tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post7861632771359129512..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Elizabeth, Simeon, and the CatsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-4597378974463258832011-02-16T15:58:36.894-05:002011-02-16T15:58:36.894-05:00Another compelling factor for me is that there’s n...Another compelling factor for me is that there’s no reason to go from that epitaph to cat meat. It’s logical to imagine a doomed love affair was behind “should have been the wife,” precisely as that romantic novelist did. But to bring in cat meat? That’s the sort of detail no one would believe without strong evidence. <br /><br />The word “cat” didn’t just mean domesticated house cats in the 18th century, I believe. It’s possible the family ate other critters. The Rev. Mr. Billings was supposed to have studied Native peoples, so maybe he picked up some of their culinary culture.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-83576351518818412562011-02-16T10:31:17.983-05:002011-02-16T10:31:17.983-05:00Hm. The 1906 History of Little Compton actually ma...Hm. The 1906 History of Little Compton actually makes me take the story a bit more seriously than I did before. It is quite different from the 1901 account, which contends that Elizabeth stuck around until after the birth of her first child before leaving Simeon and never mentions a wedding feast. The two stories have two things in common: Elizabeth left Simeon and the source of their disagreement had something to do with eating cats. The specifics are different, but the fact that both stories have those two themes in common makes me a bit more ready to believe that those elements have a grain of truth to them.Caitlin GD Hopkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05317897772288904474noreply@blogger.com