The birth of the modern prison from the structures and practices of the medieval and early modern monastic world has been the subject of intensive research over the past two dec-ades. As a matrix, Christian monastic culture played an essential role in contemporary disci-plinary techniques, as described notably by Michel Foucault. This applies not only to the ori-entation towards work and prayer, central to both monastic and penitentiary life, but also to the imperative of a rule-governed way of life and the adaptation of existence to normative guidelines, which are common to both the monastery and the prison. One can also consider the architectural structures (cloister, refectory, church, dormitory), used in both monastic and penitentiary worlds, which spatialized the functional separation of different activities within them. This is partly due to the fact that many monastic buildings were converted into penitentiary institutions. Other principles, such as the strict separation of the sexes, which characterized monastic life from the Middle Ages onwards, were only slowly imposed in confinement institutions – until the early 19th century, many establishments were mixed, despite principles of separation. Finally, monasteries themselves served for centuries as places of confinement, not only for recalcitrant or delinquent nuns and monks but also for laypeople. This tradition was particularly maintained in Tsarist Russia.
The primary objective of medieval and early modern monasteries was to ensure the salva-tion of the soul through the practice of prayer. The quest for knowledge of God made mon-asteries eminent centers for the production of religious and non-religious knowledge and the emerging natural sciences. Monastic libraries, where sacred or profane texts were pro-duced or copied, transmitted ancient knowledge to the early modern era. At the same time, large-scale craftsmanship, trade, and agriculture expanded economic knowledge. Finally, monastery gardens, with their diversity of useful and medicinal plants, constituted an im-portant basis for pharmacological and medical knowledge. Monasteries were therefore cen-tral places of knowledge in medieval and early modern societies. But was this also the case for prisons and other places of confinement? Michel Foucault highlighted the role of con-temporary penitentiary institutions in the production of a particular knowledge about the individual, constituted by specific power constellations and from which a direct line can be drawn to the birth of the human sciences. Was this function of a place of knowledge at-tributed to the prison only in the 19th century, or does it not have roots in earlier develop-ments?
The meeting therefore aims to examine places of confinement in the early modern era in all their breadth and to question the role that knowledge played in them. To do this, it starts from a simple postulate: prisons and other places of confinement were both religious places and places for the production of non-religious knowledge. Clergy were always present, ei-ther by visiting inmates or, in large institutions, being part of the staff. In some cases, the clergy were also involved in the operation of prisons, which were sometimes entirely en-trusted to them. It is worth asking whether confinement institutions were solely places of religious pedagogy and spiritual direction, for example, to encourage inmates to regular religious practice or to prepare condemned prisoners for their execution. Or did a specific theological or religious knowledge develop there, recorded, for example, in the writings of preachers who, thanks to their particular experience in working with inmates, became moral experts? Similarly, one can ask whether inmates were merely passive recipients of religious knowledge or whether they produced it themselves. Thus, many prisons had significant li-braries and were also places of writing, religious or non-religious. Similarly, for convents of nuns, one can demonstrate the complex dynamics of knowledge production that transcend-ed traditional gender hierarchies, with particular productivity made possible through (spir-itual) retreat.
Another important area is that of medical knowledge and its application. This was of capital importance for the proper execution of torture, as one did not want to inflict physical dam-age on suspects that could endanger the continuation of the trial. In houses of discipline and labor, as well as in other large early modern institutions, one can also mention the field of medical care and prevention, as it was not uncommon for several hundred inmates to live in these institutions, requiring special measures, for example, to prevent the outbreak of epi-demics. The question of whether doctors played a role in the differentiation of such fields of knowledge has been studied, at best, only rudimentarily for psychiatry, one of whose found-ing myths is the “liberation of the mad from their chains.” In the case of monasteries, on the other hand, approaches from the history of the body have revealed the first traces of specific knowledge interested in the physical effects of voluntary, but also forced, retreat. Do such forms of knowledge also exist in the prison universe? Finally, a possible last field is constituted by the economic and administrative knowledge that was absolutely necessary for maintaining large religious or carceral institutions. Many institutions were complex eco-nomic enterprises of considerable size, a large part of whose staff was not concerned with the supervision of monks and nuns or the surveillance of inmates but with the operation of the institution, organized like a household. Thus, one can see in these institutions an embryo of public administration and resource management – even if they have hardly been studied in this role, which included the often-considerable finances of the institutions. Finally, one can ask how this knowledge was archived or transferred outside and how control measures intervened in this process. Therefore, it is not only the different actors but also specific me-dia and concrete knowledge practices that are of interest.
The exchanges can therefore focus on the following questions:
- Who are the actors to be considered when we question the role of knowledge in the worlds of confinement, whether voluntary or forced? Is it possible, following recent research in the history of knowledge, to consider these worlds as “laboratories” where not only different forms of knowledge are produced and developed, but where several types of actors also participate in this process? Who are these actors – and what role do social differences between them play in the knowledge practices (pro-duction and dissemination) in which they participated?
- What chronologies can be established to trace the history of knowledge in confine-ment? Does the opposition between “monastery” and “prison” as the starting point and endpoint of a long evolution remain relevant if we consider, in addition to the production and dissemination of knowledge, the circulation of knowledge between these different closed worlds? In other words, what were the exchanges between monasteries and prisons? Did the actors themselves perceive the parallels between these two spheres of separation from the world – and what were the consequences for the forms of knowledge that existed in both?
- How were exchanges organized between the inside and the outside of the institu-tions? What roles did control and censorship play in this process, and what media enabled such circulation of knowledge beyond the walls of the institutions? Finally, can we observe confessional specificities in the circulation of all types of knowledge in and between early modern places of confinement?
The meeting will take place from July 7 to 10, 2025, at Villa Vigoni, on the shores of Lake Como. The working languages will be French, Italian, and English.
In accordance with the principle of the Em#C network, there will be no classical presenta-tions. All participants are asked to send the text of their contribution before June 15, which will be distributed to all presenters before the event. During the meeting itself, papers should not exceed 15 minutes to allow for discussions. Financial support is possible for young researchers. All other participants are asked to have their travel and accommodation expenses covered by their respective institutions as much as possible. Proposals for contri-butions, accompanied by a brief CV, should be sent before February 15, 2025, to the follow-ing address: rencontre.emc@gmail.com.
Organizing Committee: Sophie Abdela (Université de Sherbrooke), Falk Bretschneider (EHESS Paris/IFRA-SHS Frankfurt), Elisabeth Lusset (CNRS/Université de Paris 1), Natalia Muchnik (EHESS Paris), Xenia von Tippelskirch (Goethe-Universität/IFRA-SHS Frankfurt)