Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-44467 Total loading time: 0.69 Render date: 2021-06-18T17:58:09.144Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

An Infinity of Relics: Erasmus and the Copious Rhetoric of John Calvin's Traité des reliques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2021

Spencer J. Weinreich
Princeton University
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]


John Calvin's “Traité des reliques” (1543) inventories early modern Europe's fraudulent relics. Yet, theologically speaking, authenticity is irrelevant: all relics are idols to the evangelical Protestant, while for Catholics prayer's intention, not its conduit, was paramount. This article locates a solution in Calvin's humanist formation: chiefly, his debt to Desiderius Erasmus—not to Erasmus's satirical or devotional works, but to his rhetorical theory of copia. The “Traité” amasses a copia, an abundance, of fakes, burying the cult of relics in its own contradictions. Fusing rhetoric and proof, this mass juxtaposition subjects sacred presence to noncontradiction, patrolling vital confessional borders in Reformation theology.

Copyright © The Author(s) 2021. Published by the Renaissance Society of America


The greatest relic collection in all of early modern Europe was assembled in Geneva, in 1543, by the Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–64). The collection existed only on paper, in the 327 relics cataloged in Calvin's Traité des reliques (Treatise on relics). Of course, the Reformer assembled these objects not to revere them but to debase and debunk them as frauds. “In order to vilify,” writes Joseph Koerner, “it is also necessary to exhibit.”Footnote 1 This essay explores why this was so for Calvin, investigating the rhetorical and forensic work the catalogue form did for him—indeed, arguing that rhetoric and proof are, in the Traité, one and the same.Footnote 2

The Traité was Calvin's best seller, seeing twelve French editions before 1600, as well as translations into English, Dutch, German, and Latin—and, surely most satisfying to its author, two outraged Catholic rebuttals.Footnote 3 The pamphlet's mordant wit and rhetorical showmanship, however, have misdirected attention from the puzzle at its heart: why does Calvin hang his treatise on the fake relic, a problem both evangelical critics and Catholic devotees could wave away as secondary to the real theological issues of idolatry or the distinction between latria and dulia?

Answering this question requires an appreciation of the humanist bona fides of the Traité, usually taken for a mere “curiosity” or a display of polemical fireworks, and rarely as a serious piece of intellectual work.Footnote 4 Building on the meticulous efforts of Pierre Antoine Fabre and Mickaël Wilmart, I reconstruct Calvin's textual practices as he marshals print culture and erudite historiography to assemble and debunk an unparalleled catalogue of relics. Calvin's curious emphases are clarified by reference to Desiderius Erasmus (ca. 1466–1536)—not to his satires on popular piety, as has been the custom, but to his rhetorical theory. Read as a weaponization of copia, Erasmus's prescriptions for an abundant literary style, the Traité's catalogue drowns the cult of relics in its own overabundance, transforming the meaning of individual objects through a massive act of juxtaposing competing claims to authenticity. The catalogue form permits Calvin to divorce the relic from layers of material, cultic, and local meaning, at once undermining the cult, inculcating a Reformed way of seeing, and reconfiguring the experience of sacred presence. The Traité thus limns key theological boundaries—not only between Protestant and Catholic, but also between different camps of Protestants, reinforcing a distinct Reformed sensibility predicated on noncontradiction. Calvin knew what E. M. Cioran knew long afterward: “It is not easy to destroy an idol: it takes as much time as is required to promote and to worship one. For it is not enough to annihilate its material symbol, which is easy; but its roots in the soul.”Footnote 5


I begin where Calvin begins, with Augustine of Hippo's (354–430) De opere monachorum (On the work of monks, 401), in which the saint, “complaining about certain peddlers who, even in his time, plied a sordid and dishonest trade, carrying hither and thither relics of the martyrs, adds, ‘if indeed they are martyrs’ relics.’Footnote 6 By this expression he indicates that even then this abuse and trickery was practiced in bringing the simple folk to believe that the bones gathered here and there were the bones of saints.”Footnote 7 Augustine functions here as a historical, rather than a theological, witness, attesting not to the relic as idol but to the existence of fraudulent relics “even then.” Conveniently absent is Augustine's enthusiasm for genuine relics—an omission seized upon by Calvin's Catholic critics.Footnote 8 The Reformer goes on to explain that his project in the Traité as a whole is not theological, though the pamphlet does open and close with the doctrinal argument: “If idolatry is nothing but the transfer of the honor due to God elsewhere, can we deny that this is idolatry?”Footnote 9 The emphasis, however, is on a more contingent, factual claim: “the greater part [la plus part] of the relics shown in every place are false [faulses].”Footnote 10 The Middle French word faux, or fauls, is richly polysemic: false, counterfeit, forged, artificial, deceitful, unfaithful, treacherous, hypocritical, wrong. All of these meanings concatenate in the relentless denunciation of “fausses reliques,” as error slides into deception, ignorance into wickedness. Calvin exploits the word foy, “faith,” in a similar fashion, with repeated taunts about “if one can place faith [foy] in things so absurd.” Foy here means confidence, but the word equally connotes religious faith and the trustworthiness of an individual or thing.Footnote 11 Accordingly, though Calvin principally contends with relics not as theological but as “strictly material objects,” the moral weight of his findings is never absent.Footnote 12

So the Reformer's thoughts turn to an inventory. “It would be something to be desired,” he muses, “to be certain of all the trifles that are taken here and there for relics, or even, at least, to have a register and reckoning [denombrement].”Footnote 13 He then dedicates the rest of the pamphlet's 110 pages to something that looks awfully like a “register and reckoning,” proceeding from Jesus Christ to various other biblical figures, to the martyrs of the early church, and, finally, to a few later “common” (“vulgaire”) saints.Footnote 14 Fabre and Wilmart tabulate some 327 objects, unevenly dispersed throughout Western Europe.Footnote 15

The first relics the Traité names are not those of Christ but an arm of Anthony of Padua (1195–1231) and the brain of Peter the apostle, both formerly housed in Geneva. These, Calvin crows, were revealed as the “membre” (less delicate authors clarified that it was the “membre viril”) and a pumice stone, respectively, when the altars of the city's cathedral were stripped in 1535.Footnote 16 The events in Geneva were but one of the many sixteenth-century outbreaks of iconoclasm, some led from above and some from below, some riotous and some orderly, some accompanied by wholesale transformation and some ultimately reversed. Most shared a common dramaturgy: the exposure of Catholic fraud and the disabusing of the deceived.Footnote 17

Not every relic turned out to be so picturesque a fraud, but the Traité is a systematic textual replication of that iconoclastic gesture. A passage on the Titulus—the inscription the Gospels record as displayed at the Crucifixion, mocking Christ as King of the Jews—is representative.Footnote 18 When, where, and how was it found?

Someone will say to me that the church historian Socrates [Scholasticus (ca. 380–ca. 439)] records it.Footnote 19 I confess it. But he says nothing at all of what became of it. So this testimony is not worth much. Furthermore, this was something written in haste and on the spot, after Jesus Christ was crucified. Therefore, to display a tablet elaborately crafted, as though to be kept for display, has no purpose. Thus, even were there only one, we could regard it as a fake and a fiction. But when the city of Toulouse boasts of having it, and the people of Rome contradict them, displaying it in the church of Santa Croce, each refutes the other. Let them battle it out as much as they like. In the end, both parties will be convicted of lying as soon as one chooses to examine the thing itself.Footnote 20

As in the citation of De opere monachorum, the analysis is historical and materialist: Calvin is concerned with the Titulus as object, not idol. Within this passage, and the Traité as a whole, three overlapping canons for examining relics can be identified: these I have termed the critique from provenance, the critique from historicity, and the critique from multiplicity. All three are rooted in the relic as “strictly material object” and in the established tools of humanist historiography.

According to Fabre and Wilmart, provenance constitutes the “central issue” of the Traité, developed along spatial (transportation) and temporal (conservation) axes.Footnote 21 How did the relic survive as long as it has, and how did it get from its point of origin to its point of display? Or, more simply, is it credible that the relic exists when and where it does? Would Pontius Pilate have allowed someone to make off with the costly robe in which Christ was clothed? Who was so obliging as to give the Christians the sword with which John the Baptist was decapitated?Footnote 22

Calvin thus inverts the usual privileging of antiquity; age becomes a liability: the older the relic, the less credible.Footnote 23 Where a church might take pride in possessing a relic from distant lands, in the Traité such a provenance is inherently suspect.Footnote 24 How indeed had the tablecloth from the Last Supper wound up in Italy and/or Germany?Footnote 25 The Traité forces each object to bear the full weight of late antique and medieval history: how could the true cross have been discovered by Saint Helena (ca. 255–ca. 330) when Jerusalem was sacked and razed to the ground fifty years after Christ's death?Footnote 26 Natural, as well as historical, processes—principally, the decay of organic matter—also threaten provenance: the relic of a fish from Christ's post-resurrection meal at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21) must have been exceedingly well seasoned to have lasted so long.Footnote 27 Of course, Calvin was being deliberately obtuse, as the miracle consisted precisely in the fish's survival, but the effect is to call into question the great dance of objects, the centuries-old system of exchanges, discoveries, gifts, and thefts, that constituted the cult of relics and that had been accelerating as late medieval Catholics amassed ever-larger collections.Footnote 28 As every cataloguer knows, provenance is built on the back of attestation, and Calvin's “constant refrain” is the lack of scriptural, patristic, and historical warrants.Footnote 29 Though Exodus 16 states that the Israelites preserved a jar of manna in commemoration of the miracle, “of the leftovers remaining from the five loaves, the Gospel says nothing about them being kept for such a purpose, and there is no ancient history that speaks of them, nor any Doctor of the Church.”Footnote 30

The historical record was still more central to the critique from historicity, whose target is the anachronistic relic, the object that does not match the time and place whence it claims to come. In the words of Carlo Ginzburg, “the knowledgeable use of context causes the anachronism, written in invisible ink, to emerge.”Footnote 31 Calvin debunks the robes of Christ displayed at Argenteuil and Trier because they are “in the fashion of a folded chasuble,” rather than the Greek chiton that would have been worn in first-century Jerusalem.Footnote 32 Equally problematic is the chasuble of Saint Peter at Rome: “the custom had not yet come to playing dress-up, for they mounted no such farces in the Church as we have now.”Footnote 33 The critique recoils on the accumulation of relics itself, for “it was not the custom to gather up breeches and slippers in this fashion in order to make relics.”Footnote 34 Neither the Gospels nor the best texts of Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 340) attest to such behavior. If the early Christians collected the bones of the martyrs, Calvin explains, it was to save the remains from desecration and to give them an honorable burial.Footnote 35 Providing a terminus post quem for the cult of relics shattered any aura of timelessness, whether in the saint's ability to intervene posthumously or in the access their remains might offer to the history of the church.Footnote 36

Finally, Calvin's third and favorite avenue of attack is the critique from multiplicity, the juxtaposition of multiple churches’ competing claims to possess a single item. Calvin counts some fourteen nails supposedly from the Crucifixion. The head of John the Baptist can be seen, in whole or in part, at Amiens, Saint-Jean d'Angély, Malta, Nogent-le-Rotrou, Saint-Jean-de-Mauriene, Besançon, Rome, Paris, Saint-Flour, Oviedo, Noyon, and Rome, once more for good measure.Footnote 37 However cunning a polemicist Calvin was, as historical criticism this is all thoroughly traditional. Medieval churchmen had noted with dismay the proliferation of the Baptist's heads, while the oddities of the cult of relics had been fodder for generations of satirists.Footnote 38 Methodologically, there is nothing in the Traité's historical critiques that cannot be found in Polydore Virgil (ca. 1470–1555) or Leon Battista Alberti (1404–72).Footnote 39 But that is precisely the point: Calvin is thinking about relics like a good Renaissance humanist.


A good humanist Calvin certainly was, as at least a century of scholarship has established (though not without dissent).Footnote 40 Educated at Paris, Orléans, and Bourges, he studied under luminaries of sixteenth-century letters like Mathurin Cordier (ca. 1479–1564) and Andrea Alciati (1492–1550).Footnote 41 He made his print debut with a commentary on Seneca the Younger's (ca. 4 BCE–65 CE) De clementia (On mercy, ca. 55 CE)—unimpeachably humanist fare—and his last major institutional achievement was the 1559 foundation of the Genevan Academy, whose curriculum reflected the cutting edge of sixteenth-century pedagogy.Footnote 42 In between, he penned the Traité, only recently accorded the status of a “work of erudition,” but thoroughly humanist in its genesis, its content, and its methods.Footnote 43

The sine qua non for composing the Traité was an adequate store of relics, the assembling of which Fabre and Wilmart have compellingly reconstructed. In a sweeping survey of early modern sources of information on relics, they posit that Calvin relied upon a mix of print and manuscript texts, as well as his own experiences, those of his entourage, and general knowledge.Footnote 44 This is confirmed by a comment of Nicolas des Gallars (ca. 1520–81), Calvin's amanuensis, that the Traité was not “the labor of a single man. . . . Truly, our Calvin could not find out everything. He recorded as many as he was able to see, and those he knew of from trustworthy evidence.”Footnote 45

The textual sources would have included inventories of collections, “the general catalogue[s] of the relics of a city and of the indulgences appointed for its churches,” “the letters of indulgences for a specific church,” and tips gathered from correspondents.Footnote 46 It is difficult to be more exact, but Calvin's awareness of obscure Roman churches and yet-obscurer Roman relics indicates the use of at least one of the dozens of pilgrim's guides to the Eternal City; the same can almost certainly be said of a printed letter of indulgence for the Cathedral of San Salvador, in Oviedo. On the other hand, various errors, Calvin's usual working methods, and the sale of his library in the early 1540s imply considerable reliance on memory.Footnote 47

As for experience, Fabre and Wilmart try to match the pattern of the relics mentioned to the known itineraries of Calvin and his associates. The most suggestive result concerns Poitiers, where Calvin lived for some time in the 1530s: “The schema looks like a by-the-book [en règle] tour of the city's institutions . . . of the ten Poitevin relics cited, only three are not precisely located. The other seven are found in seven different churches.” As there is no trace of an available guide to Poitiers's relics, Fabre and Wilmart conclude that “therefore we ought to see this catalogue as the product of lived experience, as a direct witness by Calvin to what he had been able to see in Poitiers.”Footnote 48 Of course, it is conceivable that such a guide simply has not survived, but it is not hard to imagine the young Calvin wandering the city, observing Catholic piety with morbid fascination.Footnote 49

Calvin does not hide the personal experiences that undergird the Traité, and the text includes two explicitly autobiographical moments (quite rare in the Reformer's corpus). He recalls festivals in the Noyon of his boyhood, including the pious ladies who lit candles in front of the image of Saint Stephen as well as the images of his persecutors, for Saint Michael as well as for the devil falling before his sword.Footnote 50 More startlingly, Calvin confesses his own idolatrous past: enumerating the relics of Saint Anne, he reveals, “I kissed a piece [of her relics] in the abbey of Ourscamp near Noyon.”Footnote 51 Fabre and Wilmart conclude that, “more than the reflection of notes taken while reading, the Traité des reliques appears to be the fruit of a collective experience: that of a universal [catholique] culture of relics.”Footnote 52

I have only admiration for this bibliographic detective work, but I would question whether “notes taken while reading” necessarily stand in opposition to “collective experience.” To the contrary, note-taking, commonplacing, and other textual strategies were fundamental to the “collective experience” of early modern European thinkers, not least with regard to their travels and their conversations, and to the texts they produced, especially sacred histories.Footnote 53 The acts of hearing of a relic from a friend's recollections, learning of it from a childhood journey, and reading about it in a printed pamphlet were not obviously distinct. Here, as in the larger picture of an intellectually omnivorous Calvin, is a man absolutely typical of the learned culture of his time—the most materially inclined antiquarians not excepted.Footnote 54

To take a single, well-studied example, Calvin's Zurich contemporary Conrad Gessner (1516–65) worked by cannibalizing “all kinds of sources: books already in print, manuscripts never printed before, his own observations, letters from correspondents far and near, people he knew well, and scholars whom he never met,” in addition to paratexts like tables of contents and booksellers’ catalogues.Footnote 55 Crucially, “there is apparently little distinction to be made between Gessner the author and Gessner the reader. For both, scissors ever at the ready, books were annotated, indexed, summarized, copied, cut up, and re-arranged.” Calvin, too, “was at once author and reader,” constantly revising the Institutes of the Christian Religion (first ed. 1536) in light of his studies, his critics, and the issues of the day.Footnote 56

Both Calvin the reader and Calvin the author were fascinated by history. All his life, he devoured the writings of historians ancient and modern, attaining a sophisticated knowledge of the past that informed his theological work. His biblical commentaries, for example, play out within a richly contoured vision of the Holy Land and strive mightily to resolve contradictions among historical and scriptural witnesses.Footnote 57 Even the Institutes makes frequent detours through historical argument, as when Calvin adduces the example of Nectarios of Constantinople (d. 397) against auricular confession, or quibbles over the liturgical evolution of confirmation.Footnote 58 As Kirk Essary has shown, Calvin was “an able and discerning critic” of history, and if he subordinated scholarly rigor to doctrinal considerations, he never did so blindly or uncritically. He “never reverted to the argument that the biblical authority simply trumps the non-biblical one,” at least with authors of some weight; quite the reverse: extrabiblical sources could push him toward more convoluted interpretations of scripture.Footnote 59 It should come as no surprise, then, that Calvin's handling of his relic collection reflected the best practices of humanist historiography.

To prosecute a critique of relics as material objects in history, Calvin immersed himself in ancient texts, “so as to give his demonstration a solid foundation according to humanist standards.”Footnote 60 He could thus weigh the relics’ claims against the combined witnesses of the Bible and an array of church fathers and ecclesiastical historians (fig. 1). Here Calvin rides the impetus of what has been called the “patristic Renaissance” of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, an avalanche of new editions of early Christian literature, including each of the texts cited in the Traité.Footnote 61

Figure 1. Handlist of patristic and historical sources for the Traité. Works marked with an asterisk are conjectures by Backus, Millet, and the author, respectively. Image created by the author.

These erudite editions shared bookshelves with a far larger universe of compilations, abridgements, printed commonplace books, and other reference works that attempted to manage early modern “information overload.”Footnote 62 Calvin was no less willing to make use of secondhand erudition (or to disguise that expedient) than his contemporaries. In citing Eusebius of Caesarea's Historia ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical history, 324–35), for example, he made use of Rufinus of Aquileia's (ca. 345–411) Latin translation, Haymo of Halberstadt's (d. 853) Epitome, and Jerome's (ca. 345–420) adaptation of the Chronicon (Chronicle, ca. 325), yet his citations still read “Eusebius.”Footnote 63 Two such slippages occur in the Traité: once when Calvin is actually using Rufinus and again when he attributes to Eusebius the story of the Mandylion—the portrait of himself that Christ legendarily sent to King Abgar of Edessa—though this episode was already well established as a later addition (or perhaps a mistake).Footnote 64 More forthrightly, when he cites Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 393–ca. 460), a marginal annotation directs readers to the Historiae ecclesiasticae tripartitae epitome (Epitome of the tripartite ecclesiastical history, ca. 510), an abridged Latin collation of Theodoret, Socrates Scholasticus, and Sozomen (ca. 400–ca. 450).Footnote 65 The twin phenomena of new, deluxe scholarly editions and textual shortcuts were constitutive of early modern learned culture and of the Traité's historical panorama.

That panorama was stocked with tangible objects: bones and brains, chairs and chasubles. These Calvin scrutinizes for their material credibility, for their “archaeological” verisimilitude, as Marie Barral-Baron incisively terms it.Footnote 66 In early modern parlance, Calvin adopts the methods of the antiquarian here. The antiquarians were rewriting the rules of historiography: “They wrote from material as well as textual evidence. They abandoned the narration of battles and treaties for the reconstruction of rituals and customs.”Footnote 67 One of the pioneers of this trend had been the Italian polymath Lorenzo Valla (ca. 1406–57), whose De Falso Credita et Ementita Constantini Donatione Declamatio (On the donation of Constantine, 1439–40) also exposed some of the material absurdities fêted in Renaissance Rome. For instance, Valla subjects the manuscript vaunted at San Paolo fuori le Mura—“like the remains of saints”—as Jerome's autograph copy of the Vulgate Bible to a critique strikingly like the one Calvin applies to the Titulus. For one thing, “there is considerable painted cloth and gold, as Virgil saysFootnote 68—something which would rather suggest that it was not written by the hand of Jerome.” More damningly, Valla had inspected the document and found the scribe's signature: “it had been written by order of a king, Robert, I think, in the handwriting of an inexperienced person.”Footnote 69

Along with attending to the physical stuff of history, antiquarians innovated by reconstructing customs and forms of life of earlier eras. Calvin, for instance, explicates marriage and burial practices “in the manner of the Jews” to expose the error in giving the Virgin Mary a wedding ring (“because now it is the custom”) or Jesus a full-body shroud.Footnote 70 Indeed, the Traité redeployed long-standing points of dispute within antiquarian discourse. To ridicule the supposed table from the Last Supper at St. John Lateran on the grounds that “the form of tables was then quite different from what it is now . . . they reclined, rather than sitting, at meals,” was to join a debate that had been running among scholars, artists, and clergymen for nearly a century.Footnote 71

Calvin owed much to Valla, whom he elsewhere calls “a learned and keen-witted man,” and the Reformer's formative years coincided with the rediscovery of the Italian's declamatio after its 1518 reprinting by Ulrich von Hutten (1488–1523).Footnote 72 When Calvin demands to know why the evangelists never mentioned Veronica, or how to reconcile relics of John the Baptist with historians who maintained that his body was burned,Footnote 73 he was following Valla's lead. The declamatio catalogues such awkward gaps both in the existing record (“Livy, an earlier and more serious author, knows neither of these stories”) and in the record that ought to exist (“I should have expected you to show gold seals, marble inscriptions, a thousand authors”).Footnote 74 When Calvin savages those who retrojected the garb of early modern deacons onto Saint Laurence (d. 258),Footnote 75 he is borrowing from Valla's merciless examination of the Donation. Imperial diadems, the Italian sniffs, were made of cloth or silk. But “this forger of ours cannot conceive that what kings now normally supplement with a gold band and gems was made of anything other than gold.”Footnote 76 And when Calvin builds the Traité around the scrutiny of physical objects, he reprises Valla's careful attention to material evidence: coins, manuscripts, buildings, inscriptions, tools.

Above all, the two men share a certain rationalism, an insistence that “the nature of things [rerum natura]” is governed by logical rules. Constantine (r. 306–37) cannot refer to Constantinople before he has founded the city;Footnote 77 Mary Magdalene cannot have more than one body.Footnote 78 Just as Calvin demands a world in which fish rots with time, so Valla demands one where leprosy develops as medical knowledge says it should. The relic must exist within time, and it must follow time's rules.

To show that Calvin went about collecting fake relics in a thoroughly humanist fashion does not explain why he did so in the first place. That this should need explaining is perhaps not immediately obvious, but a brief theological excursus reveals why this is problematic.


Theologically speaking, Calvin's thesis—“the better part of the relics displayed in every place are false”—is neither especially useful to the Protestant nor especially threatening to the Catholic. If, as Fabre and Wilmart claim, the “question centrale” of the Traité is Calvin's demand of each relic, “Whence come you?,” the inquiry will remain theologically impotent.Footnote 79 For the Reformed Protestant, authenticity is irrelevant: even a relic of flawless provenance, uncontested singularity, and unexceptionable historical consistency remains a material object. To revere such a thing is to divert to the created the honor due to the Creator—in short, idolatry: “Honor cannot be rendered unto the creature in worship [religionis causa] without unworthily and sacrilegiously appropriating it from God.”Footnote 80 At one point, Calvin comments, “it would have been enough to abuse a body through idolatry without making one devil into two or three.”Footnote 81 Why go further? The standard Protestant position was simply to cleave doggedly to the scriptural prohibitions on idols.Footnote 82 To ask the relic, “Whence come you?” is to allow that the answer matters—and to leave open the possibility of a correct answer (the genuine article).

On the other hand, the iconoclast's gleeful exposé of the idol's made-ness is considerably less impressive to the idolater. The problem of fake relics was, as Calvin suggests, as old as the cult itself, and was lamentable but hardly calamitous. To acknowledge the abuses was not to indict reverence for the saints or their relics.Footnote 83 In his reply to the Traité, the Belgian Carmelite Nikolaas Blanckaert (d. 1555) frankly admits, “Some fraudulent and cunning merchants are accustomed to adulterate their wares, offering the false for the true, the contrived for the pure, and the spurious for the genuine; that the shameless hierophants of our age do this is too obvious to be denied.” But, he continues, should “the relics of the saints be neglected on that account, their graves disrespected, their memories consigned to oblivion, their veneration halted, all to deal with this evil?”Footnote 84 Another Catholic critic, Johann Cochlaeus (1479–1552), actually cites Martin Luther (1483–1546) against Calvin, to the effect that “the abuse does not impugn [tollit] the substance.”Footnote 85 And since true devotion “is directed toward Christ through the relic, and not toward the saint,” “the question of the authenticity of the relics does not arise.”Footnote 86 The involuntary, unwitting sin of revering a false relic, Cochlaeus reasons, would not really be a sin at all. “Truly, God regards the heart, and judges the intention.”Footnote 87

Doubts over the identity of this or that relic were endemic, with few ever enjoying “unbroken veneration from the time of the saint's death.”Footnote 88 Authenticity could be settled with admirable straightforwardness: “If the relics worked—that is, if they were channels for supernatural intervention—then they were genuine. If they did not, they were not authentic, regardless of the strength of external evidence.”Footnote 89 Cochlaeus, for one, was untroubled by the enigma of how Saint James's remains ended up in Compostela, since “the divine majesty has proven and shown by miracles and benefits, better than any books or pages, that his body is truly there.”Footnote 90

Moreover, Calvin has undersold the sophistication of his opponents’ faith. He dismisses the careful Catholic distinction between latria, worship due only to God, and dulia, reverence due to the saints.Footnote 91 There were cogent Catholic responses to his assaults on individual relics. Duplicate relics were miracles: “God multiplied these objects as He wished, for the benefit of humankind.”Footnote 92 So was their survival, each vicissitude only further confirming the power of providence. The critique from historicity was answered by the invocation of church tradition or ecclesiastical history. Catholic authorities had long held that the chasubles Calvin so mocked, for instance, were derived from the vestments of ancient Israelite priests.Footnote 93 Anachronisms could also be attributed to repairs, modifications, or adornments—while the relic was original, the reliquary or other external trappings did not need to make such a claim.Footnote 94 The work of remaking and restoring disrupted linear chronologies: Paulinus of Nola describes such reliquaries as “at once ancient and new, yet neither new nor ancient, / at once different and the same,” a paradox cherished by the devout.Footnote 95

Calvin's outrage that “les simples”—a phrase connoting purity, sincerity, honesty, straightforwardness, and virtue, as well as a lack of learning—had been deceived by the papists deliberately mischaracterizes Catholic worship.Footnote 96 He leaves no room for what Robert A. Orsi calls “devotional double-mindedness” vis-à-vis holy matter. Pilgrims come to New York City's Our Lady of Lourdes Grotto believing that “in some way these waters are the waters of Lourdes,” even as they know perfectly well that “these waters come through the pipes of the city's reservoir”: “the water is both ordinary and extraordinary; it is identical and not to the water at Lourdes.”Footnote 97 The same dynamics inflect early modern devotional causes célèbres like the Rood of Grace. In 1538, Henrician officials tasked with the dissolution of the Kentish monastery Boxley Abbey claimed to have discovered that the Cistercian house's celebrated crucifix, famous for its moving eyes, contained “certen Ingynes & old wyer wyth olde Roton stykkes in the backe . . . that dyd cause the eyes of the same to move & stere in the head therof lyke unto a lyvelye thyng.” The Protestants brandished the Rood as evidence of “the false, crafty & suttel handelyng” of the papists and the gullibility of their addled flocks.Footnote 98 Yet Leanne Groeneveld shows that the credulity of the pious was a polemical construction: the devout “would have been well aware that the Rood of Boxley's movements were effected by internal devices and an external operator.”Footnote 99 That awareness in no way precluded real devotion; the automaton could be at once machine and miracle.

Such paradoxes, in the language of Catholic spirituality, are mysteries. Not only is a mystery impossible to explain in rational terms, but an insistence on doing becomes impious, or at least wrongheaded.Footnote 100 And while some Catholics were troubled by the inconsistencies in the cult of relics, iconophile theology was more than equal to the challenge.Footnote 101 The debunking of 327 individual relics—or three thousand, for that matter—left the underlying theological edifice unscathed. The key word, however, is individual. Thus the strenuous efforts of Protestants, with varying degrees of success, “to conflate specific instances of fraud with a more general critique of traditional religion.”Footnote 102 Calvin's madcap enumeration becomes comprehensible—and effective—when the level of analysis shifts from particular relics to the collective. Reckoning with the Traité as a cumulative rhetorical effect demands rethinking the influence of Calvin's most immediate model: Erasmus.


“All his life,” avers William Bouwsma, “Calvin inhabited the Erasmian world of thought and breathed its spiritual atmosphere.”Footnote 103 This debt manifested variously in Calvin's scholarly methods, pedagogical principles, critical insights, philosophical concepts, and stylistic flourishes.Footnote 104 In 1543, Erasmus was unquestionably Europe's foremost critic of the cult of relics.Footnote 105 His Colloquia (Colloquies, 1518), notably “Naufragium” and “Peregrinatio religionis ergo,” lampooned the grossness of popular piety: letters dictated by the Virgin, suppliants who forgot about Christ in their frantic pleas to the saints, used handkerchiefs revered as relics. On a loftier plane, the Enchiridion Militis Christiani (Handbook of a Christian knight, 1503) warned that materiality was eclipsing true pietas, an Erasmian keyword that fused sound doctrine, communal and personal devotion, and lived morality:Footnote 106 “You revere the saints; your joy is in touching their relics. But you spurn the best of what they left behind, the perfect example of a pure life. . . . You gaze in astonishment at the tunic or sweat-cloth they would have be Christ's, and you read Christ's revelations drowsily. You think it the greatest of all things to possess some fragment of the cross in your house. Yet this is nothing compared to carrying the mystery of the cross in your heart.”Footnote 107

The traditional genealogy from the Traité to Erasmus has understandably run through the Colloquia, the Enchiridion, and the Modus Orandi Deum (On praying to God, 1524); these texts not only mock the excesses of popular piety, but they share with the Traité a tone Barral-Baron aptly calls “the ironic smile.”Footnote 108 There are also direct borrowings from Erasmus in the Traité—notably, several jokes lifted from the Colloquia. Of fragments of the true cross, the Reformer quips, “If one were to gather up all of them that could be found, it would be the freight for a mighty big boat.”Footnote 109 Here is Erasmus, three decades earlier: “They allege the same of the Lord's cross, which is displayed in so many places, privately and publicly, that if all the fragments were gathered up they'd seem the full freight for a ship.”Footnote 110 Quite rightly, then, the Traité has become a key case study for the “filiation between the humanist and the Reformer.”Footnote 111

Quite rightly, but not so straightforwardly. Despite the sense among some Catholics that Erasmus had betrayed them, compared to Calvin his critiques are a prescription for considered reform, rather than a call to full-throated Reformation.Footnote 112 For one thing, there is the obvious but essential fact that the Traité is in French. Where Erasmus “always communicates for a cultured, select, and Latinate elite,” Calvin addresses himself “to the largest possible public,” here anyone who can understand French.Footnote 113 Francophone territories were the focus of Calvin's polemical efforts in this period (when first mooting an inventory of relics, he suggests “ten or twelve cities, such as Paris, Toulouse, Rheims, and Poitiers”).Footnote 114 In light of Erasmus's paralyzing fear of popular unrest, so much of which had marked the early Reformation, the linguistic difference is not insignificant.Footnote 115 Calvin's Catholic interlocutors, for their part, viewed the choice of French as a stratagem to “more easily infect the souls of the unlearned, simple, and foolish with his poison.”Footnote 116

As for the critique itself, in assessing Erasmus's agenda it is worth keeping in mind Cochlaeus's and Blanckaert's distinction between substance and abuse. Erasmian pietas had a reformist bent, as the humanist marshaled his learning to evaluate the state of the church and to imagine a better alternative.Footnote 117 He regarded the cult of relics as a lightning rod for superstition, exploitation, and greed. Far too many pagan practices had survived under the fig leaf of a saint; far too many absurdities were embraced in the name of devotion. It appalled Erasmus to see Christian pilgrims genuflect before a saint's filthy linens, or to hear them haggling with divine patrons (this many votive candles for so much assistance).Footnote 118 Still worse is the mercenary behavior of those who maintain the cult: at every shrine, the protagonist of “Peregrinatio” is hounded by custodians and guides, each expecting a show of pious generosity. After spending a small fortune in this fashion, he expresses his gratitude at having eluded certain notorious bandits; readers duller than Calvin would have gotten the joke.Footnote 119

All of which is to say that Erasmus's target is abuse rather than substance, the exception rather than the rule: the obscene accumulation of wealth, the brazen exploitation, the patent superstition.Footnote 120 But he refused to extrapolate from the abolition of scandals, however egregious or pervasive, to the abolition of popular piety itself. When it came to images, for instance, he acknowledges that their use and abuse had become “infinite [immensum]”: “Yet this is not a reason for casting all images out of the churches, but for teaching the people how they may rightly be used.”Footnote 121 As for the saints, Erasmus believed that a well-regulated cult could offer a spur to virtue: “if you delight in rendering worship to Christ through the saints, strive to imitate Christ through the saints, and in honor of each one endeavor to improve a particular vice or to embrace a particular virtue.” So long as outward displays were matched by interior devotion, Erasmus had no complaint.Footnote 122 The wealth the shrines had accrued over the years could, perhaps, be given to the poor.Footnote 123

Calvin flatly denied that the physics of worship, as it were, permitted the upward movement from image or relic to God. Worship channeled through even the noblest matter will inevitably be corrupted through idolatry, which tends ever downward toward more and more debased objects.Footnote 124 The error intrinsic to relic piety could only end in worshippers revering “the bones of some bandit or thief, or even of an ass, or a dog, or a horse” as the remains of a martyr, or “the trinkets of some whore” as the jewelry of the Virgin.Footnote 125 Here Calvin differed from Luther, for whom the problem was also abuse; a good Lutheran, looking at a good Lutheran image, could “see through the image to its didactic charge.”Footnote 126 Calvin, by contrast, spoke of worshipers as “stunned” by matter, unable to transcend “looking at the bare sign.”Footnote 127

In comparison to the Colloquia, the Traité ranges far wider, gathering famous and obscure relics alike. Furthermore, Calvin all but ignores the excesses and enormities, the elaborate ecclesiastical settings, the liturgical apparatus surrounding the relics. What abounds is not gold or silver, indulgences or services, but the relics themselves—for all its attention to fraud, the Traité attacks the cult, not its abuses.Footnote 128 This Erasmus never did, though he had all the same historical and philological tools. Despite the enthusiasm of contemporary Reformers and radicals, scholarship has reaffirmed the steadfastly orthodox, traditionalist character of his religious thought.Footnote 129 On the subject of relics, as Erasmus grew more and more uneasy at what Luther had set into motion, he emphatically endorsed the cult, at the cost of contradicting his younger self.Footnote 130

In this light, I want to complicate the accepted line of descent from Erasmus to the Traité, suggesting that the influence of the Colloquia and the spiritual writings is mediated through the humanist's rhetorical theory, an influence measured in style rather than content. For it was in his attention to and reliance upon rhetoric that Calvin showed himself most thoroughly as a child of the Renaissance and of Erasmus.Footnote 131

I am thinking specifically of copia. No better description of copia can be offered than the one penned by Erasmus himself, opening his 1512 treatise De Duplici Copia Verborum ac Rerum Commentarii Duo (Two commentaries on the double abundance of words and things): “There is nothing more admirable or more magnificent than oratory overflowing like a river of gold with a rich abundance of arguments and of words.”Footnote 132 Famously, De Copia offers a virtuoso practical demonstration, as Erasmus lists 147 ways to say, “Your letter delighted me immensely [Tuae me literae magnopere delectarunt]” followed by two hundred ways to say, “As long as I live, I shall always remember you [Semper dum vivam, tui meminero].”Footnote 133 With his own language flowing in such extravagant torrents, Erasmus advises his readers on how to speak and write copiously: how to assemble a sufficient store of words, examples, arguments, and references; how to organize them to good effect; how to vary one's language so as to delight, move, and persuade. Copia of subject matter—relics, perhaps—was to be assembled by amassing exempla, under which heading Erasmus grouped “stories, fables, proverbs, opinions, parallels or comparisons, similitudes, analogies, and anything else of the same sort.”Footnote 134

De Copia was an international best seller and a standard textbook of humanist pedagogy.Footnote 135 R. R. Bolgar went so far as to call it “a clue to the whole of Humanism.”Footnote 136 Though the defining trait of Calvin's prose style was clarity, even simplicity, he could be abundant whenever rhetorical or homiletic exigencies demanded.Footnote 137 It should be noted that copiousness is not the same as prolixity: copia could be, though in practice rarely was, concise.Footnote 138 Critics like Cochlaeus savaged Calvin's verbosity: the Catholic controversialist sniped, “It is written in Proverbs [10:19], ‘In a multitude of words, sin is not lacking.’ And none of the heretics of our time more abounds in verbiage than John Calvin, a fugitive and exile from France, as proven by his books, which he floods with a ceaseless deluge of words, and scatters through the world with impious loquacity.”Footnote 139

The Traité, an enormous catalogue of words describing an overabundance of things, is a set-piece display of Erasmian copia. It is the function of such copia “to conceptually and materially conflate words and things”: here it re-creates the infinitude of the cult of relics.Footnote 140 As Calvin rattles off the relics of the apostles, for instance, the reader is crowded by names, places, and bodies all at once: “Everyone knows that the city of Toulouse thinks it has six of them—namely, Saint James the Greater, Saint Andrew, Saint James the Less, Saint Philip, Saint Simon, and Saint Jude. At Padua is the body of Saint Matthias, at Salerno the body of Saint Matthew. At Ortona that of Saint Thomas. In the Kingdom of Naples that of Saint Bartholomew. Now let us note those who have two bodies, or three. Saint Andrew has a second body at Amalfi; Saint Philip and Saint James the Less each [have] another at Rome, at Santi Apostoli. Saint Simon and Saint Jude also at Rome, in the church of Saint Peter. Saint Bartholomew at Rome in his church.”Footnote 141 And these are only the whole bodies—a further litany of smaller pieces follows. Note the gradual increase in asyndeton and the fragments instead of sentences, as the bodies shift from textual representations to brute things that intrude upon language.

In particular, Calvin embraces Erasmus's method of amplificatio, which “proceeds by a certain number of steps ‘not only to the extreme, but sometimes beyond the extreme in a fashion.’”Footnote 142 The Traité's amplificatio climaxes with the heads of John the Baptist:

Those of Amiens glory in having the face, and in the mask that they display there is the mark of a blow from a knife, which they say Herodias gave him. But those at Saint-Jean-d'Angély contradict them, and show the same fragment. As for the rest of the head, the top, from the front to the back, was at Rhodes and is now at Malta, I believe. At least the Commanders claimed that the Turk yielded it to them. The rear part is at Saint-Jean[-Baptiste] de Nemours. The brain is at Nogent-le-Rotrou. Despite this, those at Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne do not lack a portion of the head; his jaw has not failed to be at Besançon at Saint-Jean-le-Grand. There is another piece at Saint-Jean de Latran in Paris and a bit of his ear at Saint-Flour in Auvergne. At San Salvador in Spain the brow and his hair. There is also a piece at Noyon, where it is displayed most authoritatively. There is likewise a piece at Lucca; I know not in what corner. And is all this the end of it? Fly over to Rome, and at the monastery of San Silvestro, you shall hear it said, “Behold the head of Saint John the Baptist.”Footnote 143

De Copia further recommends many of the tools Calvin deployed for the Traité, among them commonplacing and an attention to “what in spoken usage changes with the times” (read custom), properly set in a historical context.Footnote 144 Calvin also seems to have deliberately subverted some of Erasmus's precepts, notably those concerning decorum. De Copia cautioned against the use of expressions that were “sordidus” (“those which will seem too low for the dignity of the matter”) or “obscoena,” which “ought to be utterly alien to the speech of Christians.”Footnote 145 To speak of a “swarm [fourmillere]” of holy relics, to describe saints’ bodies as “filth [ordure],” if not outright indecent, was to debase “the dignity of the matter.”Footnote 146

Still more abundant than the relics of the Traité are the arguments against them; Erasmus insisted on nothing so much as variety, and Calvin rarely contented himself with one argument when many would do. Thus he piles up problems of survival, anachronism, and attestation pell-mell to debunk the table from the Last Supper: “Note that Jesus Christ had the Last Supper in a hired room. On leaving it, he left the table behind: we nowhere read that it was ever recovered by the apostles. Some time later, Jerusalem was destroyed, as we have said. How plausible is it that it should be found seven or eight hundred years later? What is more, the form of tables was then quite different from what it is now. For they reclined, rather than sitting, at meals, as the Gospel expressly states.”Footnote 147

Besides reaffirming the humanist character of the Traité, recognizing the text as a piece of copia addresses the theological impotence of debunking, because it positions the entire ensemble, not individual items, at the core of the critique. Copia dwells not in the particular examples but in their collective action, in the production of a rhetorical and forensic effect.Footnote 148 As Erasmus puts it, copia “makes it so that the entire oration is densely and closely packed and secured by arguments on every side. Even if you do not marshal them and lead them out, as it were, in battle array, they shall fight for themselves and shall aid the cause in no small degree.”Footnote 149 Umberto Eco writes of the Litanies of the Blessed Virgin, enumerations of Mary's myriad “properties, attributes and titles,” “They must have been recited like a mantra . . . it does not matter so much whether the virgo is potens or clemens . . . what matters is being seized by the dizzying sound of the lists.”Footnote 150 The sensory experience of reading or listening to the Traité may have accomplished not a little of Calvin's work, affectively conveying the sheer vastness of the cult of relics and the corresponding magnitude of its fraudulence. Listen to the drumbeat of additions in Calvin's list of the forefingers of John the Baptist: “At Besançon in the church of Saint-Jean le Grand there is one of them. At Toulouse another. At Lyon another. At Bourges another. At Florence another. At Saint-Jean-des-Aventures near Mâcon another.”Footnote 151

Moreover, the Traité's cumulative effect as copia changes the status of the individual relics mentioned, as the technique transforms its constituent parts. Analyzing a passage from Cicero (106–43 BCE),Footnote 152 Erasmus explains that each word and each sentence is strengthened by what came before: “Here each word grows stronger in turn. . . . If one were to divide up and linger on individual stages, it would certainly augment the copia of the oratory, but it would amplify less effectively.”Footnote 153 Each of the Baptist's heads and fingers gains heft by juxtaposition with all the others. Compilation generates new harmonies and dissonances among its constituent parts; scale itself is transformative, for a word, a thought, a fact comes to mean something different when it is placed into juxtaposition with dozens, hundreds, or thousands of others, a phenomenon Calvin discussed in his biblical exegesis.Footnote 154

Here, perhaps, Calvin understood copia better than Erasmus. The irenic Dutchman chose the material for his demonstration of copia deliberately: his variations on “Your letter delighted me immensely” and “As long as I live, I shall always remember you” sought to impress upon his readers “the central importance of friendship among scholars.” Now, so long as they were parceled out into different missives to different correspondents, his lists were indeed “the tools to maintain such relationships at long distance.”Footnote 155 But what Calvin realized was that if the variations are all brought together, each is hollowed out into a cheap formula. Here the elegantly varied copia of the Colloquia gives way to the brute accumulation of Calvin's contemporary and fellow (rebellious) Erasmian François Rabelais (d. 1553). By the end of the catalogue of the Library of Saint Victor in Gargantua and Pantagruel 2.7—“Jumblings of Scotus. The Winged-Rat of the Cardinals. On the Holding Back of Spurs, in Eleven Decades, by Master Alberic of Rosata. By the same, On the Fortification of Hairs, in Three Books. Nine Enneads on the Success of Exhausting Things by Bishop Boudarin, with Papal Privilege for Three Years and Afterwards not”—the very notion of a book, any book, has become laughable.Footnote 156 As Christopher D. Johnson notes, “hyperbolic amplification proves a means of exhausting or mocking received ideas.”Footnote 157 Bringing together 327 relics strips each one of its singularity; “profusion itself vilifies images by brutely exposing them as so many things.”Footnote 158


Framing the Traité as an inventory is Calvin's foremost rhetorical coup, for it permits the disavowal of the use of rhetoric itself: “No form of writing appears more matter-of-fact, unrhetorical, and innocent than the list.”Footnote 159 Ostentatiously confining himself to the relics “les plus certaines” and “les plus authentiques,”Footnote 160 Calvin positions his critiques as truths not made but recognized, “discovered rather than invented.”Footnote 161 It is the relics themselves that demand their own rejection, by the pure force of truth. The Traité's eminently rhetorical assemblage, then, masquerades as what Eco calls a “practical list,” one with “a purely referential function.” Such lists “refer to objects in the outside world and have the purely practical purpose of naming and listing them.”Footnote 162 Calvin thus eschews the overt preposterousness of a Rabelais, or even a Luther. Compare the matter-of-factness of the Traité with Luther's brief salvo against relics, Neue Zeitung vom Rhein (Fresh news from the Rhine, 1542). The German Reformer listed the treasures Albert of Brandenburg (1490–1545), archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, had recently acquired:

  1. 1. A fair piece of the left horn of Moses.

  2. 2. Three flames from Moses's bush on Mount Sinai.

  3. 3. Two feathers and an egg of the Holy Spirit.

  4. 4. The whole tip of the flag with which Christ harried Hell.

  5. 5. Also a great lock from Beelzebub's beard, which was stuck to the same flag.

  6. 6. Half a wing from Saint Gabriel the Archangel.

  7. 7. A whole pound of the wind that blew for Elias in the cave on Mount Horeb.

  8. 8. Two ells of the sound of the trumpets on Mount Sinai.

  9. 9. Thirty beats from the drum of Miriam, the sister of Moses, heard at the Red Sea.

  10. 10. A great heavy piece of the cry of the children of Israel, with which they brought down the walls of Jericho.

  11. 11. Five fine bright strings from David's harp.

  12. 12. Three fine locks of Absalom's hair, by which he was left hanging from the oak tree.Footnote 163

This is all very amusing, but easily dismissed as parody, unrepresentative of the cult of relics as actually practiced. Incredible though some of the claims Catholics did make on the behalf of relics were, they rarely reached such levels of absurdity. By dealing with actually existing relics and with the claims Catholics themselves made about them, the Traité's blows are much harder to parry.

Then again, not every practical—in Eco's terms—list of holy remains will be “the means by which the relic is consummated and annihilated through an ultimate displacement that makes it a topos.”Footnote 164 The closest cousins to the Traité, formally speaking, are Heiltumsbücher, illustrated catalogues of relic collections.Footnote 165 The contents of a Heiltumsbuch could far outnumber those of the Traité, but they do not have the same deconstructive effect. To the contrary, they are enthusiastic expressions of relic piety: their organization tends to reflect the order in which the collection was ritually displayed in a ceremony known as a Heiltumsweisung; their copious illustrations permitted readers to relive the ceremony “and immerse themselves in the contemplation of the vessels and statuettes with their sacred contents.”Footnote 166 Enumeration could vest each object with deep meaning of its own, and description could stimulate the imagination and invite emotional identification.Footnote 167

It is not, then, as Fabre and Wilmart would have it, the catalogue form per se that “destroys the value” of each relic.Footnote 168 The Heiltumsbuch is analytic and commemorative, confined to and drawing its meaning from local contexts and collections (which almost never gathered their contents into one metanarrative);Footnote 169 Calvin's inventory is synthetic and destructive, forcing each item to stand side by side with hundreds of its fellows (or competitors). Alongside this difference in geographic remit, Calvin dispenses with the illustrations with which the Heiltumsbuch celebrates the unique visuality of the relic—and, specifically, of its reliquary, as in Lucas Cranach the Elder's (ca. 1472–1553) exquisite woodcuts of the Wittenberg collection (fig. 2).Footnote 170 Indeed, perhaps the most crucial feature of Calvin's list is the omission of reliquaries, the masterpieces of design that mediated virtually every early modern experience of relics. Some collections, Heiltumsweisungen, and Heiltumsbücher were organized according to type of reliquary (crosses with crosses, busts with busts, and so on)—yet even artists without Cranach's skill managed to highlight each item's particularity (fig. 3).Footnote 171 The rich detail and “artistic exactitude” of the deluxe Heiltumsbuch made it a kind of “picture-catalogue” of the relic collection, as much an inventory of art objects as of holy remains.Footnote 172 The Traité's aniconic character undercuts the emphatically visual nature of relic piety, a move consonant with Calvin's deprecation of sight vis-à-vis hearing as the medium of true knowledge and true faith.Footnote 173

Figure 2. Lucas Cranach, woodcut of a reliquary of Saint Margaret in the Wittenberg Heiltumsbuch. Dye Zaigung des hochlobwirdigen Hailigthumbs der Stifft Kirchen aller Hailigen zu Wittenburg (Wittenberg, 1509), sig. B3r. Image courtesy of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich.

Figure 3. Arm and other reliquaries from the Vienna Heiltumsbuch. Matthaeus Heuperger, Jn Disem Puechlein ist Verzaichent das Hochwirdig Heyligtu[m]b so man Jn der Loblichen stat Wienn Jn Osterreich alle iar an Suntag nach dem Ostertag zezaigen pfligt (Vienna, 1502), sig. B3r. Image courtesy of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

But the reliquary was more than a work of art. As Cynthia Hahn has shown, reliquaries were instrumental in shaping the worshipper's encounter with the holy object, presenting “the relic as powerful, holy and sacred, part of the larger institution of the Church.”Footnote 174 Reliquaries and Heiltumsbücher recorded the gifts of donors, reenacted salient moments in the object's history, and proclaimed local allegiances.Footnote 175 They propagated “a complex instruction of the body and the senses, the teaching of reverentia,” the awed respect due to the holy.Footnote 176 Integral to this process was the reliquary's character as a functional, liturgical object, “a dynamic part of the chorus of saints . . . an object to be carried and manipulated, displayed and presented.”Footnote 177 The Vienna Heiltumsbuch (1502), for example, specifies the songs to be sung at each stage of the Heiltumsweisung.Footnote 178 It was also one of several Heiltumsbücher to include images of worship in action (fig. 4), exalting the act of reverence and reenacting it with every turn of the page. For the worshipper, relic piety involved a complex choreography of kneeling, praying, touching, kissing, bowing, and singing.Footnote 179 In reducing the relic to the bare bone (pun intended), Calvin strips away the patina of liturgy and local tradition that gave these objects precise meanings, and often guaranteed their authenticity.Footnote 180 Excluded from the frame too was the double movement that powered the cult: the movement of relics among shrines and collections and the movement of pilgrims to and from holy sites.Footnote 181 Relics, “inherently restless,”Footnote 182 seem to “burn the hands of those who possess them” and to multiply as they move.Footnote 183 This pas de deux ground to a halt as the Traité fixed relics in place and neutralized their propensity to “self-propel” among Christian communities.Footnote 184 Keen observer of Catholicism that he was, Calvin recognized that “it was practice not theology that determined the shape of the cult of relics” and that once the object was severed from practice, half the battle was already won.Footnote 185

Figure 4. Mattheus Heuperger, “Die Form vnd gestaldt des heyltumbstuels,” from the Vienna Heiltumsbuch, sig. A3v. Image courtesy of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

It must be remembered that sixteenth-century Catholicism was a mosaic of local rites and traditions, “engineered to celebrate the particular rather than the universal,” in which saints and relics played a vital part.Footnote 186 And cult objects in their turn were closely associated with the spaces—nation, region, town, even neighborhood or church—that housed them, as well as with the specific contours of the landscape.Footnote 187 Protestants, Koerner notes, “abhorred such localism,” which seemed continually to verge upon polytheism.Footnote 188 Calvin's pamphlet on the Lord's Supper includes among “the abuses that are so vile as to be unmentionable” that of “attributing to each saint their own mass, and transferring what is said of the Lord's Supper to Saint William and Saint Walter.”Footnote 189 In the Institutes he reasons that prayer to the saints is foolish, since the true saint's will is nothing but the fulfillment of the will of God—which, in any case, their intervention could hardly alter.Footnote 190 Calvin also savages monastic orders for having “broken the tie of unity” in Christ's church through their distinct rites and private observances.Footnote 191

Contrast Calvin's detached relics with those listed by the Elizabethan wit Anthony Munday (ca. 1560–1633) in his exposé of the English Catholic expatriate community in sixteenth-century Rome. The English Romayne Lyfe (1582) lingers over the “meruailous reuerence” and “great deuotion” paid to each relic, especially the physical practices of the worshipper and the details of the reliquaries.Footnote 192 This attention to worship places each object within a system of meaning and within the space of particular churches: “From thence we goe into an old roome, wherein is an old Wall standing along in the midst of this roome, and in this Wall is three old doores.”Footnote 193 Practically a textual pilgrimage through Rome, Munday's critique struggles to transcend its localism—and to avoid taking the Roman sacred landscape as a given.

The Traité disrupted Catholic localism not only in bringing together relics from across Europe but also in subjecting them to a single rubric of critique. It was here that the Protestant Reformation most dramatically set the agenda for the Catholic Counter-Reformation: the Council of Trent would strive to impose uniform standards on the cult of the saints, and on worship tout court, precisely to preserve the particular while warding off challenges from the likes of Calvin.Footnote 194 The proliferation of unofficial cults and spurious relics continued to worry Roman authorities throughout the early modern period. Trent did not mark, or even seek, the end of Catholic localism, but the validity of the Protestant attack had been granted.Footnote 195

The systematic juxtaposition of relics, the collision of local geographies of the sacred, causes the cult as a whole to short-circuit. Recall what Calvin said of the dueling claims to the Titulus: “Each refutes the other. Let them battle it out as much as they like. In the end, both parties will be convicted of lying as soon as one chooses to examine the thing itself.” If, in Orsi's felicitous phrase, late medieval Europe was constituted as “a map of bones,” Calvin wrenched his readers from meditating upon their own private corner and forced them to confront the unwieldy whole.Footnote 196 The Traité undertakes that most dialectical of exercises: heightening the contradictions.Footnote 197


Propelled by the copiousness of his relic collection, Calvin leaps from a contingent, historical, partial critique of the false relic to an absolute, ontological, universal critique of all relics as false. This is not because the Traité is actually all encompassing, “permit[ting] everyone to find a relic they know, that they have been able to venerate, or of whose benefits they have heard, and to comprehend its falsity.”Footnote 198 As Calvin himself acknowledged, the catalogue is riddled with lacunae: there are only thirty relics in all of modern-day Germany, seventeen in Spain, three from the Swiss cantons, one in the Low Countries (Maastricht), and none at all from the British Isles, Portugal, Scandinavia, or Eastern Europe. Even in the francophone territories where the Reformer's networks were strongest and his readers the most numerous, he ignores all of Romandy (save Geneva), all of what is now Belgium, and such major regions of France as Aquitaine, Normandy, and Brittany.Footnote 199

Instead, the universalization of the Traité's critique is accomplished by the rhetorical framing of the list itself. Developing an aesthetics of the list, Eco distinguishes between representations of bounded completeness and those created “when we do not know the boundaries of what we wish to portray, when we do not know how many things we are talking about and presume their number to be, if not infinite, then at least astronomically large . . . an actual infinity, made up of objects that can perhaps be numbered but that we cannot number—and we fear that their numeration (and enumeration) may never stop.”Footnote 200 These lists are made “because we cannot manage to enumerate something that eludes our capacity for control and denomination,” much as the excesses of the cult of relics disrupted the order of the Reformed church.Footnote 201

By casting the Traité as a prolegomena to, rather than an attempt at, the inventory of relics, Calvin builds in this sense of potential infinity, leaving it to the reader's imagination how many more frauds would be revealed if the effort were continued. After listing more than a dozen shrines claiming to possess fragments of the Crown of Thorns, he insists, “Were a diligent inquisition to be made, more than four as many of these could be named. There must necessarily be fraud here. What faith can one have in either the one or the other?”Footnote 202 Still more trenchant is his warning at the outset: “when we have found so much deceit in what I shall name of relic worship [reliquiaire], which is hardly the thousandth part of what is displayed, what are we to think of the rest?”Footnote 203 Here the Traité epitomizes what Terence Cave calls the “cornucopian text,” an Erasmian concept of dynamic open-endedness that contains within itself the generative possibilities of endless extension.Footnote 204 A tableau built around the last relic mentioned in the Traité drives the point home: “While this booklet was being printed, I was informed of a third prepuce of Our Lord, displayed at Hildesheim, of which I had made no mention. There are infinitely more like this. In the end, the investigation [visitation] would discover a hundred times as many as can be named.”Footnote 205 The Latin translation of the Traité had the express purpose of encouraging others elsewhere in Christendom to begin their own inventories, a prospect that appalled Calvin's Catholic opponents.Footnote 206 Nor was the infinitely extendable inventory, continually supplied with new tidbits, mere bravado: Calvin contemplated returning to the Traité, as he did so frequently to the Institutes.Footnote 207 The Reformer's biographer Nicolas Colladon (ca. 1530–86) reports that “his intention was to enlarge the said book if he might be informed of other, similar things in those lands, as there were countless others besides those he had mentioned.”Footnote 208

Thus, a relic does not need to be mentioned in the Traité to become a target of its critique. At the end of the inventory, Calvin practically taunts his reader, “Now, among so many lies, as obvious as I have shown them, where can a true relic be found, of which you can be certain?”Footnote 209 Any relic must now be seen alongside its thousands of fellows scattered across Europe. Not even the best-attested object was safe from doubt, from the niggling fear that somewhere, just over the horizon, there was another one just like it. As Alain Besançon vividly puts it, “In the pure, cold light of the Reformation, everything the church holds takes on a hideous and obscene shape.”Footnote 210

What Calvin undermined, then, is not only the authenticity of the particular items he named but the way of seeing and the sense of space that underlay the entire cult of relics.Footnote 211 The Reformation, in Virginia Reinburg's perceptive words, had shattered “a commonly shared agreement about religious truth.”Footnote 212 What made a shard of bone or a drop of blood into a relic was belief: belief in saints, in this particular saint, and in the authenticity of this particular relic. Remove the belief (and the concomitant practice), and bone and blood were once more only bone and blood.Footnote 213 Worship required sound knowledge of God. For this reason, medieval and early modern churchmen exerted themselves “to teach congregations how to approach, venerate, and even, how to see relics.”Footnote 214

If Calvin is a different kind of historical materialist, “heightening the contradictions” nevertheless neatly characterizes the effect of juxtaposing twelve heads of John the Baptist. He forces the believer to confront the logical fallacies in their “devotional double-mindedness.” The appeal, ultimately, is to common sense, to a “nature of things” ruled by the law of non-contradiction.Footnote 215 Carlos M. N. Eire emphasizes that for Calvin, “material reality cannot be usurped by spiritual reality. . . . Calvin did not want a religion in which reason had at times to be denied or suspended. Faith was reasonable, it had to make sense.”Footnote 216 Duplicated bodies were frauds, not miracles. If Calvin has his way, it will no longer do to explain—or, rather, to refuse to explain—the conflicts of faith and the senses as mysteries.Footnote 217 Cochlaeus perceived this rationalizing imperative, and provocatively asked whether God can do “nothing that Calvin does not understand?”Footnote 218 Like Gessner's Bibliotheca Universalis (Universal library, 1545–49), then, the Traité can be read as “claiming to order knowledge as a propaedeutic to judgment,” an order predicated on the rationality of Creation.Footnote 219

The consequences of subjecting miraculous presence to the law of noncontradiction cannot be overstated. Paradoxes of presence defined what was, perhaps, the doctrinal flashpoint of the Reformation—the meaning of the Eucharist.Footnote 220 What did it mean to say, as virtually every sixteenth-century Christian would have, that Christ was present in the sacrament? For Catholics, Christ was physically present, the elements transubstantiated into the fleshly body and blood of the Savior. For Lutherans, too, he was really present, his body with and within the bread and wine, “both everywhere and nowhere.”Footnote 221 For Calvin and his Reformed fellow travelers, both positions were nonsensical. Christ's body—human flesh like anyone else's—was in heaven, and so could only be in heaven; Christ could only be spiritually present on the altar.Footnote 222 To claim otherwise implied “either that the body of Christ is without measure, or that it can be in multiple places [at once],” with unacceptable implications for the nature of Christ's humanity.Footnote 223 God was of course omnipotent, but the ubiquitarian demand that his omnipotence “make flesh be flesh and not-flesh at once” was a logical absurdity, “perverting the order of the wisdom of God.”Footnote 224 Such a stipulation permitted the possibility of a miracle while drastically redefining the nature of the miraculous.Footnote 225 Nor could Calvin countenance the paradox of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or sacramental union: the bread and wine looked, felt, and tasted like bread and wine because they were (only) bread and wine.Footnote 226 To claim that they were simultaneously or instead Christ's flesh and blood was simply repugnant to sense.

Calvin's insistence in the Traité that matter, however holy, had to behave logically—and that to claim otherwise was not piety but delusion—contains no exception for the consecrated Host:Footnote 227 “It functions as it is supposed to function, as created, as material, as finite. Material reality cannot be usurped by spiritual reality.”Footnote 228 Cochlaeus conceded that the argument from noncontradiction was “more substantial and evident” than the others in the Traité and, spotting the threat to transubstantiation, included a defense of the real presence in his refutation.Footnote 229 It is worth mentioning that two years after the Traité, Calvin published a treatise on the Lord's Supper whose vocabulary bears some resemblance to his pamphlet on relics.Footnote 230

Yet the theological consequences for the Eucharist are only an outworking, albeit a crucial one, of a more profound shift in ontology. The rationalization of presence, divine presence not excepted, entailed a redefinition of the relationship between “divine and human,” and, thus, “between spirit and matter, between the past and the present, between representation and reality, between one person and another, and between political leaders and those over whom they exercised different forms of authority.”Footnote 231 Orsi writes, with not-unjustified hyperbole, that “divergent conceptions of presence became a point of absolute division between Catholics and Protestants, and then it evolved into one of the normative categories of modernity.”Footnote 232 In seeking to subject sacred presence to the dictates of common sense, the Traité mounts “a violent rejection of the assumptions about the immanence of the holy that underpinned traditional Catholic devotion.”Footnote 233

At the same time, presence is as much a dividing line within Protestantism as it is between Protestants and Catholics.Footnote 234 As far as the divine presence is concerned, Lutheran ubiquitarianism is far closer to Catholic transubstantiation than to Reformed sacramentarianism. Indeed, it was disagreement over the Eucharist in the 1520s that first split the Reformed from the Lutherans, a division that defined intra-Protestant relations and Reformed identity throughout the early modern period.Footnote 235 When, in the 1570s, the Reformed churches attempted to hammer out a creedal statement to which all could subscribe, the one unifying principle was a rejection of ubiquitarianism.Footnote 236 The Reformed Protestant cosmos obeyed a different, far stricter set of rules, fundamentally incompatible with the more capacious forms of presence that suffused the worlds of rival confessions. Out of this incommensurability flowed the outraged incomprehension voiced in the Traité, that anyone could accept what “reason shows us” to be “nothing but lies.”Footnote 237 The journey between paradigms was possible, as Calvin's own trajectory proved, but the difficulty of making such a shift must not be underestimated. Calvin, who had once kissed a piece of God's maternal grandmother (though with how much reverence one cannot say), had to strive relentlessly to uproot any traces of Catholic mentality within himself—and never quite succeeded. Sowing the seeds of doubt, as the Traité sought to do, was a painful business.Footnote 238

A critique of fraudulent relics thus doubled as a Trojan horse for Reformed sacramental theology, but even more for a Reformed vision of the world—and a Reformed way of being in the world. The Traité was part of Calvin's lifelong campaign for “spiritual worship,” “worship devoid of trust in material props or humanly devised ceremonies; and worship that has been commanded by God.”Footnote 239 It was, crucially, a campaign directed no less at what was done with objects than at the objects themselves.Footnote 240 The endless quest for absolutely pure worship defines the history of the Reformed tradition. Calvin wrote the Traité just as the francophone Reformation was coalescing into a distinct confession. The rejection of relics became at once one of its rallying cries and one of its shibboleths.Footnote 241

It is ironic, then, that of the many things Calvin himself worried about, not the least was iconoclasm, particularly when the impetus to smash things came from below. Yet his rhetoric, by charging the knowledge of relics with sensory, intellectual, and theological revulsion, helped foment popular iconoclasm. Loath though he would be to admit it, Calvin was standing upon the shoulders of the iconoclasts who had come before, and he was inspiring their successors. Protestant communal violence was marked by precisely the feelings of liberation from deceit, outrage at fraud and the dominion of the clergy, and incomprehension at the unenlightened that animate the Traité.Footnote 242

Calvin mobilized the rhetorical lessons of Erasmus to do what Erasmus always feared: disturb the universe. By crafting an overwhelming exercise in copia, by making doubt in relics contagious and imposing noncontradiction, Calvin destabilized the religious and intellectual foundations of Roman Catholic piety, causing a tremor whose aftershocks were only amplified by the Council of Trent. The list, as Eco writes, “becomes a way of reshuffling the world,” while affirming the principles by which it is really ordered.Footnote 243


This article is dedicated to the memory of Louise Grafton, an artist of the genuine illusion. I am profoundly grateful for the suggestions and encouragement of audiences in Princeton, New Brunswick, and New York; the anonymous reviewers; Jeffrey Castle, Colin Macdonald, Jessica Wolfe, Max Engammare, Michael Gordin, Angela Creager, Carlos Eire, Jake Purcell, Jan Machielsen, Wesley Viner, James Delbourgo, and, most of all, Anthony Grafton.

2 I am indebted here to Carlo Ginzburg's Menahem Stern Lectures: see Ginzburg.

4 “Curiosité”: Calvin, Reference Calvin and Autin1921, 39. See also Calvin, Reference Calvin and Higman1970, 13–15. All translations are my own unless otherwise noted.

5 Cioran, 16.

6 Augustine, 585 (De opere monachorum 28). See also Calvin, Reference Calvin1560, 572 (Institutes 4.13.15). Where possible, I cite the 1541 French edition of the Institutes, as the recension closest in time to the Traité; for later additions I rely on the final, 1560 French edition.

7 “Se complaignant d'aucuns porteurs de rogatons qui, desia de son temps exerceoyent foyre villaine & deshonneste, portans çà & là des reliques de Martyrs, adiouste: Voyre si ce sont reliques de Martyrs. Par lequel mot, il signifie que dez lors il se commettoit de l'abuz et tromperie, en faisant à croire au simple peuple, que des os recueilliz çà & là, estoyent os de saintz”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 3. For modern French editions of the Traité, see Calvin, Reference Calvin and Millet1995; Calvin, Reference Calvin and Backus2000.

8 Cochlaeus, sigs. B1v–B6v; Blanckaert, sig. A3r–v.

9 “Si l'idolatrie n'est sinon transferer l'honneur de Dieu ailleurs: nyerons nous que ce la ne soit idolatrie?”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 7–8. Interestingly, several German editions supplement the Traité with polemical paratexts that delve into doctrinal issues, including idolatry, justification, and the Eucharist: see Calvin, Reference Calvin and Fischart1557; Calvin, Reference Calvin and Fischart1584.

10 “La plus part des reliques qu'on monstre par tout sont faulses”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 11.

11 “Si on doit adiouster foy à des choses tant absurdes”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 92. Cf. Reinburg, 176–77.

12 “Des objets strictement matériels”: Barral-Baron, 365.

13 “Ce seroit donc vne chose à desirer, que d'auoir certitude de toutes les fariboles, qu'on tient çà & là pour reliques: ou bien, au moins, d'en auoir vn registre & denombrement, pour monstrer combien il y en a de faulses”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 15.

14 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 99.

15 Fabre and Wilmart, 35–36.

16 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 13–14 (quotation on 13); Eire, Reference Eire1986, 150–51 (quotation on 150).

17 Marshall.

18 Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19–20.

19 Socrates Scholasticus, 177 (Historia ecclesiastica 1.17).

20 “Quelcun me dira, que Socratés historien de l'eglise en faict memoire. Ie le confesse. Mais il ne dit point qu'il est deuenu. Ainsi ce tesmoignage n'est pas de grand valeur. D'auantage, ce fut vne escriture faicte à la haste, & sur le champ, apres que IESVS Christ fut crucifié. Pourtant, de monstrer vn tableau curieusement faict, comme pour tenir en monstre, il n'y a nul propos. Ainsi, quand il n'y en auroit qu'vn seul, on le pourroit tenir pour vne faulseté & fiction. Mais quand la ville de Thoulouse se vante de l'auoir, & ceux de Rome y contredisent, le monstrant en l'eglise de sainte croix: Ilz dementent l'vn l'autre. Qu'ilz se combatent donc tant qu'ilz voudront. En la fin toutes les deux parties seront conuaincues de mensonge, quand on voudra examiner ce qui en est”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 31–32.

21 “Problème central”: Fabre and Wilmart, 56.

22 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 36, 76.

23 Fabre and Wilmart, 58–59; Holmes, 159–60.

24 Karin Vélez elucidates how the color of Marian images was adjusted “to preserve the gap between the human and the divine . . . to accentuate that she was other, former, foreign to the land”: Vélez, 177.

25 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 26.

26 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 25, 27.

27 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 53.

28 See Geary; Hahn, 295–96.

29 Gordon, Reference Gordon2009, 189.

30 “Des reliefz qui demeurerent des cinq pains, l'Euangile ne dit point qu'il en fut rien reserué à telle fin, & n'y a nulle histoire ancienne qui en parle, ne aucun docteur de l'eglise”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 27.

31 Ginzburg, 23.

32 “Comme vne chasuble pliée”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 38.

33 “La façon n'estoit point encores venue de se desguiser: Car on ne iouoyt point des farces en l'eglise, comme on faict apresent”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 79.

34 “Ce n'a pas esté la façon des fideles, de ramasser ainsi chausses & soulliers, pour faire des reliques”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 64.

36 Geary, 176; Fabre and Wilmart, 64–65.

37 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 32–34, 70–72.

38 Bartlett, 241–42; Eire, Reference Eire1986, 96–97; Barral-Baron, 364–65.

39 Cf. Bouwsma, 83–84, 117.

40 See, inter alia, McNeill, 212–13; Breen; Bouwsma, 113; Gordon, Reference Gordon2009; Burger.

41 Bouwsma, 12; Gordon, Reference Gordon2009, 20–21.

42 Gordon, Reference Gordon2009, 22–30; Bouwsma, 14.

43 “Oeuvre d’érudition”: Fabre and Wilmart, 34.

44 Fabre and Wilmart, 35–51.

45 “Vnius hominis est labor. . . . Caluinus enim noster omnes rescire non potuit. Tantùm eas descripsit, quas ipsi tum videre licuit, tum certis testimoniis accipere”: Calvin, Reference Calvin and des Gallars1548, sig. A2v.

46 “L'inventaire général des reliques d'une ville et des indulgences proposées par ses églises”; “les lettres d'indulgences d'une église particulière”: Fabre and Wilmart, 36.

47 Fabre and Wilmart, 37–39.

48 “Le schéma paraît ressembler à une visite en règle des établissements de la ville . . . sur les dix reliques poitevines citées, seules trois ne sont pas localisées précisément. Les sept autres se trouvent dans sept églises distinctes. . . . On doit donc voir cette énumération comme le résultat d'une expérience vécue, comme un témoignage direct de Calvin sur ce qu'il a pu voir à Poitiers”: Fabre and Wilmart, 50.

49 On Calvin as an observer of Catholicism, see Eire, Reference Eire and Zachman2008, 146–47, 163.

50 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 109.

51 “I'en ay baisé vne partie en l'Abbaye d'Orcamps prés Noyon”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 85.

52 “Plus que le reflet de notes prises au cours de lectures, le Traité des reliques semble être le fruit d'une expérience collective: celle d'une culture catholique des reliques”: Fabre and Wilmart, 46.

53 E.g., Blair, Reference Blair1992; Grafton, Reference Grafton2016, 25–26; Bolgar, 272; Reinburg, 164–65.

54 E.g., Muecke; Fane-Saunders.

55 Blair, Reference Blair2017, 12–14 (quotation on 14). See also Nelles, 156.

56 Nelles, 165, 150. On Calvin's revisions, see Gordon, Reference Gordon2016, 30.

57 Gordon, Reference Gordon2009, 25, 106, 286; Essary, 671, 684; Bouwsma, 119, 121, 169.

58 Calvin, Reference Calvin1541, 316–17, 677 (Institutes 3.4.7, 4.19.10).

59 Essary, 671. See also Backus, 432–33, 435, 437.

60 “Afin de donner à sa démonstration une assise solide selon les critères humanistes”: Fabre and Wilmart, 46.

61 On the patristic Renaissance, see, inter alia, Rice, Reference Rice1985; Grane et al.; Pabel; Naquin, esp. 319–61.

62 Blair, Reference Blair2010, 11.

63 Backus, 419.

64 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 56, 70.

66 “Archéologique”: Barral-Baron, 365.

68 Virgil, 307 (Aeneid 9.26).

69 Valla, 119–21 (italics in original).

70 “À la façon des Iuifs”; “pource que maintenant la coustume est”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 45–46, 65.

71 “La forme des tables estoit lors toute autre qu'elle n'est maintenant. . . . Car on estoit couché au repas, & non pas assis”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 25. See Grafton, Reference Grafton2016, 36; Grafton, Reference Grafton2010.

72 “Vn homme docte & d'esprit aigu”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1560, 550 (Institutes 4.11.12). See Valla, ix–x; Antonazzi, 189–90.

73 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 42, 70.

74 Valla, 59, 127.

75 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 94.

76 Valla, 87.

77 Valla, 75. Cf. Rice, Reference Rice1950, 403.

78 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 87.

79 “D'où venez-vous?”: Fabre and Wilmart, 67.

80 “Creaturae enim dari honor, religionis causa, non potest quin a Deo indigne et per sacrilegium transferatur”: Calvin, Reference Calvin, Baum, Cunitz and Reuss1863–1900, 49:28 (Comm. Rom. 1.25).

81 “Il suffisoit d'abuser d'vn corps en idolatrie, sans faire d'vn diable deux ou troys”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 88.

83 Parish, 11–12; Marshall, 46; Lazure, 60; Erasmus, Reference Erasmus and Thompson1997, 365n38, 659n74.

84 “Quodque solent fraudulenti & dolosi facere mercatores, merces suas adulterantes, ut falsa pro ueris, fucata pro simplicibus, & notha pro germanis supponant: hoc nostri seculi impudentissimos Hierophantas facere, tam est manifestum, quam ut negari possit. . . . Ideo ne erunt negligendæ sanctorum reliquiæ, tumuli contemnendi, memoriæ obliuioni tradendæ, ueneratio intermittenda, quo malo huic prospiciatur?”: Blanckaert, sigs. A2v–A3r.

85 “Abusus non tollit substantiam”: Cochlaeus, sig. B2r. Luther uses this dictum repeatedly, but Cochlaeus cites his anti-Anabaptist writings: see Luther, 30.1:219.

86 “La question de l'authenticité des reliques ne se pose pas”; “dirigée vers le Christ à travers la relique et non vers le saint”: Fabre and Wilmart, 31; Lazure, 60. See also Erasmus, Reference Erasmus and Thompson1997, 365n38; Cochlaeus, sigs. B8v, C1v; Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 97.

87 “Deus enim cor intuetur, & intentionem iudicat”: Cochlaeus, sigs. D4r–D4v. Cf. Lenain, 74–75; Parish, 12.

88 Geary, 176–77 (quotation on 177). Cf. Marshall, 46.

89 Geary, 178.

90 “Corpus eius ibi ueraciter esse, Diuina Maiestas miraculis & beneficijs potius, quam literis & folijs comprobat & ostendit”: Cochlaeus, sig. A8r.

91 Calvin, Reference Calvin1560, 37–38 (Institutes 1.12.2); Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 85, 96–99; Cochlaeus, sig. C3v.

92 Eire, Reference Eire1986, 16. See also Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.3:478; Cochlaeus, sig. D3v.

93 Grafton, Reference Grafton2016, 27–28.

94 Hahn, 291.

95 “Simul uetera et noua, nec noua nec uetera aeque, / Non eadem simul atque eadem”: Paulinus of Nola, 416 (Natalicium 10.218). Cf. Vélez, 180; Reinburg, 2, 4, 168.

96 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 31.

97 Orsi, 52–54.

98 Quoted in Marshall, 54.

99 Groeneveld, 11, 13, 40 (quotation on 13).

100 Vélez, 19; Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 99; Blanckaert, sig. B7r.

101 Fabre and Wilmart, 34; Reinburg, 209.

102 Marshall, 62.

103 Bouwsma, 13.

104 Brashler, 154–55; Barral-Baron, 354; Bouwsma, 17.

105 Fabre and Wilmart, 31; Barral-Baron, 359, 367–69.

107 “Veneraris diuos, gaudes eorum reliquias contingere. Sed contemnis, quod illi reliquerunt optimum, puta vitae purae exempla. . . . Attonitus spectas tunicam aut sudarium, quod fertur Christi, et somniculosus legis oracula Christi? Maximo maius esse credis, quod crucis portiunculam domi possides. At istud nihil est prae illo, si mysterium crucis in pectore conditum gestes”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 5.8:194, 196–98.

108 Barral-Baron, 371.

109 “Si on vouloit ramasser tout ce que ses trouué, il y en auroit la charge d'vn bon grand bateau”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 29–30.

110 “Idem causantur de cruce Domini, quae priuatim ac publice tot locis ostenditur, vt, si fragmenta conferantur in vnum, nauis onerariae iustum onus videri possint”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.3:478. For further parallels, see Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 63, 99–100; Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.3:474, 477–78.

111 “Filiation entre l'humaniste et le réformateur”: Barral-Baron, 350. See also Eire, Reference Eire1986, 228–29.

112 Eire, Reference Eire1986, 1–2; Rice, Reference Rice1950, 388, 399.

113 “S'exprime toujours pour une élite culturelle, choisie, et familière du latin”; “au plus large public possible”: Barral-Baron, 362.

114 “Dix ou douze villes, comme de Paris, Tholouse, Reins, & Poytiers”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 15. See Gordon, Reference Gordon2009, 187.

115 Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 5.1:154.

116 “Facilius . . . indocti, simplicis, & imprudentis uulgi animis uirus suum insinuaret”: Blanckaert, sig. B4v.

117 Erasmus, Reference Erasmus and O'Malley1988, xvi–xviii.

118 Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.3:328–29, 491; 5.1:154.

119 Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.3:491–92.

120 Hexter, 64.

121 “Nec tamen ideo profligandae sunt imagines omnes e templis, sed docendus est populus, quamadmodum his conueniat vti”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 5.1:156. See also Barral-Baron, 354.

122 “Si Christi cultus in sanctis eius te impendio delectat, Christum facito in sanctis imiteris et ad singulorum honorem singula vicia mutare aut singulas virtutes amplecti stude”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 5.8:196.

123 Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.3:471, 489–90; Eire, Reference Eire1986, 44.

124 Calvin, Reference Calvin and Autin1921, 28–29; Calvin, Reference Calvin1541, 131 (Institutes 1.11.9); Eire, Reference Eire1986, 225.

125 “Les os de quelque Brigand ou Larron, ou bien d'vn asne, ou d'vn chien, ou d'vn cheual”; “les bagues de quelque paillarde”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 109.

126 Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 28, 32 (quotation on 32). See Eire, Reference Eire and Scribner1990, 55, 61.

127 Quoted in Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 138.

128 Marshall, 49.

129 Erasmus, Reference Erasmus and O'Malley1988, xiv–xvi.

130 Barral-Baron, 367; Bouwsma, 14, 46.

131 Breen, 8, 18; Bouwsma, 14.

132 “Vt non est aliud vel admirabilius vel magnificentius quam oratio, diuite quadam sententiarum verborumque copia aurei fluminis instar exuberans”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.6:26.

133 Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.6:78–90; Eden.

134 “Fabulam, et apologum, prouerbium, iudicia, parabolam seu collationem, imaginem, et analogiam. Praterea si qua sunt similia”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.6:232, 258 (quotation on 232).

136 Bolgar, 274; Johnson, Reference Johnson2010, 74.

137 Gordon, Reference Gordon2009, 148; Bouwsma, 93, 125–26; Breen, 16; Millet, 735.

138 Millet, 710, 744.

139 “Scriptum sit in prouerbijs. In multiloquio non deesse peccatum. Nullus autem hæreticorum hoc tempore magis abundet multiloquio, quám Ioannes Caluinus, profugus et exul Gallorum: Quemadmodum indicant libri eius, quos incessabili uerborum profluuio inundat, & impia loquacitate in orbem dispergit”: Cochlaeus, sig. A2v.

140 Johnson, Reference Johnson2012, 1104, 1110 (quotation on 1104). See also Johnson, Reference Johnson2010, 49.

141 “Chascun sait, que la ville de Toulouse en pense auoir six, assauoir sainct Iaques le maieur, sainct Andre, sainct Iaques le mineur, sainct Philippe, sainct Simon, & sainct Iude. A Padoue est le corps S. sainct Mathias: à Salerne le corps sainct Matthieu. à Orthonne celuy de sainct Thomas. au Royaume de Naples celuy de sainct Barthelamy. Aduisons maintenant lesquelz ont deux corps, ou troys. S. Andre a vn second corps à Melphe, sainct Philippe & sainct Iaques le mineur chascun aussi vn autre à Rome, ad sanctos Apostolos. S. Simon & sainct Iude aussi bien à Rome à l'egli[se] sainct Pierre. Sainct Barthelemy à Rome en son eglise”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 81–82.

142 “Quoties gradibus aliquot peruenitur, non modo ad summum, sed interim quodammodo supra summum”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.6:218. Erasmus here quotes Quintilian's Institutio oratoria (8.4.4): see Quintilian, 2:450.

143 “Ceux d'Amiens se glorifient d'auoir le visage: & en la masque qu'ilz monstrent il y a la marque d'vn coup de cousteau sur l'oeil, qu'ilz disent que Herodias luy donna. Mais ceux de sainct Iehan d'Angely contredisent, & monstrent la mesme partie. Quant au reste de la teste, le dessus depuis le front iusques au derriere estoit à Rhodes: & est maintenant à maltes, comme ie pense. Au moins les Commandeurs ont faict à croire que le Turc leur auoit rendu. Le derriere est à S. Iehan de Nemours: La ceruelle est à Noyan le Rantroux. Nonobstant cela, ceux de sainct Iehan de Morienne ne laissent point d'auoir vne partie de la teste: sa machoire ne laisse point à estre à Besanson à sainct Iehan le grand. Il y en a vne autre partie à sainct Iehan de Latran à Paris, & à sainct Flour en Auuergne vn bout de l'aureille. A sainct Saluador en Hespaigne le front & des cheueux. Il y en a aussi bien quelque lopin à Noyon, qui s'y monstre fort autentiquement. Il y en a semblablement vne partie à Lucques, ie ne say de quel endroict. Tout cela est il faict? Qu'on aille à Rome & au Monastere de sainct Siluestre, on oyra dire, Voicy la teste de sainct Iehan Baptiste”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 70–72.

144 “Quid in vsurpandis vocibus aetas variarit”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.6:44–46, 52 (quotation on 52); Cave, 27.

145 “Quae humiliora videbuntur quam pro rei dignitate”; “oportet ab omni christianorum sermone procul abesse”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.6:40, 48. Cf. Johnson, Reference Johnson2010, 77, 343.

146 Cf. Walsham, 125; Hamilton, 142.

147 “Notés, que Iesus CHRIST estoit en vn lieu emprunté quand il feit sa Cene. En partant delà, il laissa la table, nous ne lisons point que iamais elle ayt esté retirée par les Apostres. Ierusalem, quelque temps apres fut destruite: comme nous auons dict. Quelle epparence y à il, d'auoir trouué cette table sept ou huit cens ans apres? D'auantage, la forme des tables estoit lors toute autre qu'elle n'est maintenant. Car on estoit couché au repas, & non pas assis, ce qui est expressement dit en l’Éuangile”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 24–25.

148 Johnson, Reference Johnson2010, 52.

149 “Facit enim vt tota oratio densis ac crebris argumentis vndique differta sit et communita. Quae tametsi non explices quasique in aciem educas, tamen pugnant per sese causamque non mediocriter adiuuant”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.6:218.

150 Eco, 118. Cf. Belknap, xiv; Johnson, Reference Johnson2012, 1108.

151 “A Besanson en l'eglise sainct Iehan le grand il y en a vn. A Thoulouse vn autre. à Lyon vn autre. à Bourges vn autre. à Flourence vn autre. à sainct Iehan des aduentures, pres Mascon, vn autre”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 73.

152 The passage in question is Philippics 2.63: see Cicero, 133–34.

153 “Hic singulae voces incrementum habent. . . . Haec si quis diuidat ac circa singulos gradus immoretur, augebit orationis copiam, tamen minus efficaciter amplificabit”: Erasmus, Reference Erasmus1969–, 1.6:218.

154 Blair, Reference Blair2010, 176; Calvin, Reference Calvin1541, 615 (Institutes 4.16.23).

156 “Barbouillamenta Scoti. La Ratepenade des Cardinaux. De calcaribus removendis decades undecim, per m. Albericum de Rosata. Eiusdem, de castrametandis crinibus lib. tres. Boudarini episcopi, de emulgentiarum profectibus eneades novem cum privilegio papali ad triennum, et postea non”: Rabelais, 339 (Gargantua and Pantagruel 2.7).

157 Johnson, Reference Johnson2010, 12.

158 Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 47 (italics in original). Cf. Barral-Baron, 365.

159 Delbourgo and Müller-Wille, 711. Cf. Belknap, ix–x; Shapin, 495.

160 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 16, 87–88.

161 Shapin, 496, 507–08. Cf. Barral-Baron, 365; Fabre and Wilmart, 35.

162 Eco, 113.

163 “I. Ein schoen stueck vom lincken Horn Mosi. II. Drey flammen vom Pusch Mosi, auff dem berge Sinai. III. Zwo Feddern und ein Ey, vom heiligen Geist. IIII. Ein gantzer zipffel von der Fanen, da Christus die Helle mit auff sties. V. Auch ein grosser Lock, vom Bart Beelzebub, der an der selben Fanen bekleben bleib. VI. Ein halber Fluegel von Sanct Gabriel dem ErtzEngel. VII. Ein gantz pfund, von dem Winde, der fur Elia uber rausschet, in der huele am berge Oreb. VIII. Zwo Ellen von dem Dohn der Posaunen, auff dem berge Sinai. IX. Dreissig Bombart von der Paucken Mir Jam der schwester Mosi, am Roten Meer gehoeret. X. Ein gros schwer stueck vom geschrey der kinder Jsrael, da mit sie die Mauren Jericho nidder worffen. XI. Fuenff schoener heller Seiten von der Harffen Dauid. XII. Drey schoener Lock har des Absaloms, damit er an der Eichen hangend bleib”: Luther, 53:404–05.

164 “Le moyen par lequel s'accomplit et s'anéantit la relique dans un ultime déplacement par lequel elle devient lieu de discours”: Fabre and Wilmart, 58.

166 “Und sich in die Anschauung der Gefäße und Statuetten mit ihren heiligen Inhalten vertiefen”: Cárdenas, Reference Cárdenas2002, 28, 45, 117 (quotation on 117); Rublack, 148.

167 Vélez, 137, 193.

168 “Anéantit . . . la valeur”: Calvin, Reference Calvin and Millet1995, 18.

169 Cárdenas, Reference Cárdenas2002, 30–31; Vélez, 31.

170 Curiously, the first German edition of the Traité does include images, including depictions of reliquaries. See, e.g., Calvin, Reference Calvin and Fischart1557, sig. E7r.

171 Cárdenas, Reference Cárdenas2002, 28.

172 “Zeichnerische Detailgenauigkeit”; “Bildinventares”: Cárdenas, Reference Cárdenas2002, 74, 119–20 (quotation on 74).

173 Hahn, 301–02; Bouwsma, 158.

174 Hahn, 289.

175 Cárdenas, Reference Cárdenas2002, 26–27.

176 Hahn, 291, 301 (quotation on 301).

177 Hahn, 290. See also Reinburg, 130–31.

178 Cárdenas, Reference Cárdenas2002, 31.

179 See Munday, 28–55.

180 Lenain, 76. Cf. Groeneveld, 43–44.

181 Geary; Vélez, 5, 77. On the movement of pilgrims, see Julia; Reinburg.

182 Vélez, 31.

183 “Brûlent les mains de ceux qui les détiennent”: Fabre and Wilmart, 62. See also Vélez, 151.

184 Vélez, 31.

185 Hahn, 294. Cf. Holmes, 211.

186 Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 346. See also Lazure, 67, 70; Ditchfield.

187 Holmes, 3; Rublack, 146; Reinburg, 2.

188 Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 348. See also Davis, 60; Benedict, 137.

189 “Des abuz qui sont si lourdz, que ilz ne sont pas dignes qu'on en face mention”; “d'attribuer à chacun sainct sa Messe, & transferer ce qui est dict de la Cene du Seigneur, à sainct Guillaume & sainct Gautier”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1545, 45.

190 Calvin, Reference Calvin1560, 391 (Institutes 3.20.22).

191 “Rompu le lien d'vnité”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1560, 571 (Institutes 4.13.14).

192 Munday, 31–32, 34–38 (quotation on 31).

193 Munday, 30, 33–36 (quotation on 33).

194 Reinburg, 158, 216.

195 Bouley, 13, 15; Ditchfield, esp. 1–13; Lenain, 71–72, 76; Vélez, 126–27.

196 Orsi, 21. Rabelais suggests that the jurisprudence of Tribonian (ca. 485–542) attempted a similar trick. The Roman supplied “those bits and pieces of the laws that they use now, suppressing and destroying the remainder of what made up the whole law, fearing that if the law remained complete and the books of the ancient jurists read . . . his knavery would be exposed to the world” (“ces petitz boutz et eschantillons des loix qu'ilz ont en usaige: la reste supprimant et abolissant qui faisoit pour la loy totale, de paour que, la loy entiere restante et les livres des antiques jurisconsultes veuz . . . feust du monde apertement sa meschanceté congneue”): Rabelais, 823 (Gargantua and Pantagruel 3.44).

198 “Permettre à chacun d'y trouver une relique qu'il connaît, qu'il a pu vénérer ou dont il a pu entendre les bienfaits, et comprendre leur fausseté”: Fabre and Wilmart, 35.

199 Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 102; Fabre and Wilmart, 35–36, 36n25.

200 Eco, 15 (italics in original).

201 Eco, 117.

202 “Quand on auroit faict diligente inquisition, on en pourroit nommer plus de quatre foys autant. Necessairement on qu'il y a de la faulseté. Quelle fiance donc peut on auoir ne des vnes ne des autres?”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 35–36.

203 “Quand on aura trouué tant de mensonge en ce que ie nommeray de reliquiaire, qui n'est pas à peu pres la millesiesme partie de ce qui sen monstre: que pourra-on estimer du reste?”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 16. Cf. Eco, 17.

204 Cave, ix–xi, 11.

205 “Ce pendant qu'on imprimoit ce liuret, on m'a aduerty d'vn troysiesme Prepuce de nostre Seigneur, qui se monstre à Hyldesheym, dont ie n'auoye faict nulle mention. Il y en a vne infinité de semblables. Finalement, la visitation descouuriroit encores cent fois plus, que tout ce qui sen peut dire”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 108.

206 Calvin, Reference Calvin and des Gallars1548, sig. A2v; Cochlaeus, sig. A7r. Cf. Calvin, Reference Calvin and Fischart1557, sig. A7v; Calvin, 1584, sig. C7r-v.

207 Gordon, Reference Gordon2016, 30.

208 “Son intention estoit d'augmenter ledit livre, si des-dits pays il eust peu estre adverti d'autres semblables pieces, comme il y en a infinies outre celles dont il fait mention”: Calvin, Reference Calvin, Baum, Cunitz and Reuss1863–1900, 21:68.

209 “Car entre tant de mensonges, si patents comme ie les ay produictz, ou est-ce qu'on choisira vne vraye relique, de laquelle on se puisse tenir certain?”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 108.

210 Besançon, 189. On Calvin's encounters with “the terrors of doubt,” see Bouwsma, 184–85 (quotation on 184).

211 Cf. Groeneveld, 36.

212 Reinburg, 1. See Eire, Reference Eire and Scribner1990, 53.

213 Lenain, 68; Geary, 174–75. Cf. Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 85; Hahn, 286, 291, 310; Parish, 12–13, 82; Reinburg, 176.

214 Hahn, 306 (italics in original). See also Eire, Reference Eire and Scribner1990, 60.

215 Bouwsma, 102; Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 35–36; Higman, 22, 44; Gordon, Reference Gordon2009, 188.

216 Eire, Reference Eire1986, 230, 312. Cf. Bouwsma, 100, 107–08, 192–93.

217 Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 99; Shapin, 500; Parish, 12.

218 “Nihil . . . quod nesciat Caluinus?”: Cochlaeus, sig. C6r.

219 Nelles, 150–51, 159 (quotation on 159).

220 Koerner, Reference Koerner2008, 310.

221 Jorgenson, 363. Cf. Calvin, Reference Calvin1545, 64.

222 Calvin, Reference Calvin1541, 625–28 (Institutes 4.17.1–4, 14), 633 (Institutes 4.17.5), 637 (Institutes 4.17.12); Calvin, Reference Calvin1560, 628–29, 631–32 (Institutes 4.17.28, 30); Calvin, Reference Calvin1545, 16–20. See also Tylenda, esp. 70–71, 73; McDonnell, 42–43.

223 “Ou que le corps de CHRIST est sans mesure, ou qu'il peut estre en diuers lieux”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1545, 48–49 (quotation on 48). Cf. Calvin, Reference Calvin1541, 637–39 (Institutes 4.17.12, 16–17); Calvin, Reference Calvin1560, 629–31 (Institutes 4.17.29); McDonnell, 63–64. Indeed, Luther could wax lyrical about the miracle—“above flesh, above spirit, above all that one can say, hear, or think” (“uber leib, uber geist, uber alles was man sagen, hoeren und dencken kan”)—of ubiquitous presence: see Luther, 23:137.

224 “Face que vn corps soit ensemblement corps & non corps”; “peruertir l'ordre de la sapience de Dieu”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1541, 641 (Institutes 4.17.24). See also Eire, Reference Eire and Scribner1990, 61.

225 See Sluhovsky.

226 Calvin, Reference Calvin1545, 45–46; Calvin, Reference Calvin1541, 628–30 (Institutes 4.17.14–16); Calvin, Reference Calvin1560, 625–26 (Institutes 4.17.23); Marshall, 66.

227 Benedict, 8, 44; Eire, Reference Eire and Scribner1990, 56.

228 Eire, Reference Eire and Scribner1990, 61, 63 (quotation on 61).

229 “Plus habet momenti & apparentiæ”: Cochlaeus, sigs C2v, D3r (quotation on D3r).

230 E.g., Calvin, Reference Calvin1545, 57.

231 Orsi, 3. See also Roper, 290; Eire, Reference Eire and Scribner1990, 67.

232 Orsi, 9.

233 Walsham, 121. Cf. Fabre and Wilmart, 66.

235 Benedict, xxiii–xxiv.

236 Benedict, 289.

237 “La raison nous monstre,” “n'est que mensonge”: Calvin, Reference Calvin1543, 50.

241 Benedict, 354; Calvin, Reference Calvin and Autin1921, 15–16; Walsham, 131; Eire, Reference Eire1986, 3; Davis.

242 Davis, 51–52, 56, 67, 76–77; Marshall, 39; Eire, Reference Eire and Scribner1990, 59, 65.

243 Eco, 327, 353 (quotation on 327). Cf. Johnson, Reference Johnson2012, 1104, 1112; Johnson, Reference Johnson2010, 13.


Antonazzi, Giovanni. Lorenzo Valla e la polemica sulla donazione di Costantino. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1985.Google Scholar
Augustine. De fide et symbolo De fide et operibus De agone christiano De continentia De bono coniugali De sancta virginitate De bono viduitatis De adulterinis coniugiis lib. II. De mendacio Contra mendacium De opere monachorum De divinatione daemonum De cura pro mortuis gerenda De patientia. Ed. Zycha, Joseph. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1900.Google Scholar
Backus, Irena. “Calvin's Judgment of Eusebius of Caesarea: An Analysis.” Sixteenth Century Journal 22.3 (1991): 419–37.10.2307/2541468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barral-Baron, Marie. “Érasme et Calvin au prisme du Traité des reliques.” Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire du Protestantisme Français 156 (2010): 349–71.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Robert. Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belknap, Robert E. The List: The Uses and Pleasures of Cataloguing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004.10.12987/yale/9780300103830.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Philip. Christ's Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Besançon, Alain. The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm. Trans. Jane Marie Todd. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Blair, Ann M. “Humanist Methods in Natural Philosophy: The Commonplace Book.” Journal of the History of Ideas 53.4 (1992): 541–51.10.2307/2709935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Ann M. Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Blair, Ann M. “The 2016 Josephine Waters Bennett Lecture: Humanism and Printing in the Work of Conrad Gessner.” Renaissance Quarterly 70.1 (2017): 143.10.1086/691829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanckaert, Nikolaas. Iudicium Iohannis Calvini de Sanctorum Reliquijs: Collatum cum Orthodoxorum Sanctæ Ecclesiæ Catholicæ Patrum Sententia. Cologne: Apud Iasparem Gennepæum, 1551.Google Scholar
Bolgar, R. R. The Classical Heritage and Its Beneficiaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Bouley, Bradford A. Pious Postmortems: Anatomy, Sanctity, and the Catholic Church in Early Modern Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Brashler, James. “From Erasmus to Calvin: Exploring the Roots of Reformed Hermeneutics.” Interpretation 63.2 (2009): 154–66.10.1177/002096430906300205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, Quirinus. “John Calvin and the Rhetorical Tradition.” Church History 26.1 (1957): 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, Christoph. “Calvin and the Humanists.” Trans. Guder, Judith J.. In The Calvin Handbook, ed. Selderhuis, Herman J., 137–42. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Institution de la religion chrestienne: En laquelle est comprinse vne somme de pieté, & quasi tout ce qui est necessaire a congnoistre en la doctrine de salut. Geneva: Michel Du Bois, 1541.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Advertissement tres utile du grand proffit qui reuiendroit à la chrestienté s'il se faisoit inue[n]toire de tous les corps sainctz, et reliques, qui sont tant en Italie, qu'en France, Allemaigne, Hespaigne, & autres Royaumes & pays. Geneva: Iehan Girard, 1543.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Petit traicte de la saincte cene de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ. Geneva: Michel Du Bois, 1545.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Admonitio, Qua Ostenditur Quàm è Re Christianæ Reip. Foret Sanctorum Corpora & Reliquias Velut in Inuentarium Redigi: Quæ tam in Italia, Quàm in Gallia, Germania, Hispania, Cæterísque Regionibus Habentur. Trans. des Gallars, Nicolas. Geneva: Per Ioannem Gerardum, 1548.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Vermanung von der Papisten heiligthumb. Trans. Fischart, Johann. Wittenberg: Georg Rhau, 1557.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Institution de la religion Chrestienne. Geneva: chez Jean Crespin, 1560.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Der heylig Brotkorb Der H. Römischen Reliquien, oder Würdigen Heyligthumbs procken. Trans. Fischart, Johann. Christlingen: Gutwin, 1584.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Joannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia. Ed. Baum, Johann-Wilhelm, Cunitz, Edouard, and Reuss, Eduard Wilhelm Eugen. 59 vols. Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke et filium, 1863–1900.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Traité des reliques suivi de l'Excuse à messieurs les Nicodémites. Ed. Autin, Albert. Paris: Éditions Bossard, 1921.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Three French Treatises. Ed. Higman, Francis M.. London: Athlone Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Œuvres choisies. Ed. Millet, Olivier. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1995.Google Scholar
Calvin, John. Traité des reliques. Ed. Backus, Irena. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2000.Google Scholar
Cárdenas, Livia. Friedrich der Weise und das Wittenberger Heiltumsbuch: Mediale Repräsentation zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Berlin: Lukas Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
Cárdenas, Livia. Die Textur des Bildes: Das Heiltumsbuch im Kontext religiöser Medialität des Spätmittelalters. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2013.Google Scholar
Cave, Terence. The Cornucopian Text: Problems of Writing in the French Renaissance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Cicero. Orationes, Vol. 2: Pro Milone; Pro Marcello; Pro Ligario; Pro Rege Deiotaro; Philippicae I–XIV. Ed. Clark, Albert Curtis. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1918.Google Scholar
Cioran, E. M. A Short History of Decay. Trans. Howard, Richard. New York: Viking Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Cochlaeus, Johann. De Sacris Reliquiis Christi et Sanctorum Eius, Breuis contra Ioannis Caluini Calumnias & Blasphemias Responsio. Mainz: apud Franz Behem, 1549.Google Scholar
Cranach, Lucas. Dye Zaigung des hochlobwirdigen Hailigthumbs der Stifft Kirchen aller Hailigen zu Wittenburg. Wittenberg: Symphorian Reinhart, 1509.Google Scholar
Davis, Natalie Zemon. “The Rites of Violence: Religious Riot in Sixteenth-Century France.” Past and Present 59 (1973): 5191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delbourgo, James, and Müller-Wille, Staffan. “Introduction.” Isis 103.4 (2012): 710–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditchfield, Simon. Liturgy, Sanctity and History in Tridentine Italy: Pietro Maria Campi and the Preservation of the Particular. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. The Infinity of Lists: From Homer to Joyce. Trans. Alastair McEwen. London: MacLehose Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Eden, Kathy. Friends Hold All Things in Common: Tradition, Intellectual Property, and the Adages of Erasmus. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001.10.12987/yale/9780300087574.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eire, Carlos M. N. War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eire, Carlos M. N.The Reformation Critique of the Image.” In Bilder und Bildersturm im Spätmittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit, ed. Scribner, Robert W., 5168. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990.Google Scholar
Eire, Carlos M. N.John Calvin, Accidental Anthropologist.” In John Calvin and Roman Catholicism: Critique and Engagement, Then and Now, ed. Zachman, Randall C., 145–63. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.Google Scholar
Erasmus, Desiderius. Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami: Recognita et Adnotatione Critica Instructa Notisque Illustrata. 9 vols. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1969–.Google Scholar
Erasmus, Desiderius. Literary and Educational Writings 1–2. Ed. Thompson, Craig R.. 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erasmus, Desiderius. Spiritualia 1: Enchiridion / De Contemptu Mundi / De Vidua Christiana. Ed. and trans. O'Malley, John W.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erasmus, Desiderius. Colloquies. Ed. and trans. Thompson, Craig R.. 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essary, Kirk. “Jewish Antiquity in the Sixteenth Century: Calvin's Reception of Josephus.” Church History 86.3 (2017): 668–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabre, Pierre Antoine, and Wilmart, Mickaël. “Le Traité des reliques de Jean Calvin (1543): Texte et contextes.” In Reliques modernes: Cultes et usages chrétiens des corps saints des Réformes aux révolutions, ed. Boutry, Philippe, Fabre, Pierre Antoine, and Julia, Dominique, 1:29–68. Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2009.Google Scholar
Fane-Saunders, Peter. Pliny the Elder and the Emergence of Renaissance Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geary, Patrick. “Sacred Commodities: The Circulation of Medieval Relics.” In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. Appadurai, Arjun, 169–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Carlo. History, Rhetoric, and Proof. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1999.Google Scholar
Gordon, Bruce. Calvin. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Gordon, Bruce. John Calvin's “Institutes of the Christian Religion”: A Biography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016.10.1515/9781400880508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafton, Anthony. “Textbooks and the Disciplines.” In Scholarly Knowledge: Textbooks in Early Modern Europe, ed. Campi, Emidio, Angelis, Simone De, Goeing, Anja-Silvia, and Grafton, Anthony, 1136. Geneva: Droz, 2008.Google Scholar
Grafton, Anthony. “Table Manner.” Cabinet 38 (2010). Scholar
Grafton, Anthony. “Christianity's Jewish Origins Rediscovered: The Roles of Comparison in Early Modern Ecclesiastical Scholarship.” Erudition and the Republic of Letters 1.1 (2016): 1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafton, Anthony. “Comparisons Compared: A Study in the Early Modern Roots of Cultural History.” In Regimes of Comparatism: Frameworks of Comparison in History, Religion and Anthropology, ed. Gagné, Renaud, Goldhill, Simon, and Lloyd, Geoffrey, 1848. Leiden: Brill, 2018.Google Scholar
Grane, Leif, Schindler, Alfred, and Wriedt, Markus, eds. Auctoritas patrum: Zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1993.Google Scholar
Groeneveld, Leanne. “A Theatrical Miracle: The Boxley Rood of Grace as Puppet.” Early Theatre 10.2 (2007): 1150.10.12745/et.10.2.752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Cynthia. “What Do Reliquaries Do for Relics?Numen 57.3–4 (2010): 284316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Tom. Pierre de L'Estoile and His World in the Wars of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hexter, J. H. More's “Utopia”: The Biography of an Idea. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
Higman, Francis M. The Style of John Calvin in His French Polemical Treatises. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Holmes, Megan. The Miraculous Image in Renaissance Florence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Johnson, Christopher D. Hyperboles: The Rhetoric of Excess in Baroque Literature and Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Johnson, Christopher D. “N+2, or a Late Renaissance Poetics of Enumeration.” MLN 127.5 (2012): 1096–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorgenson, Allen G. “Luther on Ubiquity and a Theology of the Public.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 6.4 (2004): 351–68.10.1111/j.1468-2400.2004.00141.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julia, Dominique. Le voyage aux saints: Les pèlerinages dans l'Occident moderne, XVe–XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2016.Google Scholar
Koerner, Joseph. “The Icon as Iconoclash.” In Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art, ed. Latour, Bruno and Weibel, Peter, 164213. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Koerner, Joseph. The Reformation of the Image. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Lazure, Guy. “Possessing the Sacred: Monarchy and Identity in Philip II's Relic Collection at the Escorial.” Renaissance Quarterly 60.1 (2007): 5893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenain, Thierry. “Du culte des reliques au monde de l'art: Remarques sur la genèse de la critique d'authenticité.” Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 35 (2008): 6785.Google Scholar
Luther, Martin. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 121 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 18832009.Google Scholar
Marshall, Peter. “Forgery and Miracles in the Reign of Henry VIII.” Past and Present 178 (2003): 3973.10.1093/past/178.1.39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, Kilian. John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967.10.1515/9781400877928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, John T. “Thirty Years of Calvin Study.” Church History 17.3 (1948): 207–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millet, Olivier. Calvin et la dynamique de la parole: Étude de rhétorique réformée. Geneva: Editions Slatkine, 1992.Google Scholar
Munday, Anthony. The English Romayne Lyfe. London: John Charlewoode, 1582.Google Scholar
Muecke, Frances. “The Genre(s) and the Making of Roma Triumphans.” In The Invention of Rome: Biondo Flavio's “Roma Triumphans” and Its Worlds, ed. Muecke, Frances and Campanelli, Maurizio, 3353. Geneva: Droz, 2017.Google Scholar
Naquin, Nicholas. “‘On the Shoulders of Hercules’: Erasmus, the Froben Press and the 1516 Jerome Edition in Context.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 2013.Google Scholar
Nelles, Paul. “Reading and Memory in the Universal Library: Conrad Gessner and the Renaissance Book.” In Ars Reminiscendi: Mind and Memory in Renaissance Culture, ed. Beecher, Donald and Williams, Grant, 147–69. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2009.Google Scholar
Orsi, Robert A. History and Presence. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pabel, Hilmar M. Herculean Labours: Erasmus and the Editing of St. Jerome's Letters in the Renaissance. Leiden: Brill, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parish, Helen L. Monks, Miracles and Magic: Reformation Representations of the Medieval Church. London: Routledge, 2005.Google Scholar
Paulinus of Nola. Carmina. Ed. Dolveck, Franz. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015.Google Scholar
Quintilian. Institutionis oratoriae: Libri duodecim. Ed. Winterbottom, Michael. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Rabelais, François. Les cinq livres. Ed. Céard, Jean, Defaux, Gérard, and Simonin, Michel. Paris: Librairie générale française, 1994.Google Scholar
Reinburg, Virginia. Storied Places: Pilgrim Shrines, Nature, and History in Early Modern France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Eugene F. Jr.Erasmus and the Religious Tradition, 1495–1499.” Journal of the History of Ideas 11.4 (1950): 387411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Eugene F. Jr. Saint Jerome in the Renaissance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Roper, Lyndal. Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet. London: The Bodley Head, 2016.Google Scholar
Rublack, Ulinka. “Grapho-Relics: Lutheranism and the Materialization of the Word.” Past and Present 206, supplement 5 (2010): 144–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, Steven. “Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology.” Social Studies of Science 14.4 (1984): 481520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluhovsky, Moshe. “Calvinist Miracles and the Concept of the Miraculous in Sixteenth-Century Huguenot Thought.” Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme, n.s., 19.2 (1995): 525.Google Scholar
Socrates Scholasticus. Histoire ecclésiastique. Ed. Hansen, G. C.. Trans. Périchon, Pierre and Maraval, Pierre. Vol. 1 of 7. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2004.Google Scholar
Tylenda, Joseph N. “Calvin and Christ's Presence in the Supper—True or Real.” Scottish Journal of Theology 27.1 (1974): 6575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valla, Lorenzo. On the Donation of Constantine. Trans. Bowersock, G. W.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Vélez, Karin. The Miraculous Flying House of Loreto: Spreading Catholicism in the Early Modern World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Virgil. Opera. Ed. Mynors, R. A. B.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Walsham, Alexandra. “Skeletons in the Cupboard: Relics after the English Reformation.” Past and Present 206, supplement 5 (2010): 121–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Handlist of patristic and historical sources for the Traité. Works marked with an asterisk are conjectures by Backus, Millet, and the author, respectively. Image created by the author.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Lucas Cranach, woodcut of a reliquary of Saint Margaret in the Wittenberg Heiltumsbuch. Dye Zaigung des hochlobwirdigen Hailigthumbs der Stifft Kirchen aller Hailigen zu Wittenburg (Wittenberg, 1509), sig. B3r. Image courtesy of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Arm and other reliquaries from the Vienna Heiltumsbuch. Matthaeus Heuperger, Jn Disem Puechlein ist Verzaichent das Hochwirdig Heyligtu[m]b so man Jn der Loblichen stat Wienn Jn Osterreich alle iar an Suntag nach dem Ostertag zezaigen pfligt (Vienna, 1502), sig. B3r. Image courtesy of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Mattheus Heuperger, “Die Form vnd gestaldt des heyltumbstuels,” from the Vienna Heiltumsbuch, sig. A3v. Image courtesy of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

You have Access