This paper aims to identify and analyze some of the substitutions of the particle sed (> ceterum/verum/at), visible in the manuscript of More’s De Tristitia. In this study, the theoretical framework of Functional Discourse Grammar is applied for the first time, and it helps to explain some of the reasons underlying More’s final choices. One of the clearest conclusions is that More tries to show that the particle chosen does not function as a conjunction at the sentence level but as (...) an adversative connector at the presentational level; this level has to do with the presentation and organization of the information in the text, and can serve to offer an explanation, justification, clarification, context, etc. between the various textual units. The examination of the passages in context also shows how More was careful to avoid repetitions which could diminish the elegance of the chosen linguistic expression. (shrink)

The influence of Thomas More on Spanish utopian intellectuals and social reformers extends well into the eighteenth century. This article undertakes a detailed survey and an updating of the textual parallelisms connecting Utopia with the foundation of the New Settlements of Andalusia in 1767. It also presents a socio-historical perspective, which evinces a line of continuity connecting the New Settlements with an early Spanish Christian (Catholic) utopian tradition and practice, as seen in the earlier promoters of settlement programs in Spanish (...) America. This last point is well illustrated by a series of biographical parallelisms between Thomas More and Pablo de Olavide, the Superintendent of the New Settlements. (shrink)

This essay examines the unsettling claim of Erasmus that “an unjust peace is preferable by far than a just war”—a dictum he retrieves from Cicero but applies to debates about warfare between nations, feuds of religion, and interpersonal conflicts. Embedded in this aphorism is an entire Erasmian ethic of conflict, one wherein he prods leaders and individuals to pay the price for peace by settling on less than desirable and possibly unfair terms, in order to avoid the devastating fallout of (...) full-fledged battle, while preserving the life of nations, the good of a community, the unity of a church, or the welfare of a friendship. With that challenge Erasmus proceeds to unwind just war theory with its own methods, and he does so with a curious but provocative blend of the most ideal of aspirations with utterly realistic challenges of practical reasoning. (shrink)