1. Hythloday condemns the idle of Europe, including noblemen and servants. He claims that they wage war, not peace, and that ministers at court indulge in politics for their own game. He also criticizes them for having a standing army during times of peace because it creates a population of soldiers who in bad times make very cold blooded men- both figuratively and literally. He says the third unique-to–England issue is men who are victims of the thieves. The farmers’ graving practice of enclosure of arable land warrants the opportunity for sheep grazing. While arable farming requires laborers, the keeping of sheep no longer needs many people. As a result, the idleness of large populations of unemployed and starving laborers from England increases.
2. Essentially, Hythloday advocates for the thieves “to make restitution of that which they stole to the right owner, not to the king.” Pursuing this notion further, he also recommends that “unless the theft be very heinous, they should neither be locked in prison nor fettered in gyves, but be untied and go at large, laboring in the common works as common laborers” (More 36). Contrary to popular belief, Hythloday articulated a very radical methodology of combating prison policies through these more lenient reforms. Unfortunately, his beliefs faced vehement opposition from …show more content…
Hythloday proclaims a plethora of allusions to demonstrate the following idea -“do not work for kings who want property and treasure”. First and foremost, he recollects instances of a Biblical nature- the story of Solomon, Elisha, and the friar. Next, Hythloday addresses the issue from a period of historical prominence- Plato’s advisory of King Dionysius. Hypothetical examples, such as the point rose of an ambitious and territory oriented French king, fuels the logos of his argument as well. Lastly, to draw the point home, Hythloday discusses and examines contemporary case studies of the Achorian people, Fabricius, the Utopians, and