>>103591>>103599One supposed definition of a word in 1610 does not somehow negate what a word actually unambiguously means in all contemporary uses (and much older).
And it is clearly incomplete anyway. Because remarriage after divorce and widows remarrying has existed long before that and has never been considered equivalent to the practice of having multiple wives. So there were two meanings used with the word, or rather two implications, and the meaning you claim is the real one has in fact not been used in hundreds of years.
Societies where polygamy is a practice (not necessarily more common than monogamy) were the norm worldwide and European writers, across thousands of years, whose societies did not have the practice at all noted it with distaste. In particularly they considered it motivated by lust. They clearly did not see someone remarrying as anything like it, even though they didn't think it was ideal either.
Btw 1610s English is Modern English. What we speak is called Late Modern English or Present-day English. But modern in general use just means contemporary or now or recent. If you want to insist upon meaningless bad faith and ignorant obstructions to communication (the purpose of language), you should be better at it and not say Modern so loosely.
