"This study focuses on Erasmus' two-dimensional grasp of Stoicism evident in his edition of De officiis (1501) and the huge implications he saw for religion. The author argues that "The Philosophy of Christ' for which Erasmus is famous is a Christian version of Stoicism."--

Before Utopia demonstrates that Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) is not, as is widely accepted, a rhetorical play of spirit but is instead built from a particular philosophy. That philosophy is not Platonism, but classical Stoicism. Deeply disturbed in his youth by the conviction that he needed to decide between a worldly and a monastic path, Thomas More was transformed in 1504 by Erasmus’ De taedio Iesu and Enchiridion. As a consequence, he married in 1505 and wholeheartedly committed himself to worldly affairs. His Lucian (1506), written after working directly with Erasmus, adopts the Stoic mindset; Erasmus’ Praise of Folly (1511) shows from beginning to end the workings of More’s life-changing Stoic outlook. More’s Utopia then goes on to systematically illustrate the Stoic unitary two-dimensional frame of thought within an imaginary New World setting. Before Utopia is not just a book about Thomas More. It is a book about intellectual history and the movement of ideas from the ancient world to the Renaissance. Ross Dealy emphasizes the continuity between Erasmus and More in their religious and philosophical thought, and above all the decisive influence of Erasmus on More.

The undeniable reality of suffering in the world often leaves humanity perplexed about its source. The struggle to make sense of pain usually leaves people wondering what they have done to merit the agony of suffering. It is hence not bizarre to hear a person in suffering ask, "What wrong have I done to be suffering this much?" "Why is God punishing me?" It is not uncommon to hear some people like Edward Schillebeecks exempt God from any responsibility in the suffering of humanity. Shillebbeeckx unequivocally suggests that God is not responsible for the suffering of humanity just as he wasn't responsible for the suffering of his Son more than two thousand years ago. In his words, "[N]o one should ascribe to God what has, in fact, been done to Jesus by the history of human injustice." But how can a tragic event like the death of the Son of God and, by extension, suffering in the world be laid solely on the shoulders of humanity? Doesn't putting the responsibility of pain and suffering in the world on humanity rob God of his all-powerful nature? To avoid this quandary vis-à-vis the nature of God, classical theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas proposed the principle of the two evils, that is, evil-suffered and evil-done. They also maintained that while God may not be responsible for pain and suffering in the world, he certainly does permit or allow it for a greater good. If God only permits or allows suffering, what do we make of Marthe Robin's experience that suggests that the Risen Lord, God the Son, appeared to her, asking her, "Do you want to be like me?" And upon the question made her live the suffering and pain and carry the wounds of the Crucified Lord. According to her, she was "the little victim of the Lord."

"The purpose of this book is to distill the Christological elements from his voluminous corpus in a manner that shows the range, the coherence, and the value of Erasmus' thinking on matters Christological. While Erasmus works within the broad parameters of orthodox teaching, his critical skills with languages, accent on rhetoric in theology, keen sense of irony, appreciation for the limits of human knowledge, incipient sense of history, emphasis on the welfare of humanity, and passionate defense of peace, give his work a distinctive stamp and thereby make a singular contribution to the history of Christology"--

This book is a sequel to Nathan Ron's Erasmus and the “Other.” Should we consider Erasmus an involved or public intellectual alongside figures such as Machiavelli, Milton, Locke, Voltaire, and Montesquieu? Was Erasmus really an independent intellectual? In Ron's estimation, Erasmus did not fully live up to his professed principles of Christian peace. Despite the anti-war preaching so eminent in his writings, he made no stand against the warlike and expansionist foreign policies of specific European kings of his era, and even praised the glory won by Francis I on the battlefield of Marignano (1515). Furthermore, in the face of Henry VIII’s execution of his beloved Thomas More and John Fisher, and the atrocities committed by the Spanish against indigenous peoples in the New World, Erasmus preferred self-censorship to expressions of protest or criticism and did not step forward to reproach kings of their misdeeds or crimes.

This book explores the influence of Stoicism on the evolution of Thomas More's mind, asserting that More's engagement with the work of Erasmus radicalized his understanding of Christianity and shaped the writing of Utopia.

The authors strive to illuminate every aspect of Erasmus’ life, work, and legacy while providing an expert synthesis of the most inspiring research in the field. There is no volume to compare or to compete with this compendium of all Erasmian knowledge.