Calvin's Geneva: A rebellious father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham

Here'a tidbit about John Calvin's Geneva floating around cyberspace:

Children were to be named after Old Testament characters. A rebellious father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham (source).

Simply search the phrase "insisting on naming his son Claude" to see the extent of the spread of this information. Of the hits I came across, none were claiming John Calvin himself had a man put in prison for naming his son "Claude." Typically, it's presented as something like, "Laws and facts about Geneva Under Calvin’s Authority" (source). That is, the "Tyrant of Geneva" sent out his troops make arrests.  Let's take a close look at this fact and try to determine it's truth and John Calvin's involvement.

Documentation
I suspect the popularity of this fact finds its genesis in pop-historian Will Durant's book, The Reformation. Durant says,

To regulate lay conduct a system of domiciliary visits was established: one or another of the elders visited, yearly, each house in the quarter assigned to him, and questioned the occupants on all phases of their lives. Consistory and Council joined in the prohibition of gambling, card-playing, profanity, drunkenness, the frequenting of taverns, dancing (which was then enhanced by kisses and embraces), indecent or irreligious songs, excess in entertainment, extravagance in living, immodesty in dress. The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height.34 Theatrical performances were limited to religious plays, and then these too were forbidden. Children were to be named not after saints in the Catholic calendar but preferably after Old Testament characters; an obstinate father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham.35 Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents, and enlarged (1560): books of erroneous religious doctrine, or of immoral tendency, were banned; Montaigne’s Essays and Rousseau’s Emile were later to fall under this proscription. To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime.36 A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation with imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death. In one extraordinary instance a child was beheaded for striking its parents.37 In the years 1558-59 there were 414 prosecutions for moral offenses; between 1542 and 1564 there were seventy-six banishments and fifty-eight executions; the total population of Geneva was then about 20,000.38 As everywhere in the sixteenth century, torture was often used to obtain confessions or evidence.

35 Schaff, 492.

Durant provides a footnote, "Schaff, 492." This refers to Philip Schaff's multi-volume History of the Christian Church, specifically the volume on the Swiss Reformation. Schaff does record this incident:

A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham, as the minister wished, and saying that he would sooner keep his son unbaptized for fifteen years."1

1  Registers for April 27, 1546. Henry II. 429.

Earlier and related, Schaff noted the following also:

Parents were warned against naming their children after Roman Catholic saints who nourished certain superstitions; instead of them the names of Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Nehemiah became common. (This preference for Old Testament names was carried even further by the Puritans of England and New England.)

Schaff provides a reference: "Registers for April 27, 1546. Henry II. 429." I'm uncertain which source he's using for the Registers of Geneva. I suspect he simply took information from the second source, "Henry II, 429." This refers to Paul Henry, Das Leben Johann Calvins des grossen Reformators, Volume 2, p. 429. The text states, 

An English translation of this text can be found here. The text states, 

The feeling of popular indignation was still further increased by an order which forbade the naming of children after the Roman catholic saints; among the most favorite names were those of Claudius and Balthazar, with which the people had associated certain superstitious ideas.t To heap insult on morality and religion was the order of the day.

t Picot, T. ii. pp. 413, 414. Regis. 1546, Av. 27. Chapuis was put in prison for having persisted in naming his child Claude, which the minister did not wish, but desired to call him Abraham.

"Picot, T. ii, pp. 413-414" appears to be a bibliographic error. The actual reference should be to volume 1, pp. 413-414. Picot mentions that the particular names in question were superstitiously believed to give long life ("...ils croyoient par là procurer une longue vie à ces enfans"). This appears to be the "superstitious ideas" mentioned by Paul Henry. 

Conclusion

It is true that particular names for newborns were outlawed in Geneva during the Reformation period. The reason is alluded to above in the documentation. Negatively, in Geneva's reforming efforts, there was a concerted effort to have a complete rejection of Romanism and superstition. Positively, there was to be a concerted effort to promotion reformation. 

The name "Claude," particularly, was a troubling name. Here is the exact rule which was issued on November 22, 1546:

"Claude" was viewed as the name of an "idol," because, as the footnote states, "Claude was a name that had been popular in Geneva because of devotion to St. Claude, bishop of Bassancon and patron of the neighboring abbey of St. Claude, which attracted numerous Pilgrams." Picot and Henry state the name was superstitiously thought to bring long life.  But what of the person arrested? Scott Manetsch provides more information:

Here we find a few more details. The precise date was not April 27, 1546 (Schaff), but rather August 1546. A godparent requested the name "Claude" during a baptism ceremony. The minister though refused, and gave the child the name Abraham. The father then caused a public disruption during the ceremony, going as far to question the validity of the baptism.  Manetsch goes on to say, 

It's interesting that this severe rule the pastors of Geneva put in place was not arbitrary. They had an intended theological purpose, and took it quite seriously. The actual event that caused the arrest of Ami Chapuis was not simply a knock on his door placing him under arrest. Rather it was a disturbance at a public ceremony. Did the ministers of Geneva go too far with this rule? From a theological perspective given the time period, I'm not convinced they did. On the other hand, placing Chapius in prison for a few days does seem too harsh and too far, at least from my modern perspective. 

It's important to note specifically that the minster officiating the baptism ceremony was not John Calvin. Was Calvin in agreement with this rule? Certainly. As noted above in the legal document, Calvin was in favor of it, but the law  "only came into being after three months of vigorous discussion." So much for the power of the "Tyrant of Geneva." Yes, Calvin influenced this rule, yes there was an arrest, but it wasn't because Calvin declared it and everyone simply obeyed.  

I've not put forth a complete exhortation of Calvin. He did influence the rule on the the naming of children. Did he seek to have people arrested who violated this rule? I don't know. It appears to me that whichever minister was involved may have played a major part in the arrest.  One other thing that I'm not sure of: while Manetsch notes there were a number of "name" disputes, I've not come across any other child naming disputes that resulted in imprisonment.  The tendency is to view this imprisonment of Ami Chapuis as typical and daily in the life of Reformation Geneva. I've not come across any other similar Genevan cases.  

Calvin's Geneva: A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an “immoral height"

Here'a  tidbit about John Calvin's Geneva floating around cyberspace:

A woman was JAILED FOR ARRANGING HER HAIR to an "immoral height" (source).

This fact can be found in some weird places. The Jehovah's Witnesses say: "John Calvin enacted laws specifying the color and type of clothing his followers might wear. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon, and a woman could be jailed for arranging her hair to an 'immoral height.”" On the opposite end of the spectrum, popular Christian author Philip Yancy references it in his best-seller, What's So Amazing about Grace?: "A father who christened his son Claude, a name not found in the Old Testament, spent four days in jail, as did a woman whose hairdo reached an 'immoral height'." Yancy directly links this incident to Calvin as an example of what occurs  "When the church has occasion to set rules for all society, it often veers towards the extremism Jesus warned against."

Most often though, the quote serves the "I hate all things John Calvin and Calvinism" movement. This contingent is not only cross-denominational, it includes heretical sects, world religions, atheists, humanists, etc. It appears to be something opposing groups agree on: John Calvin was an awful individual, in essence, a dictator,  proven by the fact that under his "rule," a woman was jailed for her the "immoral height" of her hair (whatever that means, as if Calvin was measuring hair height!). Let's take a close look at this fact and try to determine it's truth and John Calvin's involvement.

Documentation: Will Durant, The Reformation
I suspect the popularity of this fact finds its genesis in pop-historian Will Durant's book, The Reformation. The key phrase which distinguishes Durant as ground zero is the use of the phrase, "immoral height." As far as I can tell, he's the first to use this phrase in regard to this historical nugget. Durant says,

Durant provides a footnote right after the "immoral height" of the woman's hair:  "Villari, Savonarola, 491." Durant says this refers to "VILLARI, PASQUALE, Life and Times of Girolamo Savonarola, N.Y., 1896." Here is Page 491 of that text. In context, Villari is not doing an in-depth study on Calvin or Geneva. He's simply mentioning Calvin in passing as a comparison to Savonarola. The comparison is intended to show (according to him) both suffered from fanaticism and intolerance. Villari states, 

Did not John Calvin live in the age of Leo X. and Francis I., and was he not a man of considerable culture, lofty genius, and iron strength of will? He too became the head of a republic, without, however, the merit of being its founder; and yet, while the declared champion of freedom and tolerance, he not only inflicted the severest punishments on all who committed blasphemy or worked on Sunday, but even cast women into prison for arranging their hair in an immodest fashion!1 Was it not he who, in the year 1553, had the innocent and ill-starred Servetus burnt to death at Geneva? It is no part of true historic criticism to put aside, when judging Savonarola, all remembrance of human passion and religious excitement.

1 In the Geneva Archives the Decree is still preserved by which a woman was sentenced to imprisonment, parce qu'elle n'avait pas les cheveux abattus. 

This was the sparse source Durant utilized. Villari claims it was John Calvin himself that "even cast women into prison for arranging their hair in an immodest fashion." Documentation is also provided: "In the Geneva Archives the Decree is still preserved by which a woman was sentenced to imprisonment." Notice Villari explains the Genevan records say explicitly, "parce qu'elle n'avait pas les cheveux abattus," but he leaves it to his readers to search out those records for this particular sentence! This is not meaningful documentation, particularly for his contemporaries. Even with our advantage of online search engines, this exact sentence typically hits only Villari's books. 

Also notice that Will Durant mis-cited  Villari. The English translation of Villari utilized by Durant does not say "immoral height," but rather, "immodest fashion." Villari's text was originally in Italian, not English. Villari's Italian text reads, "le donne per la poco modesta acconciatura dei loro capelli." "Immodest fashion" is an acceptable English translation. Why did Durant choose "Immoral height"? One pictures a Genevan woman with a 1950's beehive hairdo. True, the words "immodest" and "immoral" are related, but doesn't it seem Durant was trying to paint a darker picture of the event than what Villari wrote? The French text cited by Villari (parce qu'elle n'avait pas les cheveux abattus) does not say immoral height. The gist is that her was not hanging down.

Elsewhere I've documented Will Durant's strong bias against John Calvin. Here we see that not only was Durant biased by his choice of words in quoting his secondary source, that secondary does not helpfully substantiate the information presented. The trail mapped out by Durant to uncover the historical truth turns out to be a dead end.

Other Considerations
There are clues from other sources to consider in determining whether or not Calvin or Geneva regulated women's hair. For instance, this source states,

It was then decreed that the taverns should be closed at nightfall, all games of dice and cards were forbidden, and every sort of blasphemy and swearing was to be punished by imprisonment. It would have been well if the reformers had been content to stop there, for the prisons were full of delinquents, but Calvin insisted on legislating on the subject of dress and personal adornment, and sins of vanity were punished, as if they belonged to the same category as theft and libel. The registers of the republic under date May 20, 1537, contain the following entry:—

"A married woman went out last Sunday with her hair hanging down more than it ought, which is a bad example and contrary to the Gospel preached. The mistress, the maids who accompanied her, and the woman who dressed her hair have been sent to prison."

Notice particularly, this author claims the woman had "hair hanging down more than it ought," the exact opposite of what Durant claimed. Now not only is Calvin arresting women for high hair, he's arresting them for long hair! The famous historian Leopold von Ranke likewise mentions a version of this story:

One of the chief causes of contention was the adorning of brides, the "plicatura capillorum," which the preachers, according to 1 Peter iii. 3, would not permit. In the Registries of the Republic, May 20, 1537, we find that the mother and female friends who were present when a bride appeared "avec les cheveux plus abattus qu'il en se doit faire," were also subjected to punishment. The new preachers placed themselves under an obligation to permit the benediction of the bride "en cheveux pendans."

I suspect that the "Registries of the Republic" being cited is this text:

“Une épouse étant sortie dimanche dernier avec les cheveux plus abattus qu'il ne se doit faire, ce qui est d'un mauvais exemple, et contraire à ce qu'on leur évangélise, on fait mettre en prison sa maitresse, les deux qui l'ont menée, et celle qui l’a coiffée.—Régistres, 20 Mai, 1537.

I believe the popular source for this French text utilized by these two writers may be to an 1850 biography of John Calvin. The date of May 20, 1537 appears to be an error from this biographer. The actual date was October 30, 1537. I suspect the biographer utilized this text, and made a simple copyist error. Karl Barth mentions this similar story along with the correct date and a helpful reference"

Barth documents this with CO 21, 216. This is referring to the multi-volume set, Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Volume 21, page 216 states:

The same text can be found in Registres du Conseil de Genève à l'époque de Calvin, Volume 2. So Durant got it both right and wrong.  He's right that a woman was arrested and imprisoned. He's wrong as to the specific details.

Conclusion
The Registers of Geneva do record at least one instance of the the regulation of hair style and subsequent imprisonment in 1537.  It appears to me that the woman's hair was was placed up, whereas the standard was to have hair hanging down.

Calvin arrived in Geneva in 1536, but the best records of the Genevan church didn't really begin until a decade later. What is available in the early years are fragments, which is where this information comes from. It appears the incident Durant was documenting (via Villari) was originally a fragment from October 30, 1537.

One thing that is missing from the context of the primary source fragment is reference to John Calvin having a woman arrested for her hair style. True, Calvin was an important voice in the life of the Genevan church. Was he directly responsible for the ordinance? This author claims some of these strict regulations (like the hair ordinance) "were already in existence" before Calvin got involved.  For this author, Calvin's fault was not making the ordinance, but rather calling on the Council to enforce those pre-existing laws. Was Calvin then directly responsible for having a woman imprisoned for a hairstyle in 1537? The context does not say that. The most one could argue is that Calvin may have influenced the incident.

How responsible then was Calvin for the regulations on hairstyle? The Reform movement in Geneva did not begin with Calvin, but it certainly grew exponentially under Calvin's influence. Calvin's biographer Thomas Henry Dyer paints a picture of Geneva as being not only liberal, but a bit wild previous to Calvin's arrival: "...it must be admitted that they were carried away to excess in Geneva, and that the greatest dissoluteness of manners prevailed." He argues that the morality of the city did require reform, but that the Reformers tried too quickly (they "should be extirpated all at once...") which led to some of the seemingly harsh recordings found in the Fragments. He refers specifically to the "hair" incident:

Marriage was ordered so be solemnised with as little show as possible. Instead of the joyous fete it had hitherto been, it was converted into a purely religious ceremony, and sanctified by a sermon. If the bride or her companions adorned themselves in a fashion contrary to what was evangelised, they were punished with imprisonment. 

From the same time period, there are the Articles Concerning the Organization of the Church and of Worship at Geneva 1537, probably the product of Calvin himself. There is nothing specific in this document about hair. There is nothing then that directly links Calvin to this incident. On the other hand, though written later, we do have Calvin's comments on 1 Peter 3:3. There Calvin comments,

3. Whose adorning. The other part of the exhortation is, that wives are to adorn themselves sparingly and modestly: for we know that they are in this respect much more curious and ambitious than they ought to be. Then Peter does not without cause seek to correct in them this vanity. And though he reproves generally sumptuous or costly adorning, yet he points out some things in particular,—that they were not artificially to curl or wreath their hair, as it was usually done by crisping-pins, or otherwise to form it according to the fashion; nor were they to set gold around their head: for these are the things in which excesses especially appear.

It may be now asked, whether the Apostle wholly condemns the use of gold in adorning the body. Were any one to urge these words, it may be said, that he prohibits precious garments no less than gold; for he immediately adds, the putting on of apparel, or, of clothes. But it would be an immoderate strictness wholly to forbid neatness and elegance in clothing. If the material is said to be too sumptuous, the Lord has created it; and we know that skill in art has proceeded from him. Then Peter did not intend to condemn every sort of ornament, but the evil of vanity, to which women are subject. Two things are to be regarded in clothing, usefulness and decency; and what decency requires is moderation and modesty. Were, then, a woman to go forth with her hair wantonly curled and decked, and make an extravagant display, her vanity could not be excused. They who object and say, that to clothe one’s-self in this or that manner is an indifferent thing, in which all are free to do as they please, may be easily confuted; for excessive elegance and superfluous display, in short, all excesses, arise from a corrupted mind. Besides ambition, pride, affectation of display, and all things of this kind, are not indifferent things. Therefore they whose minds are purified from all vanity, will duly order all things, so as not to exceed moderation. 

Notice also Calvin's comments in his commentary on 1 Tim. 2:9,

In like manner also women. As he enjoined men to lift up pure hands, so he now prescribes the manner in which women ought to prepare for praying aright. And there appears to be an implied contrast between those virtues which he recommends and the outward sanctification of the Jews; for he intimates that there is no profane place, nor any from which both men and women may not draw near to God, provided they are not excluded by their vices.

He intended to embrace the opportunity of correcting a vice to which women are almost always prone, and which perhaps at Ephesus, being a city of vast wealth and extensive merchandise, especially abounded. That vice is—excessive eagerness and desire to be richly dressed. He wishes therefore that their dress should be regulated by modesty and sobriety; for luxury and immoderate expense arise from a desire to make a display either for the sake of pride or of departure from chastity. And hence we ought to derive the rule of moderation; for, since dress is an indifferent matter, (as all outward matters are,) it is difficult to assign a fixed limit, how far we ought to go. Magistrates may indeed make laws, by means of which a rage for superfluous expenditure shall be in some measure restrained; but godly teachers, whose business it is to guide the consciences, ought always to keep in view the end of lawful use. This at least will be settled beyond all controversy, that every thing in dress which is not in accordance with modesty and sobriety must be disapproved.

Yet we must always begin with the dispositions; for where debauchery reigns within, there will be no chastity; and where ambition reigns within, there will be no modesty in the outward dress. But because hypocrites commonly avail themselves of all the pretexts that they can find for concealing their wicked dispositions, we are under the necessity of pointing out what meets the eye. It would be great baseness to deny the appropriateness of modesty as the peculiar and constant ornament of virtuous and chaste women, or the duty of all to observe moderation. Whatever is opposed to these virtues it will be in vain to excuse. He expressly censures certain kinds of superfluity, such as curled hair, jewels, and golden rings; not that the use of gold or of jewels is expressly forbidden, but that, wherever they are prominently displayed, these things commonly draw along with them the other evils which I have mentioned, and arise from ambition or from want of chastity as their source.

In both passages, Calvin mentions curled hair and vanity. Perhaps it was Calvin's influence that had this woman arrested and imprisoned? It appears that a hairdresser had dressed a woman's hair in such a way that she simply looked... too beautiful, which would be an an outward show of vanity in Calvin's mind. Without though any direct evidence, it's speculation at best that Calvin had anything to do with it.

Addendum
 Here's an interesting article: Untangling history: What hair and hairstyles meant in 16th and 17th-century Europe. The author states:

In early modern Europe, dress was regulated by “sumptuary laws”. These regulations set out who could wear what and when, according to a hierarchy of privileges believed to be accorded by god. Some of the laws related not just to clothing but also to hair. 

-snip-

In some areas, the Reformation made extravagant excesses a subject of discussion and attempted to regulate clothing in regard to new aesthetics of piety and morals of modesty.

-snip-

Early modern European cities enacted laws that defined the privileges and duties of different groups. Noblemen, clerics and peasants, for example, were expected to dress and behave in certain ways: what was appropriate for one group was inappropriate for another. In the wake of the Reformation, people were expected to comply with new rules on dress – but, as always, there were some who were determined to test the limits of authority.

Calvin: Arrested and Imprisoned Jerome Bolsec, Then Wanted Him “Rotting in a Ditch"?

Here's a tidbit from a blog entry entitled, John Calvin: Heresy Hunter with an Axe to Grind:

In addition to Servetus, Jerome Bolsec was arrested and imprisoned for challenging Calvin during a lecture, then banished from the city. Calvin wrote privately about the matter saying that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”

Documentation
The documentation provided is, "Quoted in History of the Christian Church Volume VIII. p. 137 See online here. " This link doesn't go to the exact spot where Schaff discusses this. Here is the discussion in Schaff. 

Historical Context Via Schaff
Schaff explains that Jerome Bolsec actually interrupted John de St. André who was speaking that day (hence, a public disturbance), and challenged this minister, not Calvin. According to Schaff,

On the 16th of October, 1551, Bolsec attended the religious conference, which was held every Friday at St. Peter's. John de St. André preached from John 8: 47 on predestination, and inferred from the text that those who are not of God, oppose him to the last, because God grants the grace of obedience only to the elect. Bolsec suddenly interrupted the speaker, and argued that men are not saved because they are elected, but that they are elected because they have faith. He denounced, as false and godless, the notion that God decides the fate of man before his birth, consigning some to sin and punishment, others to virtue and eternal happiness. He loaded the clergy with abuse, and warned the congregation not to be led astray.

Calvin was in attendance, though Schaff says he “entered the church unobserved.” Calvin waited until Bolsec was finished, then had an impromptu debate with Bolsec, and refuted him. Schaff does not say Calvin had Bolsec arrested, nor was Bolsec arrested for challenging Calvin. Other church leaders were in attendance (for instance, Schaff says William Farel was also present). Schaff says, “The lieutenant of police apprehended Bolsec for abusing the ministers and disturbing the public peace.”

Schaff says the ministers of Geneva "drew up seventeen articles against Bolsec." Yes, Bolsec was eventually banished, but only after a number of other churches were asked to weigh in on what should be done with Bolsec (and not all of those churches were favorable to Calvin). Because of the collected work of all these churches, the milder sentence of banishment was imposed.

Rotting in a Ditch?
I’m not sure where the exact form of "Calvin wrote privately about the matter saying that he wished Bolsec were 'rotting in a ditch'" comes from. It’s similar to this from Called to Communion:

In 1551, Bolsec, a physician and convert to Protestantism, entered Geneva and attended a lecture on theology. The topic was Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, the teaching that God predetermines the eternal fate of every soul. Bolsec, who believed firmly in “Scripture alone” and “faith alone,” did not like what he heard. He thought it made God into a tyrant. When he stood up to challenge Calvin’s views, he was arrested and imprisoned.

What makes Bolsec’s case interesting is that it quickly evolved into a referendum on Church authority and the interpretation of Scripture. Bolsec, just like most Evangelicals today, argued that he was a Christian, that he had the Holy Spirit and that, therefore, he had as much right as Calvin to interpret the Bible. He promised to recant if Calvin would only prove his doctrine from the Scriptures. But Calvin would have none of it. He ridiculed Bolsec as a trouble maker (Bolsec generated a fair amount of public sympathy), rejected his appeal to Scripture, and called on the council to be harsh. He wrote privately to a friend that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”2

2 Letter to Madame de Cany, 1552.

This Called to Communion snippet is fascinating. Notice how the author, David Anders, restates the facts to give off the appearance that Bolsec interrupted Calvin's lecture. It was also not simply "Calvin's view's," but rather, the view of  John de St. André (the person lecturing), and the collective ministers of Geneva. Anders also leaves out that the entire affair was presented to a number of churches to weigh in on. Anders also presents the straw-man argument that Protestants have no right to church authority or discipline without an infallible church.

Anders does though provide a reference, "Letter to Madame de Cany, 1552." This letter can be found here. Calvin writes,

Madame,—I am very sorry that the praiseworthy act which you did about half a year ago, has met with no better return. This is because no good and true servant of God found himself within reach of such help, as that received by as wicked and unhappy a creature as the world contains. Knowing partly the man he was, I could have wished that he were rotting in some ditch; and his arrival gave me as much pleasure as the piercing my heart with a poniard would have done. But never could I have deemed him to be such a monster of all impiety and contempt of God, as he has proved himself in this. And I assure you, Madame, that had he not so soon escaped, I should, by way of discharging my duty, have done my best to bring him to the stake. 

Note the actual English translation is,  “I could have wished that he were rotting in some ditch.”  Note also, Bolsec is not named in this private correspondence. Bonnet, the translator of this letter, says

Who is the personage to whom these words refer, stamped at once by the inflexible spirit of the time and the stern rigour of the Reformer? The historian can only offer conjectures: can it be Jerome Bolsec? But a regular sentence had banished him from Geneva, and Calvin himself does not appear to have called for a more severe judgment against this innovator whom resentment bad transformed into a vile pamphleteer. "That fellow, Jerome, is driven out into perpetual exile by a public sentence. Certain revilers have spread abroad the falsehood, that we earnestly desired a much severer punishment, and foolishly, it is believed."—(Calvin to Bullinger, in the month of January 1552.) In that age of inexorable severity against unsound doctrine, Servetus only appeared at Geneva to expire at the stake, and Gentili only escaped the scaffold for a time, by the voluntary retraction of his opinions. To name Gentili, Servetus, Bolsoc, is to recall the principal victims of Calvinistic intolerance in the sixteenth century, but not to solve the mystery which attaches to the personage designated in the letter of Calvin to Madame de Cany.

Bonnet says that “The historian can only offer conjecture” as to who is meant. Bonnet then goes on to say, "… can it be Jerome Bolsec? But a regular sentence had banished him from Geneva, and Calvin himself does not appear to have called for a more severe judgment against this innovator whom resentment had transformed into a vile pamphleteer.”

Conclusion
In this age of "fake news" is it any surprise that the internet is filled with fake history as well? A closer look at the facts show that Bolsec was not "arrested and imprisoned for challenging Calvin during a lecture." Yes, Bolsec was banished, but it was not simply at the whim of Calvin. Nor is it a certainty that Calvin "wished Bolsec were 'rotting in a ditch'.'"

It is shocking to our modern scruples that a person could be banished for a perceived heretical view. Calvin and Bolsec were part of a world in which this happened. There are still churches to today (though few probably few in number!) that practice a form of banishment: excommunication. While a person is not ostracized from an entire society, they could be ostracized from certain aspects of a spiritual community.

Yes, Calvin had an important influence in Geneva, yes he could be intolerant, yes, there were tragedies in Geneva that Calvin played a part in.  While Calvin had his faults, flaws, and sins, this closer look shows there are those who wish to vilify Calvin and make him the tyrant of Geneva. The question though is... why? Why is it so important to characterize Calvin as a blood-thirsty dictator?  That's a topic for a future blog entry!

Addendum
For further reading, see: Robert Godfrey, Calvin, Bolsec and the Reformation. Godfrey says:

Jerome Bolsec, who was a Carmelite monk and doctor of theology in Paris, was drawn to the Reformation and so forced to leave France. By early 1551 he had settled in the canton of Geneva working as a physician. From early on he became a critic of Calvin's doctrine of predestination in a variety of ways and settings.

And also:

The trial of Bolsec proceeded despite such advice, especially charging Bolsec with attacking the religious establishment of Geneva and bringing scurrilous charges against its doctrine. On December 23, 1551 he was banished permanently from Geneva. He eventually returned to the Roman Church and in 1577 wrote a vicious biography of Calvin which propagated many false stories about Calvin. Bolsec died in 1584.

Calvin's Own Step-Daughter and Son-in-Law Were Among Those Condemned for Adultery and Executed in Geneva

A person going by the moniker "Clement Li" contends John Calvin was "a serial killer, mass murderer and a terrorist." Here's an example of one of the facts entered as supporting evidence:

* CALVIN’S OWN STEP-DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW WERE AMONG THOSE CONDEMNED FOR ADULTERY AND EXECUTED.

This is but one fact among many (part of a cumulative case line of reasoning). The assumption appears to be that John Calvin's presence in Geneva was so ruthlessly despotic, it resulted in his own family members being executed for adultery. This little John Calvin tidbit has traveled around cyberspace, for instance, see this link, this link,  this link, etc.

"Clement Li" thinks facts like these demonstrate John Calvin was "a psychopath." Subsequently, "Calvinist followers" should "pick up a book and do a little research on their spiritual leader they would know that they’re following the beliefs of a serial killer, mass murderer and a terrorist." Those "Calvinist followers" may be "decent people," but, says Li,  "I don’t think Calvinists are Christian."

I did not locate any information as to exactly who this person is. Ironically, the phrase "Clement Li" has an entry in the online Urban Dictionary,  "Clement Li: One who exaggerates all things to the highest degree. Exaggeration cannot pass this point, because it is at max." I mention this at the outset because perhaps this person's written corpus is intended to be farcical (if so, the spirit of Andy Kaufman lives on).

Well then, let's pick up the book this fact is said to come from and do a little research as directed. Yes, there was an adultery scandal in Calvin's family, but we'll see that John Calvin didn't have a son-in-law, nor were any of his family members executed.

Documentation
Documentation for this information is provided via a book: Will Durant, The Reformation, pp. 472-476  (a few links are also provided, but are not relevant to this specific quote). There's a blatant irony to this documentation. "Clement Li" didn't actually put this documentation together, but rather plagiarized it word-for-word from another web-page (a page no longer extant, but I can prove it, if need be). In fact, every historical tidbit (in the exact order) that "Clement Li" put forth in the blog entry was plagiarized from another web page. The blatant irony, therefore, is that Calvinists are being directed to pick up a book and do a little research by someone who didn't bother to pick up a book and do a little research!

The purported information is found in Will Durant's book on page 476. Durant says:

The extant records of the Council for this period do not quite agree with this report: they reveal a high percentage of illegitimate children, abandoned infants, forced marriages, and sentences of death. (47) Calvin's son-in-law and his stepdaughter were among those condemned for adultery.(48)

(47) Beard, The Reformation, 252; Muir, John Knox, 108.
(48) Smith, Reformation, 174-

The first part of this segment is evaluated here. One thing to notice immediately: Durant does not say John Calvin's relatives were executed, but were rather, "condemned for adultery." It appears, someone, at some point, simply made the assumption that "condemned" means "executed." This does not necessarily follow. Durant is not saying the extant records prove these people were executed.

Second, Durant is actually not citing the "extant records." Rather, he is citing another secondary source, yet another secondary presentation of Reformation history: Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation, page 174. In that context, Preserved Smith explains how there were some who viewed Geneva during Calvin's era most favorably. He counters this in part by saying,

But if we turn from these personal impressions to an examination of the acts of the Consistory, we get a very different impression. The records of Geneva show more cases of vice after the Reformation than before. The continually increasing severity of the penalties enacted against vice and frivolity seem to prove that the government was helpless to suppress them. Among those convicted of adultery were two of Calvin's own female relatives, his brother's wife and his step-daughter Judith.

This source does not say what Durant says it does. Durant says, "Calvin's son-in-law and his stepdaughter were among those condemned for adultery." Preserved Smith though says it was "his brother's wife and his step-daughter Judith." There is no mention of a "son-in-law." Durant appears to have done some factual blundering (again!) when extracting the information from his sources.

One other thing to mention is that previous to the records of the consistory during Calvin's era, there were not any records of the consistory. Preserved Smith's comparison therefore, may be unjustified. There were no factual  records of "before" to make a comparison to, if Smith has the Consistory's actions in mind. If Smith simply means the extant records of Geneva, the Consistory put forth a myriad of new punishable offenses when it came into relevance as a societal governing body, and these offenses were at times forwarded to the secular governing authorities in Geneva. Of course there would be "more cases of vice" simply because there were now more rules against particular vices and an effort to enforce those rules because of the Consistory. The way Smith presents the facts, one gets the impression that Geneva was more sanitized previous to Calvin and the Consistory. This does not necessarily follow.

The Adultery Case of John Calvin's Brother's Wife, Anne Le Fert
Calvin's brother Antoine lived in John Calvin's house in Geneva along with his wife Anne. Reading in-between the lines of what is known about this brother and his wife Anne, it doesn't appear they were a happy couple. Calvin's brother wanted out of the relationship (and it may be Anne also wanted out). As the events unfolded, it appears John Calvin used his position to try and secure a legal divorce for his brother.

Anne was charged twice with adultery. The first occurred in 1548. The evidence does suggest that something peculiar was going on between Anne and Jean Chautempts. The two were interrogated and held for a short period of time, but nothing was ever conclusively proven. It does not appear these people were tortured (as was legally customary during this time period), but they were subjected to intense questioning. Anne never admitted to the charges against her.

Because the adultery charge was not proven, Antoine was not granted a divorce. Rather, the Small Council of Geneva gave orders to the Consistory that Antoine was to go through a ceremony of reconciliation with Anne. In the ceremony, Anne, on her knees, begged for forgiveness from both brothers (John Calvin's name had been slandered due to the scandal). The forgiveness was for the appearance of an inappropriate relationship. She was forgiven by both. For a detailed account of this incident, see: Robert Kingdon, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin's Geneva, pp. 71-79. It is certainly odd (actually, blatantly odd from our contemporary standards!), that a person not proven guilty still had to beg forgiveness. Kingdon contends that during this incident, John Calvin attempted to secure a divorce for his brother, but was not successful (p.79)... so much for John Calvin's despotic authority in Geneva! Kingdon states,

...[T]he leaders of the government of Geneva had demonstrated that they still clung to the traditional belief that marriage should ordinarily be an irrevocable lifetime contract. They did not wish to consider a divorce except in the most extreme circumstances, accompanied with truly decisive proof of serious misconduct.(Klingdon, p.78). 

Fast forward eight years, and Anne found herself in trouble again. She had taken up responsibility running the entire Calvin household. Klingdon states, "...she had displayed far too much familiarity with one of the servants employed for her husband's business" (Klingdon, p. 79). The servant was named Pierre Daguet. According to Klingdon, the Calvin brothers were the suspicious parties and were those who brought complaint against Anne, which landed her in prison. Once again, the Calvin brothers appear to have been looking for grounds for divorce. The trial was not done by the Consistory, but was forwarded to the Genevan secular authorities. This time, Anne was tortured as part of her interrogation,  but again she did not confess. Despite her lack of confession,  the divorce was granted, and Anne was banished from Geneva. Both Antoine and Anne eventually remarried.

While the facts of the scandal in no way prove John Calvin was a "psychopath" or despotically ruling Geneva, a little extra research on the part of Calvin's detractors would've given them a few lesser tidbits to accurately disparage Calvin's character. Anne appears to have been railroaded by the Calvin brothers and unjustly convicted of adultery with circumstantial evidence at best. Klingdon states:

It is hard for a modern reader going through this dossier to feel confident that justice was actually done in this case. Clearly Anne Le Fert had been imprudent in her friendship with other men. Clearly she and her husband had come to dislike each other and wanted to escape from this marriage. Clearly her husband's powerful brother found her offensive and wanted her thrown out of his house. But the evidence in both of these cases for actual adultery is very thin. And Anne's persistent denial of the charges, even under two rounds of torture, make one very uneasy. If she was not innocent, she was physically far more courageous and resilient than most people of her period. Torture could make even the innocent confess. The Calvin brothers, however, were determined to avoid even the hint of impropriety in their household, even the possibility of malicious gossip about anyone under their roof. So Anne Le Fert had to go (Klingdon, 87-88).

The Adultery Case of John Calvin's Step-Daughter, Judith
Calvin's step-daughter Judith was one the two children of Idelette Stordeur brought into the Calvin household. I found very little information about Judith's adultery case.  This source simply states, "In 1562, his step-daughter, Judith, fell into similar disgrace,—a matter which Calvin felt so keenly that he left the city to seek the solitude of the country for a few days after the misdeed became public knowledge." This source states, "Calvin's step-daughter, who had lived with Calvin and his wife in Geneva prior to her marriage, was also found guilty of adultery." This source states, "Idelette's premature death in 1549 devastated Calvin. His pain was doubled by Idelette's premature death and his stepdaughter Judith's 'lustful rush' into marriage and divorce a few years later on account of her adultery."

One of the main sources of proof used above for these assertions is a letter Calvin wrote to Bullinger (March 12, 1562). The text can be found in Opera XIX, 327 (PDF).  Calvin opens the letter saying,

Translated, this text states in part:

When I wrote lately to our friend Blaurer I was prevented from doing so to you, because, before I was quite recovered from an attack of fever, a domestic sorrow, occasioned by the dishonour of my step-daughter, compelled me to seek the privacy of solitude for a few days. When I was in my rustic cottage your letter was presented to me, with the contents of which many rumours from other quarters perfectly agree. We have, then, good reason to be afraid. But how to take measures of precaution is difficult. How great the confusion is in France, you will learn partly from a letter of our brother Beza, of which I send you a copy, and I will myself partly briefly allude to it.

Here we see the source for Calvin's emotional state over Judith that historians have pulled from. The "lustful rush" comment appears to come from Richard Stauffer, L'humanité de Calvin (I have this book on order, and will revise this entry when it arrives). I could find no verifiable information proving Judith was executed for adultery. This source (p.159) states,

Judith was married docilely to a good man of her father's choice. Guillaume Farel wrote a note of congratulation to his friend about the girl of whom he, too, was very fond, "I congratulate her and because of her, her husband."

Geneva was aghast when seven years later the stepdaughter of Jean, Judith, had to be banished for adultery. The laws of Calvin knew no exception to the rule. Her father, who had always loved her, was crushed by her sin. 

Conclusion
The facts do not support the entire assertion, "Calvin's own step-daughter and son-in-law were among those condemned for adultery and executed." Calvin did not have a son-in-law, nor were Calvin's relatives executed for adultery. True, I did not locate conclusive proof  as to the exact fate of Judith, but I find it unlikely that she was executed. Had she been, I find it unlikely that Calvin's detractors throughout the centuries simply ignored it.  Anne Le Fert's legal troubles demonstrate that Calvin was far from being Geneva's ruthless dictator. Rather, Calvin had to jump through hoops over a long period of time to finally secure a divorce for his brother.

John Calvin though is not completely vindicated, particularly from a contemporary perspective.  His "evil" (for lack of a better word), was using his influence to a secure a divorce for his brother, from a woman (it appears) that he didn't like and wanted out of his household. Anne Le Fert was not convicted by facts, but rather insinuation, insinuation that John Calvin approved of and used to his advantage. This conviction included torture and banishment. While these atrocities were typical of sixteenth century society, what makes them all the worse is that Anne suffered them without actually being proven absolutely guilty.

Calvin was the Cruel and Unopposed Dictator of Geneva?

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is said to have pronounced: "Calvin was the cruel and unopposed dictator of Geneva." Different versions of this citation are found in cyberspace, many attributing this opinion to this famous dictionary. In one curious mention, Leighton Flowers argues for the authenticity of the quote (and source) by referring to the authority of Christianity Today and that the same quote was used in "5 articles by Calvinistic brothers... while still standing in defense of Calvinistic soteriology and Calvin’s overall character." If all these pro-Calvin sources use this quote, it must be a legitimate quote and the official opinion of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.

Dr. Flowers' argument is only partially correct. It's true, if a number of credible sources use the same information, that certainly is an important factor in determining validity. On the other hand, Flowers' argument is fundamentally flawed in that, simply because other sources (including favorable sources) use the quote, this doesn't necessarily prove the authenticity of the quote. Historical accuracy is not determined by taking a poll to see how many people are on the same page.

What then of this quote? Did the respected Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church really publish the exact sentence, "Calvin was the cruel and unopposed dictator of Geneva"? No, they did not. They published a sentence with some similar terms, but not an exact match to that being cited. Is this therefore a legitimate quote? I will argue their negative sentiment towards John Calvin may have been their opinion at one time, but no longer should it be attributed as the official position of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.

Documentation
Many cyber-occurrences of this quote simply cite it as coming from "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church." I suspect Christian History Magazine played a significant role in disseminating this particular documentation. To the left is the actual page layout how the quote appeared in their issue dedicated to John Calvin.  While Christian History Magazine is a helpful source for an easily digested overview of Christian history, their documentation is often horrendous. The majority of issues I've thumbed through hardly document anything in a meaningful way. The articles are clever, the layout is appealing, proper documentation though appears to be considered neither, so they typically leave the bulk of such tedium out.

In his defense of the quote Leighton Flowers found better documentation in this link:  "‘John Calvin’ in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by FL Cross and EA Livingstone, (OUP: New York, 1974, 2nd ed.), p. 223." Flowers posted this reference back in 2017. Had I been involved in this discussion, I would have asked Dr. Flowers if he had actually read page 223 in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church to confirm this quote. I suspect he would have either said "no," or quickly done a web-search to see if the book was easily accessible on-line.

In fact, not owning this volume, the very first thing I did was to see if The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church was online. Through the magic of Google Books and the preview feature at Amazon, it is possible to view the bulk of the John Calvin entry in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Via Google, a limited preview of the 2005 edition is available. One thing to notice immediately is that the Calvin entry occurs on different pages in the 2005 edition (pp. 268-270), not page 223.

More importantly, the striking thing to notice is that the quote in question does not appear in the "John Calvin" entry in these online versions. Searches of the complete book of key terms in the sentence do not return any positive hits from any of the pages in this book. I was not not the first person to realize this. The person criticizing Leighton Flowers on this quote went so far as to refer to it as one of many "fake citations," also saying, "After some research I could find no such quote in any edition of ODCC dating back to 1997." I likewise searched through a number of online editions and did not locate anything similar to "Calvin was the cruel and unopposed dictator of Geneva." It's completely missing. It certainly does seem like a fake citation!

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2005
To prove this, here is the entirety of the entry as it is now published in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:

Calvin, John (1509–64), French reformer and theologian. Born at Noyon in Picardy, Calvin appears to have been intended for an ecclesiastical career; he obtained his first benefice and received the *tonsure at the age of 12 through the patronage of the Bp. of Noyon. Sometime between 1521 and 1523 he went to Paris, studying arts at the Collège de Montaigu, presumably with a view to proceeding to the study of theology, but from 1528 he studied civil law at Orléans and later at Bourges. Here he became familiar with the ideas of Humanism, and possibly (through the influence of Melchior Wolmar, who taught him Greek) those of M. *Luther. After the death of his father in 1531, Calvin returned to Paris to study letters, publishing his commentary on *Seneca’s De Clementia in 1532.

Calvin’s growing sympathy with the Reformation movement led to his flight from Paris in Nov. 1533, following the outcry against the address delivered by the Rector of the University of Paris, Nicholas Cop, to mark the beginning of the academic year. This oration, generally thought to have been composed by Calvin, shows obvious affinities with both *Erasmus and Luther. In 1534 Calvin resigned his ecclesiastical benefices, and, as the religious situation in France deteriorated and the threat of persecution grew, fled to Basle in 1535. The first (Latin) edition of his *Institutes (q.v.) was published there in March 1536. On passing through *Geneva in July 1536, he was persuaded by G. *Farel to remain there and assist in organizing the Reformation in the city. In Jan. 1537 Calvin and Farel drew up articles regulating the organization of the Church and worship. However, strong internal opposition to their imposition of ecclesiastical discipline arose, centering on the imposition of a confession of faith and the use of excommunication as an instrument of social policy. Meanwhile Geneva was coming under increasing pressure from its powerful neighbor and ally, Berne. On Easter Day 1538, Calvin publicly defied the city council’s explicit instructions to conform to the (*Zwinglian) religious practices of Berne and was immediately ordered to leave the city.

Accepting an invitation from M. *Bucer, Calvin spent the next three years as pastor to the French congregation at Strasbourg. This period proved formative for Calvin, allowing him insights into the management of civil and ecclesiastical affairs denied him in the more provincial setting of Geneva. During this period he produced an enlarged edition of the Institutes (1539), in which the influence of Bucer is particularly evident in the discussion of the Church; a commentary on Romans (1539); the first French edition of the Institutes (1541); and the celebrated Epistle to Cardinal *Sadoleto, then endeavoring to bring Geneva back to the RC Church, in which Calvin vigorously defended the principles of the Reformation. In Aug. 1540 he married Idelette de Bure, a widow.

In Sept. 1541 Calvin accepted the invitation of the city council to return to Geneva and during the next 14 years devoted himself to establishing a theocratic regime. His ‘Ecclesiastical Ordinances’, which again drew heavily on the views of Bucer, were adopted by the city council in Nov. 1541. These distinguished four ministries within the Church: pastors, doctors, elders, and deacons. Other reforming measures included the introduction of vernacular catechisms and liturgy. Ecclesiastical discipline was placed in the hands of a *consistory, consisting of 12 elders and some pastors, which sought to enforce morality through the threat of temporary excommunication; among other things it prohibited such pleasures as dancing and gambling. Popular reaction against this moral control was considerable, culminating in the victory of an anti-Calvin party in the city elections of 1548. This was assisted by popular discontent arising from the large number of Protestant emigrés, largely from France, who sought refuge in Geneva. The difficulties of Calvin’s public life were compounded by personal tragedy: his wife died in March 1549, leaving him to care for her two children by her previous marriage (her only child by Calvin died shortly after his birth in 1542). The trial and execution of M. *Servetus (1553), however, served to undermine the authority of the city council, and by 1555 effective opposition to Calvin had ceased.

From this time onwards Calvin was virtually unimpeded in his promotion of the Reformation in Geneva and elsewhere. His extensive commentaries on the NT were supplemented by a series dealing with OT works. The establishment of the *Genevan Academy (1559) provided an international forum for the propagation of Calvin’s ideas. His influence upon the French Protestant movement (see huguenots) was enormous, Geneva being the chief source of pastors for French Protestant congregations. The publication of French editions of the Institutes exercised as great an influence over the formation of the French language itself as over French Protestantism. Earlier, between 1549 and 1553, Calvin addressed a series of letters to *Edward VI and Protector *Somerset, suggesting reforms in the English Church which would retain an episcopal form of government; from 1555 onwards he offered refuge in Geneva to Protestant exiles from England. In 1559 Calvin was finally made a citizen of Geneva. Until then his status had been that of a legal resident alien in the employment of the city council. He did not have access to the decision-making bodies in the city, save for the appointment of pastors and the regulation of morals. What authority he possessed appears to have derived largely from his personality and his influence as a religious teacher and preacher; even this authority, however, was constantly challenged by the city council until 1555.

Calvin was a more rigorous and logical thinker than Luther, considerably more sympathetic to the insights and methods of Humanism, and much more aware of the importance of organization, both of ideas and institutions. During his time at Geneva, his reputation and influence as an ecclesiastical statesman, as a religious controversialist, educationalist, and author was widespread. His theological insight, his exegetical talents, his knowledge of languages, his precision, and his clear and pithy style, made him the most influential writer among the reformers. His Institutes are still regarded as one of the most important literary and theological works of the period. In CW, he is commemorated on 26 May.

The standard edn. of Calvin’s works is that by H. W. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss, P. Lobstein, and A. Erichson (Corpus Reformatorum, 29–87; 59 vols., Brunswick, 1863–1900). Opera Selecta, ed. P. Barth and W. Niesel (5 vols., Munich, 1926–36). Many of his works were tr. into Eng. in the 19th cent. under the auspices of the Calvin Translation Society. The collection of Tracts and Treatises by H. Beveridge (1844) was repr., with notes and introd. by T. F. Torrance (3 vols., 1958). Other modern trs. into Eng. incl. that of his Theological Treatises by J. K. S. Reid (Library of Christian Classics, 22; 1954), of a selection of his Commentaries by J. Haroutunian (ibid. 23; 1958), of his Institutes by F. L. Battles, ed. J. T. McNeill (ibid. 20–1; 1961), of his Commentaries on the NT by T. H. L. Parker and others, ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (1959 ff.), and of his Comm. on Seneca’s De Clementia by F. L. Battles and A. M. Huglo (Leiden, 1969). The Lives of Calvin by T. *Beza, orig. prefixed to Calvin’s Comm. on Joshua (posthumously pub., Geneva, 1564; Eng. tr. of the Life, London, 1564), and that prefixed to the edn. of Calvin’s letters pub. Geneva, 1575, together with that attributed to Beza (the work of Nicolas Colladon) prefixed to 2nd edn. of the Comm. on Joshua (Lyons, 1565), are pr. among his works.

Modern studies dealing with Calvin generally incl. E. Doumergue, Jean Calvin: Les hommes et les choses de son temps (5 vols., 1899–1917; comprehensive but uncrit.); J. Rilliet, Calvin 1509–1564 (Paris, 1963); A. Ganoczy, Le Jeune Calvin: Genèse et évolution de sa vocation réformatrice (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für europäische Geschichte Mainz, 40; Wiesbaden, 1966; Eng. tr., Philadelphia, 1987; Edinburgh, 1988); T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (1975); W. J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York and Oxford, 1988); A. E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford, 1990); B. Cottret, Calvin: biographie ([1995]; Eng. tr., Grand Rapids and Edinburgh, 2000). Works on different aspects incl. E. Choisy, La Théocratie à Genève au temps de Calvin (Geneva [1897]); W. Niesel, Die Theologie Calvins (Munich, 1938; 2nd edn., 1957; Eng. tr., 1956); J. D. Benoît, Calvin, directeur des âmes [1949]; T. F. Torrance, Calvin’s Doctrine of Man (1949); id., Kingdom and Church: A Study in the Theology of the Reformation (1956), pp. 90–164; F. Wendel, Calvin: Sources et évolution de sa pensée religieuse (Études d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses publiées par la faculté de théologie protestante de l’université de Strasbourg, 41; 1950; Eng. tr., 1963); E. A. Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New York, 1952); P. [M.] van Buren, Christ in Our Place: The Substitutionary Character of Calvin’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (1957); R. S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (1959); W. Nijenhuis, Calvinus Oecumenicus: Calvijn en de Eenheid der Kerk in het Licht van zijn Briefwisseling (Kirkhistorische Studien, 3; 1959); J. *Moltmann (ed.), Calvin-Studien 1959 (Neukirchen, 1960); H. J. Forstman, Word and Spirit: Calvin’s Doctrine of Biblical Authority (Stanford, Calif., 1962); K. (McDonnell, OSB, John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist (Princeton, NJ, 1967); T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (1971); id., Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh, 1986); H. Höpfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge, 1982); S. E. Schreiner, The Theater of his Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin (Durham, NC [1991]); R. C. Zachman, The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin (Minneapolis [1993]), pp. 91–253. P. W. Butin, Revelation, Redemption and Response: Calvin’s Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York and Oxford, 1995); D. C. Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (ibid. 1995). R. Peter and J.-F. Gilmont, Bibliotheca Calviniana: Les œuvres de Jean Calvin publiées au XVI^e siècle (Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 255 and 281; 1991–4). A. Erichson, Bibliographia Calviniana: Catalogus Chronologicus Operum Calvini (Berlin, 1900); W. Niesel, Calvin-Bibliographie 1901–1959 (Munich, 1961), D. Kempff, A Bibliography of Calviniana 1959–1974 (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, 15; Leiden, 1975). J. N. Tylenda and P. De Klerk, ‘Calvin Bibliography 1960–1970’, Calvin Theological Journal, 6 (1971), pp. 156–93; an annual bibl. is included in subsequent issues of the Journal. See also bibls. to calvinism and institutes.

 Cross, F. L., and Livingstone, E. A. (Eds.). (2005). In The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev., pp. 268–270). Oxford;  New York: Oxford University Press.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1974
There is nothing overtly condescending about Calvin in the above. One wonders how anyone could possibly say The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church referred to Calvin as a "cruel" and "unopposed dictator." I decided to take this a step further and pursue the documentation provided via Leighton Flowers, so I  purchased the 1974 edition. As it turns out, there are some crucial and drastic differences between the 2005 edition and the 1974 edition. The latest edition is a revision of the second edition from 1974. The reason why the page numbers don't match is because the later revision expanded the content by adding new material. E.A. Livingstone explained in the 2005 edition, that to "reflect events and shifts in scholarly opinion over the last eight years or so... In some cases I commissioned completely new articles..."

This appears to be what happened with the "John Calvin" entry. While there are some similarities, the "John Calvin" entry in the later edition is significantly different than what appears in the 1974 edition. The 1974 version does paint a different picture of Calvin, that of the despotic intolerant ruler. For instance, in describing Calvin's first years at Geneva, the text states:

He was appointed preacher and professor of theology and in 1536 published his Articuli de Regimine Ecclesiae. They contained severe regulations concerning admission to the Lord's Supper and required from all Genevan citizens a profession of faith approved by the town council, the refusal of which was to be punished by exile (222).

And also of Calvin's return:

In 1541 Calvin returned to Geneva , where his party had gained the upper hand, and during the next 14 years he devoted himself to establishing a theocratic regime on OT lines. this was effected by a series of Ordinances which placed the government of the new Church in the hands of four classes of men... which, under Calvin, was chiefly a tribunal of morals. It wielded the power of excommunication and had far-reaching powers over the private lives of citizens. These were enforced by new legislation, which inflicted severe punishments even for purely religious offenses and prohibited all pleasures such as dancing and games (223).

The article then mentions the Libertine party "which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force," (223) and how Gruet, Monnet, and Servetus were either tortured or executed.  Not long thereafter comes the quote under scrutiny: "From 1555 to his death he was the unopposed dictator of Geneva, which, through him, had become a city of the strictest morality." The article goes on to describe "his vindictiveness and his claim to be the supreme authority to decide what is true Christianity and what is not was resented even by his many followers" (223).

Conclusion
The actual quote is "From 1555 to his death he was the unopposed dictator of Geneva, which, through him, had become a city of the strictest morality." This is certainly different than "Calvin was the cruel and unopposed dictator of Geneva." Missing particularly is the word "cruel" (this word does not appear anywhere in the 1974 entry).  I suspect someone originally only was citing the ODCC saying "unopposed dictator of Geneva," and then someone after that created the version of this sentence attributing its entirety to the ODCC. Perhaps it was Christian History Magazine? Their exact statement was "[Calvin was] the 'cruel' and 'the unopposed dictator of Geneva'. " They published their issue on Calvin in 1986. If they weren't the culprit, they certainly helped in perpetuating this somewhat fake citation.

Robert Godfrey's review of the 1974 edition is revealing. He points out that the 1974 edition was a revision of the 1957 edition. While mentioning improvements, he specifically mentions problems with "John Calvin" entry:

When Professor Paul Woolley reviewed the first edition of the Dictionary in this Journal, he critiqued three entries in particular: one on millennarianism and two on Calvin and Calvinism. The erroneous definition of millennarianism in the first edition has been corrected in the second. Unhappily no such improvement can be seen in the entries on Calvin and Calvinism. While the bibliographies, particularly on Calvin, have been greatly improved and updated, the articles themselves have not been changed at all. The same gross misrepresentations of Calvin and Calvinism are simply repeated. Whoever contributed these articles should have read the good books listed in the bibliographies.

The first article describes Calvin as having “devoted himself to establishing a theocratic regime on Old Testament lines,” and having “prohibited all pleasures such as dancing and games” (p. 223). Calvin is called “the unopposed dictator of Geneva” after 1555 and as lacking “the human attractiveness of Luther.” (Ibid.) The theology of Calvinism is summarized as “extreme emphasis on the omnipotence of God, which takes no account of His justice and mercy” (p. 224). Reformed church polity is described as a “theocratic polity, subjecting the State to the Church” (Ibid.). Calvin’s eucharistic theology is “at times ambiguous, but his thought seems to tend more in the direction of Zwingli” (Ibid.). None of these statements is true and indicate one place in the Dictionary where generalizations long refuted are allowed to stand. Clearly the long years of distortion and misunderstanding are not over for John Calvin or his theological descendants [Robert, G. W. (1976). Review of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Edited by F. L. Cross. Westminster Theological Journal, 39(1), 202–203].

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church rewrote their entry on Calvin, so their earlier opinion that Calvin was an "unopposed dictator" is no longer accurate. Leighton Flowers should have gone the extra few steps to verify this quote instead of defending his "credentials" and complaining about if he or his detractor was using "proper research methodology." This quote is yet another example of: just because it's on the Internet, it's not necessarily true.