the word" as given to us, or as passed down to us, even as determined in ancient trials, can be off, at least with respect to the underlying circumstances and biases. This is part of history, too. Dave PS: You might enjoy William Poundstone's Psychology Today blog post from earlier this year, "Who Are You Going to Believe, Me or Your Own Eyes?: How to Convince People that Black is White" at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/priceless/201001/who-are-you-going-believe-me-or-your-own-eyes.