Final answer:
In Shakespeare's time, the punishment for a woman who committed adultery ranged from social ostracism to legal repercussions, but public execution was rare due to societal aversion to such spectacles for women. The degree of punishment was anchored in the gender biases of the period and could vary depending on various factors, including social status and the discretion of the husband or male relatives.
Step-by-step explanation:
The punishment for a woman who cheated on her husband during the time of Shakespeare and in earlier historical periods varied greatly, often reflecting the gender biases of the era. Historical texts show us that women often faced severe penalties for infidelity, although the punishment could be influenced by the status of those involved and societal norms. An example of the tragic consequences of adultery is seen in the story of Lucretia from Livy's Ab Urbe Condita, where Lucretia takes her own life after being raped to ensure no other woman would use her survival as a precedent for dishonor. Similarly, ancient laws, such as the Code of Hammurabi, suggest that both the adulteress and her partner could face death but a husband could choose to pardon his wife.
In Shakespearean England, attitudes toward female adultery were complex, where the woman could be judged harshly by the people around her, and her fate was often decided by men. Additionally, social customs and laws were divergent; for instance, it was unthinkable for a woman to be publicly executed for crimes that men could be hanged for. Specifically, adulterous women might be subjected to social ostracism, stripped of their matrimonial rights, and could also face legal repercussions, although the extreme punishment of death was typically reserved for men, as public sentiment found it too shocking for a woman to be hanged.