Upvote:2
I wanted to comment on your question, and though my reputation is great enough to answer, it is not great enough to comment (allowing me to foolishly answer, but only wisely comment, hmm?).
The article states (thank you Google translate):
Since rape was such an extremely serious crime in the Middle Ages, there is little to suggest that it may have been commonplace.
In A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, page 469, Michel Rouche writes:
In the sixth century the Franks punished the rape of a free woman by a fine of only 62 1/2 solidi; Charlemagne increased the fine to 200 solidi; evidence perhaps that the crime had become more common.
Two different historians using essentially the same data (punishment severity) as evidence for opposing conclusions?
Gauche though it may be to pose questions in an answer:
Upvote:5
Let's start with literary sources. If rape shows up a lot in literary sources, it could mean that it's common in life. Or it could mean that people felt that stories with rape were more interesting or illustrated an important concept.
I'm sure that much is intuitive. The same applies to legal sources. The prevalence of laws regarding rape and the severity of the sentences indicate something about views on rape, but not the frequency of the crime. For example, American drug laws have oscillated wildly over the years in severity and emphasis, but actual drug use seems only loosely correlated to the changes.
Even court records are all-but-useless, as we don't know to what extent the authorities are interested or able to enforce the law. Rape, in particular, is a crime that is rarely consistent in its enforcement.
There are a few ways to find clues. Genetic testing can bring some insights. For example, some researchers have claimed to find evidence of frequent rapes in the distribution of genes across different populations. The theory is that a lot of "foreign" DNA in a population suggests more rape. Of course, it could also mean more prostitution. Or, just more lovin' in general.
Literary analysis can provide some insight, but it's more complex than simply counting references. The key is to look for references that are "surprising" - that is, for which there is no particular motivation for including in the story. The more tangential the reference, the better. Of course, this data is always very fragmentary but it's often valuable. I don't know if anyone has applied this sort of analysis to rape in particular, but I personally haven't found such references in my reading, which leaves me with the impression that rape was unusual enough that one didn't talk casually about it.
That's a pretty weak statement, but it'll be hard to support any stronger conclusion than that.
Upvote:9
The only honest answer to this question is We don't know.
To state that rape, or any crime, or any activity, was more or less prevalent at one period of time than another requires written records to be kept. However, we have few records about crimes committed during the Middle Ages. IIRC, any form of records about common crimes & other activities only begin around 1500, maybe even 1600. These are either written records of criminal courts -- which are limited to crimes were the perpetrator is brought to justice, not crimes where the perpetrator is known but not accused, let alone crimes where the perpetrator is never identified -- or broadsides, which are concerned more lurid details of crime than accuracy. As a result, we often assume that left alone most peasants live a life free of crime because no crimes are reported about them: an unconscious argument from silence. In fact, they were often victims or perpetrators of all imaginable varieties of crime.