Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Open Access
  4. Research Open

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

108969 results in Open Access

Page 354 of 5449

  • Corporal Punishment at Work in the Early Middle Ages: The Frankish Kingdoms (Sixth through Tenth Centuries)

  • Part of
  • Alice Rio
  • Journal:
    International Review of Social History / Volume 68 / Issue S31 / April 2023
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    03 March 2023, pp. 73-92
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • 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.

  • Continuity and catastrophic risk – CORRIGENDUM

  • H. Orri Stefánsson
  • Journal:
    Economics & Philosophy / Volume 39 / Issue 3 / November 2023
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    03 March 2023, pp. 533-534
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • English Laws, Global Histories; or, What Makes a Court Supreme?

  • Paul D. Halliday
  • Journal:
    Journal of British Studies / Volume 62 / Issue 1 / January 2023
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    03 March 2023, pp. 1-20
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • This paper was presented as the Presidential Address at the North American Conference on British Studies in Atlanta in November 2021.

  • Punishment, Patronage, and the Revenue Extraction Process in Pharaonic Egypt

  • Part of
  • Adam Simon Fagbore
  • Journal:
    International Review of Social History / Volume 68 / Issue S31 / April 2023
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    03 March 2023, pp. 53-71
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • The processes of control and collection are prominent themes throughout pharaonic history. However, the extent that the central regime attempted to administer agricultural fields to collect revenues directly from the farmer who actually worked the land is unclear during the pharaonic period (c.2686–1069). Relations between those involved in agricultural cultivation and local headships of extended families and wider kinship groups were deeply embedded within a broad range of interpersonal discourses, behaviours, and practices. Village headmen and officials at all levels of an impersonalized “state” hierarchy were themselves landholders who drew income from the land and were held responsible for collecting revenues from their fields. It is therefore necessary to define, with a focus on the imperatives of a subsistence economy, who was working the land and what the relationship was between them, the headmen, and those from within outside power structures (in the context of direct intervention against specific groups of the population). To address these points, I will focus on revenue extraction as a “state” process, how it was connected to the role of punishment, and its impact on local hierarchies (the targets of revenue extraction).

Page 354 of 5449