Workshop Comparing Medieval Histories :
China and the West
Geneva, 19-20 June 2025
Martin Roch, University of
Geneva
Lu Shengyen, National Taiwan
Normal University
The notion of comparative
history is much older than that of Global History, but seems to have produced
few convincing results, particularly when it comes to the “Middle Ages”
(however defined). The Comparing Medieval Histories research group aims to
experiment with and develop comparative approaches to China and the West in the
“medieval” period. Following an online round table (2023) and a 1st
half-day workshop in Taipei (2024), this 2nd Workshop was intended
to broaden the range of topics addressed and deepen the characteristics of a
comparative history.
The workshop focused on three
themes well suited to a comparative approach: the foundational concept of
comparative histories, the roles of foreigners and barbarians, and issues
related to monasticism and religion.
The 1st session was
devoted to fundamental reflections. We discussed how comparative history
differs from global history, and what advantages it can offer. A major theme
was also the definition of “medieval” or “Middle Ages”, whether in the context
of China or the West. Is it possible to apply a periodization derived from European
culture to a civilization so distinct and geographically distant, a
periodization that is regularly questioned or redefined by Western medievalists
themselves?
The following 2 sessions were
devoted to the theme of “Barbarians and foreigners”, which lends itself
eminently to comparisons between Europe and China. Among the central questions
addressed were that of sources, both written and archaeological, and how
contemporaries viewed the “foreigner” or “barbarian”. Another aspect of this
theme that deserves further examination would be the universalism according to
which Latin Christendom and the Mongol Empire thought of themselves in the 13th
century.
Another theme that easily lends
itself to a comparative approach is that of monasticism, whether Christian
(West) or Taoist and Buddhist (China). This theme was the subject of the
following 2 sessions. While similar lifestyles and ascetic practices were
observed (monasteries, specific diet and dress, organization of prayers, etc.),
fundamental differences were noted between the two areas studied:
characteristics of the religious foundations of monasticism, relationships with
political power, relationships (or not) with regard to indisputable sacred
places. This session also offered a compelling exploration of gender in
relation to monasticism.
Exchanges were lively not only
during the program, but also outside it. The
final discussion highlighted the consensus reached on various aspects of the
comparative approach:
- such approach enables us to gain
a better understanding of our own object
of study.
-
It
encourages us to question and seek better or alternative definitions of “the
medieval period” and consider
incorporating historical narratives from regions beyond China and the West.
-
The tension observed between similarities and
differences is precisely what makes the comparative approach and discussion so
enriching, with each specialist encouraged to consider his or her own object of
study from new angles.
- In the end, it became clear that
it's not so much the chronological framework that needs to take precedence for
a comparative approach to be fruitful, but rather the subjects taken into
consideration; in any case, priority needs to be given to case studies.
- The Workshop proved to be a
highly stimulating and informal forum for exchange, particularly suited to
young researchers. It was an opportunity to verify and validate the relevance
of ongoing research.
In view of the results -
admittedly provisional - obtained, the participants agreed that they would like
to see further meetings on other historical objects in China and Europe,
considered in a comparative manner, or by opening up the comparison to other
cultural areas such as India or Africa.
(The workshop
received support from : Swiss National Science Foundation, Société
académique de Genève, Faculty of Arts of the University of Geneva,
Confucius Institute of the University of Geneva, Maison de l’histoire of
the University of Geneva)
「比較中古史工作坊：中國與西方」紀要（中譯）
2025年6月19-20日
Martin Roch（University of Geneva）
盧省言（國立師範大學歷史學系）
比較史的概念比全球史要古早得多，但似乎未能產生多少令人信服的成果，尤其是在「中古」方面──無論如何定義「中古」。「比較中古史」研究小組旨在實驗和發展針對中國和西方「中古」時期的比較研究方法。繼一次線上圓桌會議（2023年）和在台北舉行的第一屆半天研討會（2024年）之後，本次第二屆研討會旨在擴大探討主題範圍，並深化比較史特點。本次研討會重點關注三個非常適合比較研究的主題：比較史的基礎概念、外國人與蠻族的角色，以及與修道主義和宗教相關的問題。
第一場專場聚焦於基礎性反思。我們討論了比較史與全球史的不同，以及它能提供哪些優勢。一個主要議題是「中古」（medieval）或「中世紀」（Middle Ages）的定義──無論是從中國還是西方的背景。又，將源自歐洲文化的歷史分期施用於一個如此獨特且地理上遙遠的文明是否可行？事實上，這種分期本身也常被西方中古史學家質疑或重新定義。
接下來的兩個專場則專注於「蠻族與外國人」這一主題，這非常適合歐洲和中國之間的比較。探討的核心問題包括文獻和考古資料的來源，以及當時人如何看待「外國人」或「蠻族」。此主題的另個值得進一步探索的面向是13世紀拉丁基督教世界和蒙古帝國各自認定的普世主義（universalism）。
另個很容易進行比較研究的主題是修行制度（monasticism），無論是西方的基督教，還是中國的道教和佛教。這個主題是接下來最後兩個專場的內容。雖然觀察到相似的生活方式和苦行實踐（修道院、特定飲食和服裝、祈禱組織等），但在兩個研究區域之間也發現了根本性差異：修行制度的宗教基礎特徵、與政治權力的關係，以及與聖地之間的關係（或無關係）。這次會議還對修行制度與性別關係進行了引人入勝的探討。
交流不僅在會議期間熱烈進行，在會議外也十分活躍。最終討論聚焦在比較研究方法在幾個方面達成的共識上：
Ø 這種方法使我們能夠更好地理解自身研究對象。
Ø 它鼓勵我們質疑並尋找「中古」的更好或替代定義，並考慮納入中國和西方之外地區的歷史敘述。
Ø 存在於相似性與差異性之間的張力，正是比較研究和討論如此豐富的原因，鼓勵每位專家從新的角度審視自己的研究對象。
Ø 對於一個成功的比較研究，時間框架並不是最重要的，而是研究主題；無論如何，個案研究需要優先考慮。
Ø 本工作坊是個具有高度刺激性且非正式的交流論壇，特別適合年輕研究人員。它提供了一個檢驗和確認正在進行中的研究可能與哪些歷史現象有關之機會。
鑑於當前獲得的初步成果，參與者一致希望以比較的方式，就中國和其他歐洲歷史客體籌組下一次的會議，並考慮將比較範圍擴大到印度或非洲等其他文化區域。
（備註：本工作坊受到Swiss National Science Foundation, Société académique
de Genève, Faculty of Arts of the University of Geneva, Confucius Institute of
the University of Geneva, Maison de l’histoire of the University of Geneva等單位的資助）
（會議海報及議程詳見下兩張圖，點選可放大）
