Читать книгу History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin (Vol. 1-8) - J. H. Merle D'Aubigné - Страница 37

Table of Contents

On the 22nd of December, ten days after Charles’s departure, crowds of citizens poured from every quarter towards the hôtel-de-ville. The syndics and the council, who were then sitting, were informed that certain persons desired to be admitted; the doors were opened, and the petitioners entered. At their head walked John Bandière, a man about sixty years old, whose son Ami (syndic in the Reformation year) was among the fugitives. This venerable man advanced, surrounded by the children of his son and of other exiles.389 With him came several citizens who, though they had remained in the background during recent events, might yet with good right appear in the front line. There was the amiable Ami Porral, afterwards syndic, who zealously embraced the evangelical faith; Pierre de Joye, cousin of that De Joye whom Bishop John had desired to put to death; the bold Robert Vandel, syndic in 1529, his brother Peter, Sept, De Chapeaurouge, Falquet, Lect, Delapalud, Malbuisson, Favre, Lullin, Denis Hugues, son of the estimable Besançon: in short, says a document of the time, about 100 citizens, the flower of Geneva. These men desired not only to bear testimony in favour of men unjustly accused; but observing that those to whom the reins of the State had been confided were slumbering, that the chariot was leaving the track and about to fall into the ditch, they thought it their duty to set the drivers on the right road. Bandière, his face wet with tears (says a manuscript), spoke first: ‘Most honourable lords,’ he said, ‘you see these children; do you not know their fathers? Are not these poor little ones orphans already, though their fathers are still alive?’390—‘Yes,’ exclaimed the councillors.—‘Those citizens,’ continued Bandière, ‘who, for having defended the liberties of Geneva, were compelled, through a thousand dangers, to seek refuge in Germany yonder,391—are not they good men?’ ... ‘They are,’ was the answer. ‘Are they not citizens of this city—the good men whose fathers, sons, and connections you have before you?’—It was cheerfully acknowledged.

Having thus the testimony of the council in favour of the refugees—a testimony of which the Friburg deputy made a note—the venerable Bandière continued: ‘These refugees, whom you acknowledge to be good men, are surprised that you should have disavowed them in letters sent to the League. For this reason, we who are here present declare boldly that we approve them, both in their words and in their acts, and count them to be faithful and devoted citizens. At the same time, most honourable lords, we protest against every encroachment attempted by a foreign power on the rights of our prince and the liberties of the city.’

Thus the slumbering Geneva, whom Charles had thought dead, cast off the bonds with which that prince had bound her, and, rejecting the duke with one hand, called the fugitives back with the other. Bandière handed in his declaration in writing, and demanded letters-testimonial. Syndic Montyon, in great embarrassment, said that it was necessary to deliberate before answering. ‘Where is the necessity?’ exclaimed the energetic Robert Vandel.—‘It is not the custom to give testimonials here,’ was the reply. The huguenot, astonished at this refusal of a simple receipt, grew impatient, and, turning towards De Sergine, desired him to draw up the act himself.

The syndics and councillors had not yet remarked this person. ‘Not imagining they had such a visitor in their house,’ says Bonivard, ‘they looked at him with astonishment.’ Their astonishment increased when they saw the Friburger rise and say, addressing the whole assembly: ‘Sirs, do you acknowledge those who are in the country of the Helvetians to be men worthy of all honour; and do you ratify all that may be done by them for the welfare of this illustrious city?’ The syndics and councillors, surprised at this extraordinary question, kept silent; but all the other citizens present, voting as if in general council, answered ‘Yes!’ De Sergine, calling the council to witness the complete approval that had been given the fugitives, withdrew, followed by the hundred citizens, proud of having made the voice of the people heard in the very bosom of an enslaved senate.392

De Sergine, unwilling to lose a moment, sat down without ceremony on the steps of the hôtel-de-ville, as might have been done, perhaps, in the simple republics of antiquity, and prepared to draw up the letters-testimonial that were required of him. A certain number of patriots stood around him; others went through the city reporting what had just taken place. Men rejoiced everywhere; they directed their steps towards the hôtel-de-ville, remembering that God never forsakes a people that does not forsake itself. Every minute fresh citizens came and increased the strange assembly gathered round the notary, and every new-comer was eager to have his name at the foot of the declaration. All were speaking and arguing at once; some wept, others laughed; they felt that a new breath was passing over the city, and that its ancient liberties were recovering their vitality. All voices united in proclaiming the praises of the fugitives. ‘Yes, certainly they are better than us,’ said the crowd, ‘for they have forsaken everything that our liberties might be preserved.’ For a long time no such enthusiasm and joy had been witnessed in Geneva; and comparisons were drawn between this noble assembly, where every one gave his name at the peril of his life, and that gloomy Council of the Halberds, held in the duke’s presence: on one side pomp and tyranny; on the other, simplicity and liberty. Forsaken by the bishop, threatened by the duke, watched by the Count of Genevois, surrounded by the armed soldiers of Saleneuve and Balleyson, ever prompt to acts of violence, the citizens followed each other, from noon until five o’clock, to sign the document which was to secure their alliance with Switzerland and the triumph of their liberties.

The mamelukes, however, wishing to stop a movement which threatened to rob the duke of all his recent advantages, had recourse to secret practices. Creeping up to some of the patriots of their acquaintance whom they saw approaching, they would say: ‘Beware! when the duke returns with his army, he will lay his hand on these testimonials, he will count the names, he will mark the most guilty with a cross, and send them to rejoin the shades of Berthelier and Lévrier.’ The duke had, in truth, his revenge in reserve; but the citizens heeded it not, and replied to this manœuvre by giving in their names with greater enthusiasm. The approach of the festivals of Christmas and of the New Year compelled many to stay in their shops, who were thus prevented from signing; to provide against which, men went from house to house, asking who would vote for the alliance with Switzerland. There were not a hundred persons in Geneva who refused. The protest of the hôtel-de-ville decided the fate of the city. Many of the first subscribers were in the number of those who received the Gospel most gladly. The dawn of the emancipation which was then beginning to appear, was to be followed by the full light of the Reformation. But before that glorious day arrived, what struggles, what wars, what dangers, Geneva would still have to go through!393

Erelong the movement descended, spreading from the hôtel-de-ville through all the streets of the city; and to the noble protest of the principal citizens were added the rejoicings of the young folks and of the people. The holidays of Christmas and of the New Year had arrived. The ‘children of Geneva,’ masked or with blackened faces, paraded the streets to the sound of the drum, singing and shouting all over the city: ‘Long live the huguenots!’ During this time the citizens held frequent meetings both by day and by night, at which they boldly called for the return of the patriots, though they saw the dangers that would accompany them. Some of the independents visited Switzerland by stealth, to report all that had taken place and bring back the fugitives in triumph.

The Savoyard party, who still had the power in their hands, were firmly resolved not to give it up. The episcopal council sat all night. The syndics, the vicar, and the vidame in particular, were losing their heads. To prevent the movement from succeeding, they took useless and contradictory steps, calculated rather to increase the irritation in men’s minds: nothing prospered with them. ‘Fancy how surprised they are,’ wrote the worthy Porral to Hugues. ‘They will go mad, please God. The vidame is always indoors with the gout; may God keep him there! They have forbidden the boatmen to ferry anybody over the water at night.... They are afraid that God will give them what they deserve.’ The procurator-fiscal issued writs against all who had signed the protest. ‘If you will not answer according to my pleasure,’ he said to them, ‘I will force you to speak.’—‘Really,’ said Porral, who already felt the need of another liberty than political liberty, ‘really, I think that after they have compelled us to deny our parents, neighbours, and friends, they will constrain us next to deny God himself.’

Yet, if the party of Savoy appeared ‘sick,’ that of liberty was still very weak. Both portions of the community turned at the same time towards the bishop. ‘His authority is in question,’ said certain patriots; ‘he will side with us against Savoy. Let us summon him.’—‘The bishop cannot side with rebels,’ said the episcopal council and the mamelukes; ‘let us hasten his return.’ As the prelate was still beyond the Alps, the two parties wrote to him, each for itself: ‘Return speedily; without you we can do nothing.’394

This was embarrassing to Pierre de la Baume. On the one hand, he clung to his principality, and at certain moments he would have withstood the duke; but on the other hand, he felt himself unable to resist that prince, and thus he fluctuated perpetually between duty and fear. He started for Geneva, not knowing what he would do there.

On Thursday, February 1, 1526, one hundred and sixty mounted citizens rode out of the city to meet the prelate: ‘Why, they are all huguenots,’ said Biolley, an ardent mameluke and secretary to the council, as he saw them pass. There was however something else. On each side of the bishop rode Saleneuve and Balleyson, both devoted servants of the duke, and Charles, distrusting La Baume, expected that he would obey them as if they were his guardians. The prelate loved neither his Highness nor the citizens of Geneva, ‘but only to fill his purse, that he might empty it afterwards in playing gaudeamus,’ says a contemporary. The two chamberlains, however, kept so close to him that he could not speak freely to anybody. He behaved politely towards them, and seemed to be their very humble servant; but as soon as he arrived at the bridge of Arve, where Savoy ended and the Genevese territory began, the bishop spurred his horse, and rode in front of his ‘guardians,’ as a sign that he was lord and master. Then assuming his right position, he obliged them from that moment to speak to him uncovered.395

The Savoyard nobles were determined, however, not to lose their prey. The next day (February 2), after dinner, as the two guardians were keeping the bishop ‘at a gaming-table,’ it was whispered him that Robert Vandel wanted him. Vandel, one of the Genevese liberals, possessed all his confidence, and the bishop desired much to see him; but Saleneuve and Balleyson continued their game, and Pierre de la Baume knew not what to do to escape them. Unable to hold out any longer, he rose, alleging some very natural pretext, and hastened to a little room at the back of the house, where Vandel was. ‘Well, Robert,’ said the prelate rather sharply, ‘they tell me that you have made a declaration in the city contrary to my authority.’—‘You have been deceived,’ replied Vandel, who read him the protest of the hôtel-de-ville. ‘Well, well,’ said the prelate, ‘there is no great harm in that.’ Vandel then represented to him that if Geneva owed a double obedience, one to the duke, another to the bishop, as the Council of Halberds had determined, the first would certainly swallow up the second. Pierre de la Baume had no doubt of it.—‘There is somebody,’ he said, lowering his voice, ‘very glad of my coming, but he will be vexed afterwards.... I will not lose an inch of my jurisdiction, were I to spend all my property in defending it. I will have no alliance with the Swiss, however; this I promised the duke.’ Vandel represented to him that the Genevans sought this alliance only to protect the episcopal sovereignty against the usurpations of Savoy; and then, knowing the prelate’s avarice, he added shrewdly: ‘When the alliance with the Swiss is concluded, we will proceed against the duke’s creatures, we will confiscate their property, and, my lord ... that will do you no harm.’—‘What are you saying, Robert?’ Vandel explained his meaning more fully. Such language moved the bishop to turn round.—‘Really,’ he answered. ‘Well, we will talk more fully about it another time; for the moment, farewell.’ The converted prelate went back to his two keepers.396

The bishop, won over by Vandel, made many reflections during the night, and the next day he desired to see the syndics and the council, who had greatly irritated him by their concessions to the duke. ‘Tell me how you have been going on since my departure,’ he said mildly, and then continued sharply: ‘You asked me to join in your appeal to Rome, and then you withdrew from it without my consent.... This is bad; you should have done your duty without fear, whatever wrong might be done you.... I will not give up the appeal; I would rather convene the people.... God and the world shall be satisfied with me.’ La Baume had seen the duke in Piedmont. ‘His Highness,’ said he, turning towards his episcopal council, ‘told me that he meant to have the sovereignty of Geneva, and asked me for a day to come to an understanding about it; but I answered immediately that although Pierre de la Baume is his humble subject, his Highness has no business in my city.... I am determined to maintain the rights of my church and the liberties of my city—until death.’ Then turning again to the syndics: ‘As for those who have retired into Switzerland,’ he said, ‘I hold them to be honest people, and, saving the alliance, I approve of all they may do.’

On a sudden the bishop asked himself what he should say to the duke if such language was reported to him.... Startled at his own courage, he became confused, hesitated, and, speaking low to the first syndic, he said: ‘I wish you did as they do at Venice. Your council is not secret; it ought to be so. Understand clearly that I embrace the city party; but the benefices I possess in his Highness’s states compel me to do so secretly.... If in any circumstance I seem opposed to your interests, remember that it is in appearance only.’ At the same time, the bishop wrote and told the fugitives of his intention to pay all the expenses which the independence of the city necessitated; but he added: ‘If I write you the contrary, pay no attention to it; I shall do so only through fear of the duke, and not to make him angry.’ The spirit of his policy was deception. Such was the last bishop of Geneva.397

The annual nomination of the syndics was about to take place, and the city was in great commotion. Both parties counted on this election: the mamelukes to establish the duke in Geneva, and the huguenots to expel him. The great patriots were in exile; victory seemed assured to the ducals. Yet the timidest even of the huguenots took courage, and swore to elect ‘honest men who would secure the liberty of the city.’ The general council having assembled on the 4th of February, 1526, the mameluke syndic Montyon proposed eight candidates, from whom, according to the order prescribed by the duke, they must elect four syndics. Then Robert Vandel stood up: ‘I am authorised by the citizens,’ he said to Montyon, ‘to inform you that they will not be muzzled (brigidari).’ Then, turning to the people, he asked: ‘Is it not true?’ All replied: ‘Yes, yes!’ many at the same time calling out ‘Jean Philippe.’ Philippe was not only not one of the eight, but he was one of the exiles. ‘We will make Jean Philippe syndic,’ repeated the huguenots, ‘and thus show that he and the others in Switzerland are good citizens.’ If Besançon Hugues was not the popular choice, it was probably because the people were still angry with that noble exile for his refusal in the preceding year.

At this moment the bishop’s procurator-fiscal Mandalla appeared. La Baume’s courage was not heroic; he trembled at the idea of a purely huguenot election, and desired to get a moderate list—half servile, half liberal—passed. In his name, Mandalla proposed four candidates, among whom was the traitor Cartelier. ‘That will quiet all angry feelings,’ said the procurator. It was not a clever manœuvre, for Cartelier’s name was sufficient to discredit the others.

The polling began. Each man went up to the secretary and gave in his vote. The most energetic of the two parties counted the votes received. The procurator-fiscal watched the election with anxiety. Soon, vexed and dispirited, he ran and told the bishop that the people took no account of his message.... Pierre de la Baume was frightened. The zealous fiscal ran again to the polling-place: ‘My lord conjures you,’ he said, ‘at least not to elect Jean Philippe, considering that he is not in the city.’—‘We will make no choice that will be disagreeable to the bishop,’ they answered politely, and at the same time continued giving their votes to the exile. The people of Geneva were determined to show, in a striking manner, that they were breaking with Savoy and uniting with Switzerland, and treading boldly in the path of liberty. The bishop, still more alarmed, finding that his procurator obtained nothing, sent his vicar to protest, in his name, against so dangerous an election. ‘It shall be done as our prince pleases,’ said they courteously; and then, ‘without noise or murmur, were elected four huguenots. Sire Jean Philippe (they said in the city) received more votes than any of the others.’ The citizens cared no more for the bishop than for the duke, when the reestablishment of their liberties was concerned. The people had never been more united; the opposition counted only eleven, and after the election everybody declared that they sided with the majority. They said one to another that a free and courageous people, if God comes to their aid, can never perish.

Confusion was in the bishop’s palace. As soon as opposition is made to the duke, said some, revolution breaks its bounds ... this election must be annulled. The bishop ordered that another general council should be held on the morrow, and, calculating on his personal influence, he appeared at it, attended by his councillors and officers; but the people were deaf, and confirmed Philippe’s election; only they appointed his brother-in-law (D. Franc) to take his place during his absence. Not satisfied with this, the people repealed all statutes contrary to the liberties of Geneva passed under fear of Charles of Savoy. The bishop, alarmed at these republican proceedings, exclaimed: ‘Is there nobody that wishes to maintain these ordinances?’ No one answered. Everything fell, and the ancient constitution was restored. After having changed the laws, they set about changing the persons. They would have no partisans of Savoy to preserve the liberties of Geneva. Huguenot councillors were elected in the place of mamelukes. The restoration of Genevese liberties had been so promptly accomplished that the ducal faction could not believe their eyes. ‘Our brewers were never more astounded,’ said the huguenots. (The brewers were the men who brewed or plotted treason.) There were men in the ducal party who changed their opinions as the wind changes; they were now seen accosting the patriots and shaking hands with them.... ‘See,’ said the huguenots, ‘how well they counterfeit the air of good fellowship!’ ... Then all true friends of their country exclaimed: ‘Let us praise God! Laus Deo!’398

Thus did liberty triumph. The Genevese people had restored their franchises, dismissed the mamelukes, rejected the cruel protectorate of Charles III., sought the alliance of Switzerland; and after all that, they gave God the glory.399

As the cause of Savoy was lost, the bishop, so long wavering, made a show of placing himself on the side of the free and the bold. He sent Pierre Bertholo to carry this important news to Jean Philippe and all those exiles of whom he was so afraid. The latter had not lost their time; they endeavoured to enlighten the Swiss, and Hugues continually argued and repeated that Geneva was not under subjection to the duke. At this time Bertholo arrived. ‘The ordinances of Savoy are repealed,’ he told the refugees; ‘patriots replace the serviles everywhere, and one of you has been elected syndic—Jean Philippe!’ They could hardly believe this news. What! one of these wretched fugitives, of these mendicants (as their enemies called them), raised by the people of Geneva to the head of the State!... What a refutation of the ducal calumnies! But the ‘foreigners’ did not forget themselves in the joy which this message caused them. Taking Bertholo with them, they proceeded to the Bernese council, and reported the unexpected intelligence brought by the messenger. ‘Up to the present time,’ said the avoyer, ‘I have invited Besançon Hugues alone, as your chief, to sit down at my side; now, Messire Jean Philippe, take your seat above Besançon, as syndic of Geneva.’ The alliance would no longer meet with obstacles. ‘We accept you as fellow-freemen,’ continued the avoyer, ‘without heed to those growlers and their threats, which do not last long now-a-days.’400

The people of Geneva were about to rise, if we may so speak, from the grave. They had acted with decision, with energy, with unwavering firmness. They desired to have for their magistrates none but men able to maintain their laws and independence, and had boldly erased from the code of the republic all ordinances contrary to the liberties of Geneva. Accordingly, ‘a person of mark,’ who lived at the beginning of the seventeenth century, exclaimed, after studying these facts: ‘This history is a marvellous one, and calls to my mind a tract in the Philetes of Plato, touching the moral good comprised in the three ideas: Reality, Proportion, and Truth. It is full of the special marks of the wise and merciful providence of God, who has guided, up to this present hour, this ship of his miracles through an infinity of shoals. The more thoroughly we contemplate human action, so much the deeper appear the counsels of God.’401 What we are about to see appears to confirm these words.