中世纪早期的体罚:法兰克王国(六世纪至十世纪)

IF 0.8 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY International Review of Social History Pub Date : 2023-03-03 DOI:10.1017/S0020859023000019
Alice Rio
{"title":"中世纪早期的体罚:法兰克王国(六世纪至十世纪)","authors":"Alice Rio","doi":"10.1017/S0020859023000019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article deals with a paradox. Evidence for the punishment of workers during the early Middle Ages is richer in the earlier period (sixth and seventh centuries), when rural workers are generally thought to have been the least oppressed; by contrast, direct discussion of the subject largely drops out of the record in the Carolingian era (eighth to tenth centuries), despite clear evidence for renewed intensification of economic exploitation by both lay and religious lordships over the same period. Whereas the punishment of slaves had once provided a richly productive metaphor for thinking through issues of moral authority and legitimate leadership, Carolingian moralists and commentators no longer took the punishment of workers as a meaningful model for other, more morally or religiously motivated practices of punishment. Despite interest in punishment in other, non-exploitative contexts, lords’ practices of punishment of their workers were no longer taken as productive of meaning, whether positive or negative. The relationship of lords with their lowest-ranking dependents no longer defined or illustrated their power in the way that it had for the earlier Roman and late antique paterfamilias. One reason for this was the increasing tension perceived between profit-seeking and the correct, justified exercise of punishment: the two were kept at arms’ length by Carolingian writers to a surprising extent.","PeriodicalId":46254,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social History","volume":"25 1","pages":"73 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Corporal Punishment at Work in the Early Middle Ages: The Frankish Kingdoms (Sixth through Tenth Centuries)\",\"authors\":\"Alice Rio\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0020859023000019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article deals with a paradox. Evidence for the punishment of workers during the early Middle Ages is richer in the earlier period (sixth and seventh centuries), when rural workers are generally thought to have been the least oppressed; by contrast, direct discussion of the subject largely drops out of the record in the Carolingian era (eighth to tenth centuries), despite clear evidence for renewed intensification of economic exploitation by both lay and religious lordships over the same period. Whereas the punishment of slaves had once provided a richly productive metaphor for thinking through issues of moral authority and legitimate leadership, Carolingian moralists and commentators no longer took the punishment of workers as a meaningful model for other, more morally or religiously motivated practices of punishment. Despite interest in punishment in other, non-exploitative contexts, lords’ practices of punishment of their workers were no longer taken as productive of meaning, whether positive or negative. The relationship of lords with their lowest-ranking dependents no longer defined or illustrated their power in the way that it had for the earlier Roman and late antique paterfamilias. One reason for this was the increasing tension perceived between profit-seeking and the correct, justified exercise of punishment: the two were kept at arms’ length by Carolingian writers to a surprising extent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Social History\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"73 - 92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Social History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859023000019\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Social History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859023000019","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论的是一个悖论。中世纪早期(六世纪和七世纪)对工人进行惩罚的证据更为丰富,当时农村工人通常被认为是受压迫最少的;相比之下,在加洛林王朝时代(8至10世纪),尽管有明确的证据表明,在同一时期,世俗和宗教领主的经济剥削再次加剧,但对这一主题的直接讨论基本上没有记录。对奴隶的惩罚曾经为思考道德权威和合法领导提供了丰富的隐喻,但加洛林王朝的道德家和评论家不再把对工人的惩罚作为其他更具道德或宗教动机的惩罚行为的有意义的模型。尽管在其他非剥削背景下对惩罚感兴趣,但领主惩罚工人的做法不再被视为具有生产意义,无论是积极的还是消极的。领主与最低等级的属下的关系不再像罗马早期和古代晚期的家长那样定义或说明他们的权力。造成这种情况的一个原因是,在追求利润和正确合理的惩罚之间,人们越来越感到紧张:加洛林王朝的作家们把这两者保持在一个令人惊讶的程度上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Corporal Punishment at Work in the Early Middle Ages: The Frankish Kingdoms (Sixth through Tenth Centuries)
Abstract This article deals with a paradox. Evidence for the punishment of workers during the early Middle Ages is richer in the earlier period (sixth and seventh centuries), when rural workers are generally thought to have been the least oppressed; by contrast, direct discussion of the subject largely drops out of the record in the Carolingian era (eighth to tenth centuries), despite clear evidence for renewed intensification of economic exploitation by both lay and religious lordships over the same period. Whereas the punishment of slaves had once provided a richly productive metaphor for thinking through issues of moral authority and legitimate leadership, Carolingian moralists and commentators no longer took the punishment of workers as a meaningful model for other, more morally or religiously motivated practices of punishment. Despite interest in punishment in other, non-exploitative contexts, lords’ practices of punishment of their workers were no longer taken as productive of meaning, whether positive or negative. The relationship of lords with their lowest-ranking dependents no longer defined or illustrated their power in the way that it had for the earlier Roman and late antique paterfamilias. One reason for this was the increasing tension perceived between profit-seeking and the correct, justified exercise of punishment: the two were kept at arms’ length by Carolingian writers to a surprising extent.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: International Review of Social History, is one of the leading journals in its field. Truly global in its scope, it focuses on research in social and labour history from a comparative and transnational perspective, both in the modern and in the early modern period, and across periods. The journal combines quality, depth and originality of its articles with an open eye for theoretical innovation and new insights and methods from within its field and from contiguous disciplines. Besides research articles, it features surveys of new themes and subject fields, a suggestions and debates section, review essays and book reviews. It is esteemed for its annotated bibliography of social history titles, and also publishes an annual supplement of specially commissioned essays on a current theme.
期刊最新文献
“Human Beings Are Too Cheap in India”: Wages and Work Organization as Business Strategies in Bombay's Late Colonial Textile Industry Workers Reconstituting the Factory Navigating Labour Shifts: Early Modern Pearl Fishing in the Caribbean (1521–1563) On Power at Work Gender Conflicts on the Shopfloor: Barcelona Women at Chocolates Amatller, 1890–1914
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1