154 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

litical change. To seek perfection or happiness through politics is to court

disaster. Yet while Oakeshott's skeptical libertarianism is a welcome anti-
dote to technocratic utopianism, there is another political tradition which
he seems to ignore. This is neither the civil libertarian tradition that he
traces to Hobbes, nor the rationalistic perfectionist one that he traces to
Bacon. Let us call this other tradition, somewhat grandly, the classical re-
publican tradition that we might trace to Aristotle. For this tradition,
politics is neither a framework where we can pursue private wants nor
the single-minded collective pursuit of some monolithic end. It is rather a
structure of relations whose end is the cultivation of certain virtues or
flourishing dispositions among its citizens. Politics, so understood, aims
not to provide us with a new communal identity in place of our former
distinct selves, but rather helps to evoke those capacities, skills, and dis-
positions that make us uniquely human. Aristotle's account of man as a
zoon politikon means that we cannot live, or at least live well, without
some degree of engagement in politics. Oakeshott has provided us with a
timely warning against expecting too much from politics. We should also
avoid the unmanly alternative of expecting too little.
—STEVEN B. SMITH

THE MAZE OF MORE'S "UTOPIA"

George M. Logan: The Meaning of Mote's "Utopia." (Princeton, N J . : (Prin-
ceton University Press, 1983. Pp. 296. $27.50.)

Greek mythology tells the tale of Theseus hunting the Minotaur

through the great labyrinth at Knossos. With the help of Ariadne, the
young Greek works his way through the intricate and dangerous maze,
slays the great beast, and finds his way back to safety. This is an apt
myth to keep in mind whenever we talk about Thomas More's Utopia,
for More's masterwork presents a challenge as complicated and formida-
ble as Theseus faced.
The latest, and one of the most successful attempts to solve More's
maze, is George Logan's The Meaning of More's "Utopia" a book which
explains More's classic in terms of the twin ideas of context and method.
Arguing that Utopia must be understood in light of its historical and cul-
tural milieu, Logan claims that the book is written for a humanistic audi-
ence, takes up characteristically humanistic themes, and attacks some
fundamental positions of the Northern humanists. In particular, Logan
argues that Utopia criticizes sixteenth-century methods of social analysis
and offers a new and advanced way of analyzing society's ills.
Logan's study is divided into five sections. The "Prolegomena" re-
views the critical literature on Utopia and sides with the "humanistic in-
terpreters" (such scholars as Edward Surtz, Robert Adams and Quentin
Skinner). This section stresses the importance of the book's social and in-
tellectual context (Renaissance humanism) and argues for seeing the
 REVIEWS 155

book as serious political theory.

The first chapter ("The Letter to Giles") asserts that the prefatory
epistle to More's young friend shows that the author had the humanists
in mind as his main audience and hints that More wants to give this au-
dience some lessons in the proper method of social analysis.
Chapter two ("Europe") is devoted exclusively to book one of Utopia
and begins developing the twin themes of context and method. Empha-
sizing the scene at Cardinal Morton's court, Logan first identifies as
characteristically humanistic the main themes under discussion. He then
shows how More uses each of these themes to recommend a new method
of analyzing society's problems, one that emphasizes institutions and the
deep causes of surface manifestations. In particular, Logan claims that
More endorses the value of comparative political study, the utility of con-
trolled experiment, and the usefulness of theoretical models in solving so-
cial problems. Logan identifies the last two of these as More's major in-
novations over previous political theorists, but he also argues that More
attempts an innovative fusing of Northern humanistic political thought
with that of the Italian Renaissance.
If Logan's chapter on book one stresses how new and forward looking
More is, the chapter on book two ("Utopia") looks to the past and un-
derscores the connection between Utopia and ancient philosophy. Logan
argues that the best way to understand the description of More's imagi-
nary island is to see it as his attempt to answer the questions raised in
book one with a device from classical philosophy—"the original and cen-
tral exercise of Greek political philosophy, the determination of the best
form of the commonwealth" (p. 131). Proceeding from the central sec-
tion on Utopian moral philosophy, Logan traces the stages of the "best
commonwealth exercise" through book two and discusses the similarities
and differences between the conclusions of More, Plato and Aristotle.
Proceeding from there to the significance of the differences between the
ideas of the Erasmian humanists and some Utopian practices, Logan ar-
gues that More designed Utopia "partly as a corrective to the naive opti-
mism of More's fellow Christian humanists" (p. 249).
Logan's epilogue {"Utopia and Renaissance Humanism") recapitu-
lates the book's lessons, and then closes with a discussion of the moder-
nity of both the substance and method of More's classic.
As noted at the outset of this review, George Logan's book is one of
the best studies on Utopia in a number of years. In the first place, Lo-
gan's general approach serves as a necessary corrective to much that has
been written about More's work over the last fifteen years. In keeping
with the main tendencies of late twentieth-century literary criticism,
much of the writing on Utopia has wrenched the book from its historical
and intellectual context and done little to illuminate the work. Logan's
book proceeds from the assumptions that there is indeed such a thing as
a text, that Utopia can be spoken of as having a "meaning," and that this
"meaning" is directly related to the time and circumstances of the book's
composition. Furthermore, by grounding his discussion in close textual
analysis, Logan demonstrates the efficacy of a scholarly approach in try-
ing to unravel Utopia.
156 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

Logan's book is particularly strong in emphasizing the central impor-

tance of Renaissance humanism. Following the lead of Paul Oskar Kris-
teller, Logan sees humanism as primarily an educational movement cen-
tered on the studia humanitatis—the study of grammar, rhetoric, history,
poetry and moral philosophy. And by emphasizing the connection be-
tween Utopia and the studia humanitatis, Logan strengthens the claim that
this is a serious work of moral and political thought.
Understanding that Utopia's context is Renaissance humanism, how-
ever, tells us more than that the book's philosophical character is central.
It also tells us that the philosophical writings that it is most closely allied
with are those of antiquity, and that if we want to understand More's
book, we must look at the relationship between Utopia and the writings of
such thinkers as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Cicero and Seneca. And this
is another important contribution of Logan's book, for Logan has en-
gaged in detailed analysis of More's classical borrowings and shown that
Thomas More is an eclectic thinker, not one who follows any particular
philosophical tradition.
\fet as much as can be said for Logan's impressive achievements, the
book falls short in its aim to provide a complete reading of Utopia. Logan
is so intent on demonstrating the serious philosophical character of Uto-
pia that he fails to grapple with the book's multifaceted nature, and ig-
nores crucial forces impinging on the book's composition. For example,
despite Logan's emphasis on the importance of the context in which Uto-
pia was composed, he does not go on to discuss the relationship between
this text, Renaissance humanism and More's desire to advance his public
career. This theme has been partially discussed by J. H. Hexter, but it is
an issue that bears further study in light of the recent writings of Jerry
Mermel and John Guy.
Logan's most important shortcoming, however, is his failure to incor-
porate Utopia's religious dimension in his explanation. Despite the fact
that More is trying his hand at the philosophical "best commonwealth
exercise," certain religious concepts do complement the philosophical po-
sitions More advances. For example, since More sees pride as the chief
source of sin and social evil, any account of the philosophical positions in
Utopia that does not give a central place to the sin of pride is incomplete.
To point out these weaknesses, however, is not to take away from the
fact that Logan has given us a first-rate study of Thomas More's Utopia.
Logan's book is a solid interpretation of its most important aspects. And
it should instruct students of the work about both the importance of a
scholarly approach and the necessity of reading More's classic in its
proper context.
This review began by noting that the labyrinth at Knossos is an apt
metaphor to keep in mind whenever we talk about Utopia. We can say
that Logan does indeed solve the labyrinth and slay the Minotaur, and
for that he deserves our thanks and praise. But we must also remember
that because of the mythical nature of the great maze, any story about
solving it once and for all, while true, is ultimately a myth.
—THOMAS I. WHITE