[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Kayte Siegle
T1: itgirl48@hotmail.com
Date: 4/2/98
Time: 6:05:48 PM
Remote Name: 130.68.212.151
Okay. The statute of laborers just made me laugh some, because it makes little to no sense. It is cetainly one of the most unfair things I've seen yet. Firstly, I'd like to know what good imprisoning the peasants is if they don't want to work. If they don't want to work, they're not going to work. If they are locked up in a dungeon, they are most certainly not going to work. What _were_ these people thinking? This was a sad attempt by the nobility to try and reinstate the pre-Plague status quo. I wonder, though, how seriously they could have possibly taken themselves. Supply and demand, in this case, would indicate that they simply had to start paying the peasants more for their work, or the nobility would simply have to start doing the work themselves. I am trying to figure out what Langalnd's vies on this are. Ceratinly, he would agree that the peasants should be treated better. After all, there's only so many of them to work the land. Still, I don't know how far afield Langland is from the side of the noble classes. He seems to feel that the peasantry was "out of line" as it were to rebel so violently.
I am beginning to think Piers the Plowman is something other than a fictional character, but more of a codename or something more along those lines.