All of this conspicuous Hellenism provides a powerful backdrop for More’s
thoroughgoing subversion of the Roman republican tradition. Following
Plato in particular, but also Aristotle to some degree, More recovers and
advances a very diVerent sort of political theory. This essentially Greek
ideology does not particularly value freedom as ‘‘non-domination’’—living
without dependence on the will of other human beings. The sort of ‘‘free-
dom’’ it values is the condition of living according to our rational nature, and
it assumes that most men can only become free in this sense if they are ruled
by their moral superiors (if someone ruled by his passions is left to rule
himself, then he is enslaved). The Greek tradition also assumes that the
purpose of civic life is not ‘‘glory’’ (which it dismisses as the irrelevant
approval of non-experts), but rather ‘‘happiness’’ (eudaimonia), the fulWll-
ment of our rational nature through contemplation. Most important of all,
the Greek account exhibits a sharply contrasting theory of justice. Justice, on
this view, is not a matter of giving each personius suumin the Roman sense,
but is rather an arrangement of elements that accords with nature. In the case
of the state, justice is instantiated by the rule of reason in the persons of the
most excellent men—an arrangement which corresponds to the rule of
reason over the appetites in the individual soul. This view of justice in turn
leads to a completely anti-Roman endorsement of property regulations. If
property were allowed toXow freely among citizens, both Plato and Aristotle
reason, then extremes of wealth and poverty would inevitably develop. The
resulting rich and poor would both be corrupted by their condition: The rich
would become eVeminate, luxurious, and slothful, while the poor would
become criminals and lose their public spirit. Neither group would defer to
the rule of the best men, and, as a result, justice would be lost. Accordingly,
the Greek view recommends either the outright abolition of private property
(as among the guardians in Plato’sRepublic), or, at the very least, severe
regulations designed to prevent its undue accumulation (as in Plato’sLaws
and Aristotle’sPolitics).
More replicates this set of commitments to a remarkable degree. The
Utopians, we are told, have abolished private property, thus avoiding the
great and pervasive injustice of European societies. Hythloday explains this
decision as follows: ‘‘Wherever you have private property, and money is the
measure of all things, it is hardly ever possible for a commonwealth to be just
or prosperous—unless you think justice can exist where the best things are
held by the worst citizens’’ (More 1995 , 101 ). In such states, the rich become
‘‘rapacious, wicked, and useless,’’ the poor ‘‘look out for themselves, rather
republican visions 205