OPPOSITION TO THE DESIGNS OF THE DUKE, THE POPE, AND THE BISHOP.
(1513-1515.)
The opposition to the bishop was shown in various ways and came from
different quarters. The magistrates, the young and new defenders
of independence, and lastly (what was by no means expected) the
cardinals themselves thwarted the plan formed to deprive Geneva of its
independence. Opinion, ‘the queen of the world,’ as it has been called,
overlooked worldliness in priests but not libertinism. Debauchery
had entered into the manners of the papacy. The Church of the middle
ages, an external and formal institution, dispensed with morality
in its ministers and members. Dante and Michael Angelo place both
priests and popes in hell, whether libertines or poisoners. The crimes
of the priest (according to Rome) do not taint the divine character
with which he is invested. A man may be a holy father--nay, God upon
earth--and yet be a brigand. At the time when the Reformation began
there were certain articles of faith imposed in the Romish church,
certain hierarchies, ceremonies, and practices; but of morality
there was none; on the contrary, all this framework naturally tended
to encourage Christians to do without it. Religion (I reserve the
exceptions) was not the man: it was a corpse arrayed in magnificent
garments, and underneath all eaten with worms. The Reformation restored
life to the Church. If salvation is not to be found in adherence to the
pope and cardinals, but in an inward, living, personal communion with
God, a renewal of the heart is obligatory. It was within the sphere of
morality that the first reforming tendencies were shown at Geneva.
In the month of October 1513 the complaints in the council were very
loud: ‘Who ought to set the people an example of morality, if not the
priests?’ said many noble citizens; ‘but our canons and our priests are
gluttons and drunkards, they keep women unlawfully, and have bastard
children as all the world knows.’[64] Adjoining the Grey Friars’
convent at Rive stood a house that was in very bad repute. One day a
worthless fellow, named Morier, went and searched the convent for a
woman who lived in this house, whom these reverend monks had carried
off. The youth of the city followed him, found the poor wretch hidden
in a cell, and carried her away with great uproar. The monks attracted
by the noise appeared at their doors or in the corridors but did not
venture to detain her. Morier’s comrades escorted her back in triumph,
launching their jokes upon the friars.[65] The Augustines of our Lady
of Grace were no better than the Franciscans of Rive, and the monks of
St. Victor did no honour to their chief. All round their convents were
a number of low houses in which lived the men and women who profited by
their debauchery.[66]
The evil was still greater among the Dominicans of Plainpalais:
the syndics and council were forced to banish two of them, Brother
Marchepalu and Brother Nicolin, for indulging in abominable practices
in this monastery.[67] The monks even offered accommodation for the
debaucheries of the town; they threw open for an entrance-fee the
extensive gardens of their monastery, which lay between the Rhone and
the Arve, and whose deep shades served to conceal improper meetings
and midnight orgies.[68] Nobody in Geneva had so bad a reputation as
these monks: they were renowned for their vices. In the way of avarice,
impurity, and crime, there was nothing of which they were not thought
capable. ‘What an obstinate devil would fear to do,’ said some one, ‘a
reprobate and disobedient monk will do without hesitation.’[69]
What could be expected of a clergy at whose head were popes like
John XXIII., Alexander VI., or Innocent VIII., who having sixteen
illegitimate children when he assumed the tiara, was loudly proclaimed
‘the father of the Roman people?’[70] The separation between religion
and morality was complete; every attempt at reform, made for centuries
by pious ecclesiastics, had failed: there seemed to be nothing that
could cure this inveterate, epidemic, and frightful disease:--nothing
save God and his Word.
The magistrates of Geneva resolved however to attempt some reforms, and
at least to protest against insupportable abominations. On Tuesday,
10th October, the syndics appeared in a body before the episcopal
council, and made their complaints of the conduct of the priests.[71]
But what could be expected from the council of a prelate who bore in
his own person, visibly to all, the shameful traces of his infamous
debaucheries? They hushed up complaints that compromised the honour
of the clergy, the ambition of the duke, and the mitre of the bishop.
However the blow was struck, the moral effect remained. One thought
sank from that hour deep into the hearts of upright men: they saw that
something new was wanted to save religion, morality, and liberty. Some
even said that as reforms from below were impossible, there needed a
reform from heaven.
It was at this moment when the breeze was blowing towards independence,
and when the liberal party saw its defenders multiplying, that there
came to Geneva a brilliant young man, sparkling with wit, and full
of Livy, Cicero, and Virgil. The priests received him heartily on
account of his connection with several prelates, and the liberals did
the same on account of his good-humour; he soon became a favourite
with everybody and the hero of the moment. He had so much imagination:
he knew so well how to amuse his company! This young man was not a
superficial thinker: in our opinion he is one of the best French
writers of the beginning of the 16th century, but he is also one of
the least known. Francis Bonivard--such was the name of this agreeable
scholar--had, in the main, little faith and little morality; but he
was to play in Geneva by his liberalism, his information, and his
cutting satires, a part not very unlike that played by Erasmus in the
great Reformation. As you left the city by the Porte St. Antoine, you
came almost immediately to a round church, and by its side a monastery
inhabited by some monks of Clugny,[72] whose morals, as we have seen,
were not very exemplary. This was the priory of St. Victor, and within
its walls were held many of the conversations and conferences that
prepared the way for the Reformation. St. Victor was a small state
with a small territory, and its prior was a sovereign prince. On the
7th of December, 1514, the prior, John Aimé Bonivard, was on his
death-bed, and by his side sat his nephew Francis, then one-and-twenty.
He was born at Seyssel;[73] his father had occupied a certain rank
at the court of Duke Philibert of Savoy, and his mother was of the
noble family of Menthon. Francis belonged to that population of nobles
and churchmen whom the dukes of Savoy had transplanted to Geneva to
corrupt the citizens. He was educated at Turin, where he had become
the ringleader of the wild set at the university; and ever carrying
with him his jovial humour, he seemed made to be an excellent bait to
entice the youth of the city into the nets of Savoy. But it was far
otherwise, he chose the path of liberty.
For the moment he thought only of his uncle whose end seemed to have
arrived. He did not turn from him his anxious look, for the old prior
was seriously agitated on his dying bed. Formerly, in a moment of
irritation, he had ordered four large culverins to be cast at the
expense of the Church in order to besiege the seignior of Viry, one
of his neighbours, in his castle at the foot of Mount Saleve. Old
Bonivard had committed many other sins, but he troubled himself little
about them, compared with this. These large guns, purchased out of
the ecclesiastical revenues, with a view to kill men and batter down
the castle of an old friend, gave him a fearful pang.[74] In his
anguish he turned towards his nephew. He had found an expedient, a
meritorious work which seemed calculated to bring back peace to his
agitated conscience. ‘Francis,’ he said to his nephew, ‘listen to me;
you know those pieces of cannon ... they ought to be employed in God’s
service. I desire that immediately after my death they may be cast into
bells for the church.’ Francis gave his promise, and the prior expired
satisfied, leaving to his nephew the principality, the convent, and the
culverins.
A close sympathy soon united Berthelier and Bonivard. The former had
more energy, the latter more grace; but they both belonged to the
new generation; they became brothers in arms, and promised to wage a
merciless war against superstition and arbitrary power. They gave each
other mutual marks of their affection, Bonivard standing godfather for
one of Berthelier’s sons. Berthelier, having paid his friend a visit of
condolence on the very day of his uncle’s death, heard from his lips
the story of the culverins. ‘What!’ said he, ‘cast cannons to make into
bells! We will give you as much metal as you require to make a peal
that shall ring loud enough to stun you; but the culverins ought to
remain culverins.’ Bonivard represented that, according to his uncle’s
orders, the cannon were to be employed in the service of the Church.
‘The Church will be doubly served,’ retorted Berthelier; ‘there will be
bells at St. Victor, which is the church, and artillery in the city,
which is the church land.’ He laid the matter before the council, who
voted all that Berthelier required.[75]
But the Duke of Savoy had no sooner heard of this than he claimed the
guns from the monastery. The Council of Fifty was convened to discuss
the affair, and Berthelier did not stand alone in supporting the rights
of the city. A young citizen of twenty-five, of mild yet intrepid
temper, calm and yet active, a friend to law and liberty, without
meanness and without arrogance, and who had within him deep-seated and
vigorous powers,--this man feared not to provoke a contest between
Geneva and the most formidable of his neighbours. He was Besançon
Hugues, who had just lost his father and was beginning to enter into
public life. One idea governed him: to maintain the independence of his
country and resist the usurpations of Savoy, even should it draw upon
him the duke’s hatred. ‘In the name of the people,’ he said, ‘I oppose
the surrender of this artillery to his Highness, the city cannot spare
them.’ The four guns remained at Geneva, but from that hour Charles
III. looked with an angry eye upon Berthelier, Hugues, and Bonivard. ‘I
will be even with them,’ said he.--‘When I paid him my respects after
the death of my uncle,’ said Bonivard, ‘his Highness turned up his nose
at me.’[76]
Charles III., son of Philip Lackland, was not much like that
adventurous prince. When Philip reached a certain age, he became
reformed; and after having several natural children, he married
Margaret of Bourbon, and on her death Claudine of Penthievre or
Brittany, and in 1496 ascended the throne of Piedmont and Savoy.
Charles III., his son by the second wife, rather took after his
grandfather Duke Louis; like him he was steady but weak, submissive to
his wife, and inherited from Monsieur only his bursts of passion. His
understanding was not large; but his councillors who were very able
made up for this. One single thought seemed to possess him: to annex
Geneva to Savoy. It was almost his whole policy. By grasping after
Geneva he lost his principalities. Æsop’s fable of the dog and the
shadow has never been better illustrated.
In 1515 everything seemed favourable to the plans of this prince. The
marriage of the Princess Philiberta, which had not been solemnised in
1513 in consequence of her youth, was about to take place. The Bishop
of Geneva, then at Rome for the Lateran Council, backed his cousin’s
demand touching the temporal sovereignty. The ministers of Charles,
the court, nobility, and priests, all of them pressed the annexation
of Geneva. Was not that city the market for the provinces neighbouring
on Savoy? Was it not necessary for the strategic defence of the duchy?
Claude de Seyssel, a skilful diplomatist, author of the _Monarchie de
France_, ‘a bitter despiser of every republic, and soon after made
archbishop of Turin, was continually repeating to the duke that if
Geneva remained _in_ his territory without being _of_ it, Savoy would
incur great danger.’ ‘Truly,’ said Bonivard, when he heard of Seyssel’s
arguments, ‘there is no need to push his Highness to make him run. He
has begun to beat the tabor, and is now going to open the dance.’[77]
But would the pope take part in the dance? Would he surrender up
Geneva to Savoy? That was the question. Leo X. loved wealth, the arts,
pleasure, and all the enjoyments of life; he was generous, liberal,
prodigal even, and did not care much for business. He had prepared
a magnificent palace in the city of the popes and of the Cæsars,
for Julian and his young wife. Entertainments of unusual splendour
celebrated the union of the Medici with the old family of Humbert of
the white hand. ‘I will spare no expense,’ Leo said, and in fact these
rejoicings cost him the enormous sum of 15,000 ducats.
How could a pontiff always occupied in plundering others to enrich and
exalt his own kindred, compromise so glorious an alliance in order to
maintain the independence of an unknown city in the wild country of
the Alps? Besides, the situation at Geneva was disquieting; the free
institutions of the city threatened the temporal power of the bishop,
and if that were destroyed, what would become of his spiritual power?
But if the Duke of Savoy should become sovereign prince there, he
would revoke the insolent liberties of the citizens, and thus save the
episcopal prerogative. Such had been the history of most cities in the
middle ages: was it also to be that of Geneva?[78] Lorenzo de’ Medici
had been accustomed to say: ‘My son Julian is good; my son John (Leo
X.) is crafty; my son Peter is mad.’ Leo thought he was displaying
considerable tact by sacrificing Geneva to the glory of the Medici and
the ambition of Savoy. ‘The Duke of Savoy,’ says a catholic historian,
‘took advantage of this circumstance (the marriage) to procure a
bull confirming the transfer of the temporal authority.’[79] Charles
III. triumphed. He had reached the end which his predecessors had
been aiming at for centuries: he had done more than Peter, surnamed
Charlemagne; more than Amadeus the Great; he fancied himself the hero
of his race. ‘I am sovereign lord of Geneva in temporal matters,’ he
told everybody. ‘I obtained it from our holy father the reigning pope.’
But what would they say at Geneva? Would the ancient republic meekly
bow its head beneath the Savoyard yoke?[80]
The whole city was in commotion when this important news arrived.
Berthelier, Bonivard, Hugues, Vandel, Bernard, even the most catholic
of the citizens, exasperated at such a usurpation, hurried to and fro,
conversing eagerly and especially blaming the pontiff. ‘The power of
the popes,’ they said, ‘is not over principalities but over sins--it
is for the purpose of correcting vices, and not to be masters of
sovereigns and peoples, that they have received the keys of the kingdom
of heaven.’ There was at Geneva a small number of scholars (Bonivard
was one) who opened the dusty tomes of their libraries in search of
arguments against the papal resolution. Did not St. Bernard say to Pope
Eugene: ‘To till the vineyard of the Lord, to root out the noxious
plants, is your task.... You need not a sceptre but a hoe.’[81]
On the 25th of May a deputation from the council waited on the
bishop. ‘My lord,’ said the first syndic, ‘we conjure you to leave
the community in the same state as your predecessors transmitted it
to you, enjoying its rightful customs and ancient franchises.’ The
bishop was embarrassed: on the one hand he feared to irritate men whose
energy was not unknown to him, and on the other to displease his cousin
whose slave he was; he contented himself with muttering a few words.
The syndics waited upon the chapter next: ‘Prevent this iniquity,’
they said to the canons, ‘seeing that it _touches_ you as much as the
city.’ But the reverend fathers, who possessed fat benefices in the
duke’s territory, and feared to have them confiscated, replied in such
complicated phrases that nobody could understand them. Both bishop and
canons surrendered Geneva to the man who claimed to be its master.
The report that the city was decidedly given to Savoy spread farther
and farther every day: people wrote about it from every quarter. The
syndics, moved by the letters they received, returned to the bishop.
‘It is now a general rumour,’ said they; ‘protest, my lord, against
these strange reports, so that the usurpation, although begun, may
not be completed.’ The bishop looked at them, then fixing his hollow,
sunken eyes upon the ground, preserved an obstinate silence. The
syndics withdrew without obtaining anything. What was to be done now?
The last hour of liberty seemed to have struck in the old republic. The
citizens met one another without exchanging a word; their pale faces
and dejected looks alone expressed their sorrow. One cry, however, was
heard among them: ‘Since justice is powerless,’ said the most spirited,
‘we will have recourse to force, and if the duke is resolved to enter
Geneva, he shall pass over our bodies.’ But the majority were uneasy;
knowing their own weakness and the power of Savoy, they considered
all resistance useless. Old Rome had destroyed the independence of
many a people; new Rome desired to imitate her.... The city was lost.
Salvation came from a quarter whence no one expected it.[82]
The sacred college had assembled, and the princes of the Church,
robed in purple, had examined the affair. To deprive a bishop of his
temporal principality ... what a dangerous example for the papacy
itself! Who knows whether princes will not some day desire to do as
much by his Holiness? To hear them, you would have fancied, that
catholicism would decline and disappear if it did not join the sceptre
of the Cæsars with the shepherd’s crook. The cardinals resolved that
for it to be lawful for a prince of the Church to alienate his temporal
jurisdiction, it was necessary, ‘first, that subjects be in rebellion
against their prince; second, that the prince be not strong enough
to reduce them; third, that he should have a better recompense.’ Was
this _recompense_ to be another _temporality_ or simply a pecuniary
compensation? This the documents do not say. In any case, the sacred
college refused its consent to the papal decision, and the bull was
recalled.[83]
The duke was surprised and irritated. His counsellors reassured
him: they pointed out to him that, according to the decision of the
cardinals, it only required a revolt in order to withdraw the temporal
jurisdiction from the bishop. ‘The Genevans, who are hot-headed and
big talkers,’ said they, ‘will commit some imprudence by means of
which we shall prove to the sacred college that it needs _a stronger
shepherd than a bishop_ to bring them back to their duty.’ To these
representations they proposed adding certain crafty devices. The
judicial officers of the ducal party would draw up long, obscure,
unintelligible indictments against the citizens; my lords the
cardinals at Rome, who are indolence itself, would waive the reading of
these tiresome documents, the matter would be explained to them _vivâ
voce_; they would be told that the only means of saving the bishop was
to give the duke the sovereignty over the city. Charles felt comforted
and sent his cousin fresh instructions. ‘Since I cannot have the tree,’
he said, ‘I wish at least to taste the fruit. Set about plundering
right and left (_ab hoc et ab hac_) to fill my treasury.’ By means of
this plundering, the Genevans would be irritated; they would be driven
to take up arms, and thus the duke would succeed in confiscating their
independence with the consent not only of the pope but of the cardinals
also.[84]