(Also warning that I’m totally not a historian and I could be getting everything horribly, horribly wrong in this post. Please forgive me, Dr. MB, if I’m butchering this subject terribly.)
So in this post and in the comments of that post, there was some discussion on how serious of a crime would rape have been in the Middle Ages. I said that I thought it would be a pretty serious crime but that I wasn't sure. So I decided to look it up, and unfortunately, it seems as though I was wrong.
There looks to be lot of research that has been done on rape in the Middle Ages. just googling "rape in the middle ages" brings up numerous articles and books written on the subject.
I found this post during my search which summarizes the issue pretty well.
In the early Middle Ages, rape was considered theft (nice
objectification and dehumanization of women’s bodies, huh?) Women were seen as
lesser than men, and so there was not many instances of harsh punishment for
rape. Rape was seen as a loss of a woman’s honor and not anything more than
that.
Not all rapes were reported (as is still true today.) Rape
was a crime that occurred in every social class.
Punishment of rape differed from different classes. Sometimes
a man was justly punished with mutilation or death, but sometimes a man would
not be punished as justly, often being let off with a mild sentence.
Women could even be imprisoned for the crime of falsely
accusing someone. I’m assuming that false accusations occurred a very, very tiny
percentage of the time, as it still true today and that women were being
accused of false accusations simply for not having enough evidence against
their rapist.
The article concludes with the statement that "patriarchal societies tend to 'sweep…under the carpet' instances of rape and sexual violence."
I was really disappointed to discover a lot of this information. For some reason, I assumed that the extreme emphasis on female virginity in this period (which is another sexist idea, by the way) would have made rape a severe crime.
I love that you did research on this because it was something I was wondering about myself. The fact that rape was considered theft is so obnoxiously belittling that I wish I had a time machine to beat up whoever made this law in the Middle Ages. However, being objective, I'm forced to acknowledge the fact that this was in the Middle Ages, a time when women were considered objects or property. If I think about that, it makes sense - a very deluded, angering sense - that rape was considered theft. In my view, at least, rapists could be stealing another man's property if he raped his wife. I seemed to have made myself even angrier in writing this comment.
ReplyDeleteI guess that it shouldn't be surprising that rape was treated as theft, much as I really don't want to admit that. I guess then it would be safe to assume the the maiden that the knight raped in "The Canterbury Tales" would have been of a much higher class if the punishment was originally death.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a great topic. I am glad you brought this to my attention. The idea of rape didn't seem as serious during medieval times and this is a problem. The fact that it was considered "theft" kind of pisses me off. But it's like what do we expect? Women were not even given the right to voice their opinions in society. In Beowulf, women weren't even given names (another thing that pisses me off). However, this was a really good post. Great Job!
ReplyDeleteOne of my many issues with organized religion is its ideals about women and rape. In the book of Deuteronomy 22:25-28 it says that “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." So not only did the woman have to suffer horrible rape, but the man gets to rape her whenever he wants for the rest of his days, after paying the father for the damage of course. It's a good thing that things have changed a great deal, but it's aweful to think what women had to go through in the past.
ReplyDeleteMany take issue with organized religion, I myself am the product of one parent who debates on the downsides of such. But I guess I don't see the Bible as being "organized religion," but rather an ancient text of tenets that is to some extent a product of its time - which is not today. As such, there is so much historical context to be taken into consideration during its reading - just as there is when reading Medieval literature as we see through the research that inspired Laura's post.
DeleteI believe the passage you are referring to is actually Deuteronomy 28-9. Deuteronomy 22:25-7 is as follows: "But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter; for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her." This passage I find much more acceptable. I am not endorsing the death penalty necessarily, but the woman is not left in blame and she is not forced to forever be under the authority of one who disrespected her in such an intimate manner. Furthermore, the male offender is punished, rather than rewarded with his conquest.
Thank you for researching this! Your post really helps to put everything into context. As many pointed out, because woman were seen as property, it should come as no surprise that so would their virginity. So in that mindset, rape categorized as a form of theft makes sense. Yet the term "theft" seems to oversimplify or minimize something so damaging and horrendous. What is most disturbing, though, is the rectification was probably more likely to be directed to the guardian or "owner" of the maid, not the victim herself. How turned around?
ReplyDelete