shadow ofagnitio/agnoscoduring the medieval period and in Luther,
they are repeatedly employed by Calvin. After the French translation
of Institutio, it is rather the vocabulary of agnosco/agnitio that
remains in the shadow.
Calvin’s other writings can complement the picture emerging from
the analysis ofInstitutio. Simple word searches show that the relevant
French and Latin terms are used frequently by Calvin.^230 I have
restricted my analysis toInstitutio, as it already contains rich material
and has a particularly influential reception history.
Although Ficino, Luther, and Calvin differ considerably from one
another, some common features can be mentioned. First, the August-
inian sense of recognition as recollection from memory is relegated to
the background, though not completely forgotten.
Second, the medieval tradition exercises some influence on the
authors. The feudal relationship between lord and servant is to
some extent assumed. The recognition performed by the servant is
a normative and performative act in which honour remains import-
ant. At the same time, this situation expresses the individual situation
and decision of the individual, not a feudal bond. For all three
authors, however, this situation expresses a strong heteronomy
since either God or the beloved defines the person whofinally
performs the acknowledgement.
Third, all three authors outline a mutuality that is different from
medieval discussions. Ficino is the only author who has an explicit
concept of mutual recognition: in the relationship of idealized love,
the partners define one another in terms of mutual acknowledge-
ment. As Ficino is a Platonist, this event does not, however, depict
‘otherness’in any modern sense. It is rather the similarity between
partners that allows for mutual recognition. Luther has a mutual
concept of justification such that people justify God in letting God
be truthful, and God justifies people. Calvin teaches that self-
knowledge is needed for the knowledge of God, and knowledge of
God deepens self-knowledge. These mutual relationships occur in the
context of recognition, but they do not describe recognition as such.
Fourth, all three authors teach some kind of personal appropri-
ation that emerges after renunciation. This aspect is most developed
(^230) I have used theCalvini opera databasethat offers over 1,000 occurrences of
recogn and over 3,000 of agnosc and agnit* together. While the exact amounts are
unreliable for various reasons, the overall quantities and proportions are reliable.
The Latin Traditions 107