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.

这篇文章处理一个悖论。中世纪早期工人受到惩罚的证据在早期（六世纪和七世纪）更为丰富，当时农村工人通常被认为受到的压迫最小；相比之下，尽管有明确的证据表明同一时期世俗和宗教领主重新加强了经济剥削，但在加洛林时代（8 世纪至 10 世纪），对这个主题的直接讨论在很大程度上被排除在外。尽管对奴隶的惩罚曾经为思考道德权威和合法领导问题提供了一个富有成效的比喻，但加洛林道德家和评论家不再将对工人的惩罚作为其他更具道德或宗教动机的惩罚实践的有意义的模式。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产生意义，无论是积极的还是消极的。领主与其最低级别的附属物的关系不再像早期罗马和晚期古代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，人们认为逐利与正确、合理地实施惩罚之间的紧张关系日益加剧：加洛林的作家们对这两者保持了一定的距离，其程度令人惊讶。领主与其最低级别的附属物的关系不再像早期罗马和晚期古代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，人们认为逐利与正确、合理地实施惩罚之间的紧张关系日益加剧：加洛林的作家们对这两者保持了一定的距离，其程度令人惊讶。领主与其最低级别的附属物的关系不再像早期罗马和晚期古代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，人们认为逐利与正确、合理地实施惩罚之间的紧张关系日益加剧：加洛林的作家们对这两者保持了一定的距离，其程度令人惊讶。