MEDIEVAL WOMEN AND PATRIARCHAL AGORAPHOBIA: CHAUCER’S THE PRIORESS AND THE WIFE OF BATH

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 69, 289 - 298, 18.07.2025

Oya Bayıltmış Öğütcü

https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1561018

Öz

Spatial limitations have been among the means used by patriarchal societies to assert control over women’s gender and sexuality. Similarly, the patriarchal society controlled women’s spatial practices in medieval England. Both the secular women and the religious women were prone to spatial limitations that were regulated according to their social and sexual statuses. While the enclosure was at the core of a religious woman’s life at the nunnery, a secular woman’s moving beyond her village or city was severely criticized in the Middle Ages. Patriarchal agoraphobia defined such women in the open space as “open space,” implying their sexual vulnerability. However, from the fourteenth century onwards, both secular and religious women began rejecting such spatial limitations as exemplified by the Prioress and the Wife of Bath in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Accordingly, blending Henri Lefebvre’s ideas on the production of space with Victor Turner’s ideas about liminality, this article aims to discuss how medieval women challenged, through their spatial practices, the idea that women in the open space were defined as “the open space” through an analysis of the spatial practices of the Prioress and the Wife of Bath.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Spatial practices , Patriarchal agoraphobia , Chaucer , the Prioress , the Wife of Bath

ORTAÇAĞ KADINLARI VE ATAERKİL AGORAFOBİ: CHAUCER’IN BAŞ RAHİBESİ VE BATH’LI KADINI

Öz

Mekânsal kısıtlamalar, ataerkil toplumların kadınların cinsiyetlerini ve cinselliklerini kontrol edebilmek için kullandıkları araçlar arasında yer almıştır. Aynı şekilde, Ortaçağ İngiltere’sinde de ataerkil toplum kadınların mekânsal pratikleri kontrol etmekteydi. Sadece seküler kadınlar değil dindar kadınlar da sosyal ve cinsel statülerine uygun olarak düzenlenmiş olan mekânsal kısıtlamalara tabiydiler. Ortaçağ’da manastırdaki dindar bir kadının hayatının merkezinde dış dünyaya kapanmış olmak yer alırken, seküler bir kadının köyünün ya da şehrinin sınırlarının dışına çıkması sert bir şekilde eleştirilirdi. Ataerkil agorafobi bu tür açık alandaki kadınları, cinsel hassasiyetlerini vurgulayacak şekilde “açık alan” olarak tanımlamaktaydı. Ancak, Chaucer’ın Canterbury Hikayeleri eserindeki Baş Rahibe ve Bath’lı Kadın karakterleri tarafından örneklendiği üzere, on dördüncü yüzyıl itibariyle hem seküler hem de dindar kadınların bu tür mekânsal kısıtlamaları reddetmeye başladıkları görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda bu makale, Henri Lefebvre’in mekânın üretimine dair fikirlerini Victor Turner’in eşiktelik konusundaki fikirleri ile harmanlayarak, Baş Rahibe ve Bath’lı Kadın’ın mekânsal pratiklerinin incelemesiyle, Ortaçağ kadınlarının mekânsal pratikleri aracılığıyla açık alandaki kadını “açık alan” olarak tanımlayan fikre nasıl karşı çıktıklarını tartışmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mekânsal pratikler , Ataerkil agorafobi , Chaucer , Baş Rahibe , Bath’lı Kadın

Kaynakça

• Arnade, Peter, Martha C. Howell, & Walter. Simons. (2002). “Fertile Spaces: The Productivity of Urban Space in Northern Europe.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 32.4: 515-548.
• Burton, Janet. (2006). “Renunciation.” In A Social History of England 1200-1500 (Eds. Rosemary Horrox and W. Mark Ormrod). 356-368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cassidy-Welch, Megan. (2010). “Space and Place in Medieval Contexts.” Parergon 27.2: 1-12.
• Chaucer, Geoffrey. (2008). The Riverside Chaucer. (Ed. L. D. Benson) 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chazan, Robert. (2010). The Jews of Medieval Christendom 1000-1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cooper, Helen. (1996). Oxford Guides to Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Curry, Walter Clyde (1916). The Middle English Ideal of Personal Beauty; As Found in the Metrical Romances, Chronicles, and Legends of the XIII, XIV, and XV Centuries. Baltimore: J. H. Furst.
• De Certeau, Michel. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life (Trans. S. Rendall). Berkeley and Los Angeles, California and London: University of California Press.
• Edwards, John. (1998). “The Church and the Jews in English Medieval Towns.” In The Church in the Medieval Town (Eds. T. R. Slater & G. Rosser). 43-54. Aldershot, Hants and Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate.
• Gies, Frances & Joseph Gies. (1978). Women in the Middle Ages. New York: HarperPerennial.
• Hallissy, Margaret. (1993). Clean Maids, True Wives, Steadfast Widows: Chaucer’s Women and Medieval Codes of Conduct. Westport, Connecticut and London: Greenwood.
• Hanawalt, Barbara A. (1998). “Medieval English Women in Rural and Urban Domestic Space.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 52: 19-26.
• Hanawalt, Barbara. A. (2007). The Wealth of Wives: Women, Law, and Economy in Late Medieval London. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hanawalt, Barbara A., & Michal Kobialka. (2000). “Introduction.” In Medieval Practices of Space (Eds. B. A. Hanawalt and M. Kobialka). ıx-xvııı. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Hodges, Laura F. (1993). “The Wife of Bath’s Costumes: Reading the Subtexts.” The Chaucer Review 27.4: 359-376.
• Hourigan, Maureen (1999). “There was also a Nonne, A Prioresse.” In Chaucer’s Pilgrims: An Historical Guide to the Pilgrims in the Canterbury Tales (Eds. Laura. C. Lambdin and Robert T. Lambdin). 38-46. Westport, Connecticut and London: Praeger.
• “How the Goode Wife Taught Hyr Doughter”. (2002). In The Trials and Joys of Marriage (Ed. Eve Salisbury). 219-231. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications.
• Howard, Donald R. (1980). Writers and Pilgrims: Medieval Pilgrimage Narratives and their Posterity. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
• Lefebvre, Henri. (1991). The Production of Space (Trans. D. Nicholson-Smith). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Lowes, John Livingston. (1919). Convention and Revolt in Poetry. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.
• Norris, Janice Racine. (1999). “Nuns and Other Religious Women and Christianity in the Middle Ages.” In Women in Medieval Western European Culture (Ed. Linda. E. Mitchell). 277-293. New York and London: Garland.
• Owst, G. R. (1961). Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England. London: Blackwell.
• Pekşen Yakar, Azime. (2019). “‘Into a Wyld Forest’: The Forest as an Ideological Space in Middle English Metrical Arthurian Romances.” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Hacettepe University.
• Price, Merrall Llewelyn. (2008). “Sadism And Sentimentality: Absorbing Antisemitism in Chaucer’s Prioress.” The Chaucer Review 43.2: 197-214.
• Reis, Huriye. (2005). “‘[S]che was evyr aferd’: Pilgrimage and Medieval Women in the Book of Margery Kempe.” Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 22.2: 151-161.
• Sapir Abulafia, Anna. (2011). “The Jews.” In A Social History of England 900-1200 (Eds. Julia Crick and Elisabeth Van Houts). 256-264. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Shahar, Shulamith. (1983). The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages (Trans. C. Galai). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Southern, Richard William. (1970). Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. London: Penguin.
• Turner, Victor. (1974). Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
• Turner, Victor, & Edith Turner. (1978). Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press.