Abstract

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.