concerning the “King’s two Bodies” achieved their final 
     formulation. In both instances, there was a body mortal, 
     God-made and therefore “subject to all Infirmities that 
     come by Nature or Accident,” set against another body, 
     man-made and therefore immortal, which is “utterly void 
     of Infancy and old Age and other Defects and 
     Imbecilities.”
          In short, one revelled in strong contrasts of 
     fictitious immortality and man’s genuine mortality, 
     contrasts which the Renaissance, through its insatiable 
     desire to immortalize the individual by any contrivable 
     tour de force , not only failed to mitigate, but rather 
     intensified: there was a reverse side to the proud 
     reconquest of a terrestrial aevum . At the same time, 
     however, immortality—the decisive mark of divinity, but 
     vulgarized by the artifice of countless fictions—was about