CHAPTER XIV.

THE HUGUENOTS DEMAND AN ALLIANCE WITH FRIBURG: THE MAMELUKES OPPOSE IT.

BERTHELIER IS ACQUITTED.

(DECEMBER 1518 TO JANUARY 1519.)

The cruel butchery of Navis and Blanchet, and the insolent sealed

letter, were acts ruinous to those who had committed them. If the

bishop had possessed only the spiritual power, he would not have been

dragged into such measures; but by wishing to unite earthly dominion

with religious direction, he lost both: a just punishment of those

who forget the words of Christ: ‘My kingdom is not of this world.’

The bishop had torn the contract that bound him to the free citizens

of the ancient city. The struggle was growing fiercer every day, and

would infallibly end in the fall of the Roman episcopate in Geneva.

It was not the Reformation that was to overthrow the representative

of the pope: it was the breath of liberty and legality that was to

uproot that barren tree, and the reformers were to come afterwards to

cultivate the soil and scatter abroad the seeds of life. Two parties,

both strangers to the Gospel, stood then face to face. On the one

side were the bishop, the vicar and procurator-fiscal, the canons,

priests, monks, and all the agents of the popedom; on the other were

the friends of light, the friends of liberty, the partisans of law,

the representatives of the people. The battle was between clerical and

secular society. These struggles were not new; but while in the middle

ages clerical society had always gained the victory, at Geneva, on the

contrary, in the sixteenth century the series of its defeats was to

begin. It is easy to explain this phenomenon. Ecclesiastical society

had long been the most advanced as well as the strongest; but in the

sixteenth century secular society appeared in all the vigour of youth,

and was soon to gain the victories of a maturer age. It was all over

with the clerical power: the weapons it employed at Geneva (the letter

and the walnut-tree) indicated a thorough decline of human dignity. Out

of date, fallen into childishness, and decrepid, it could no longer

contend against the lay body. If the duel took place on open ground,

without secret understandings, without trickery, the dishonoured

clerical authority must necessarily fall. The Epicurean hog (if we may

be permitted to use an ancient phrase), at once filthy and cruel, who

from his episcopal throne trampled brutally under foot the holiest

rights, was unconsciously preparing in Geneva the glorious advent of

the Reformation.

The meeting of the 5th of December was no sooner dissolved than the

citizens dispersed through the town. The insolent request of the

princes and the refusal of the people were the subject of every

conversation: nothing else was talked of ‘in public or in private, at

feast or funeral.’ The letter which demanded on behalf of Geneva an

alliance with Friburg was not sealed like the bishop’s; it was openly

displayed in the streets, and carried from house to house; a large

number of citizens hastened to subscribe their names: there were three

hundred signatures. It was necessary to carry this petition to Friburg;

Berthelier, who was still under trial, could not leave the city;

besides, it would be better to have a new man, more calm perhaps, and

more diplomatic. They cast their eyes on the syndic Besançon Hugues,

who in character held a certain mean between Berthelier the man of

action, and Lévrier the man of law. ‘No one can be more welcome among

the confederates than you,’ they said; ‘Conrad Hugues, your father,

fought at Morat in the ranks of Zurich.’--‘I will go,’ he replied,

‘but as a mere citizen.’ They wished to give him a colleague of a

more genial nature, and chose De la Mare. He had resided for some

time on a property his wife possessed in Savoy; but the gentry of the

neighbourhood ‘playing him many tricks,’ because he was a Genevan,

he had returned to the city burning with hatred against the Savoyard

dominion.

The two deputies met with a warm reception and great honour at Friburg.

The pensioners of Savoy opposed their demand in vain; the three hundred

Genevans who had signed the petition received the freedom of the city,

with an offer to make the alliance general if the community desired

it. On Tuesday, December 21, the two deputies returned to Geneva,

and on the following Thursday the proposal of alliance was brought

before the people in general council. It was to be a great day; and

accordingly the two parties went to the council determined, each of

them, to make a last effort. The partisans of absolutism and those of

the civic liberties, the citizens attached to Rome and those who were

inclined to throw off their chains, the old times and the new, met face

to face. At first there were several eloquent speeches on both sides:

‘We will not permit law and liberty to be driven out of Geneva,’ said

the citizens, ‘in order that arbitrary rule may be set up in their

place. God himself is the guarantee of our franchises.’ They soon came

to warmer language, and at last grew so excited that deliberation was

impossible. The deputy from Friburg, who had returned with Hugues

and De la Mare, strove in vain to calm their minds; the council was

compelled to separate without coming to any decision. Switzerland had

offered her alliance, and Geneva had not accepted it.[189]

The friends of independence were uneasy; most of them were deficient in

information and in arguments; they supplied the want by the instinct

of liberty, boldness, and enthusiasm; but these are qualities that

sometimes fail and fade away. Many of them accordingly feared that

the liberties of Geneva would be finally sacrificed to the bishop’s

good pleasure. The more enlightened thought, on the contrary, that the

rights of the citizens would remain secure; that neither privilege,

stratagem, nor violence would overthrow them; but that the struggle

might perhaps be long, and if, according to the proverb, Rome was

not built in a day, so it could not be thrown down in a day. These

notable men, whose motto was ‘Time brings everything,’ called upon the

people to be patient. This was not what the ardent Berthelier wanted.

He desired to act immediately, and seeing that the best-informed

men hesitated, he said: ‘When the wise will not, we make use of

fools.’ He had again recourse to the young Genevans, with whom he had

long associated, with a view of winning them over to his patriotic

plans. He was not alone. Another citizen now comes upon the scene, a

member of one of the most influential families in the city, by name

Baudichon de la Maison-Neuve, a man of noble and exalted character,

bold, welcome everywhere, braving without measure all the traditions

of old times, often turbulent, and the person who, more perhaps than

any other, served to clear in Geneva the way by which the Reformation

was to enter. These two patriots and some of their friends endeavoured

to revive in the people the remembrance of their ancient rights. At

the banquets where the young men of Geneva assembled, epigrams were

launched against the ducal party, civic and Helvetic songs were sung,

and among others one composed by Berthelier, the unpoetical but very

patriotic burden of which was:

Vivent sur tous, Messieurs les alliés!

Every day this chorus was heard with fresh enthusiasm. The wind blew

in the direction of independence, and the popular waves continued

rising. ‘Most of the city are joining our brotherhood,’ said Bonivard;

‘decidedly the townsfolk are the strongest.’ The Christmas holidays

favoured the exultation of the citizens. The most hot-headed of the

Genevan youths paraded the streets; at night they kindled bonfires in

the squares (which they called _ardre des failles_), and the boys,

making torches of twisted straw, ran up and down the city, shouting:

‘Hurrah for the League! the huguenots for ever!’ Armed men kept watch

throughout the city, and as they passed the houses of the mamelukes,

they launched their gibes at them. ‘They were very merry,’ said

Bonivard, ‘and made more noise than was necessary.’ The two parties

became more distinct every day, the huguenots wearing a cross on their

doublets and a feather in their caps, like the Swiss; the mamelukes

carrying a sprig of holly on their head. ‘Whoever touches me will be

pricked,’ said they, insolently pointing to it. Quarrels were frequent.

When a band of the friends of Savoy happened to meet a number of

the friends of the League, the former would cry out: ‘Huguenots!’

and the latter would reply: ‘We hold that title in honour, for it

was taken by the first Swiss when they bound themselves by an oath

against the tyranny of their oppressors!... But you mamelukes have

always been slaves!’--‘Beware,’ said the vidame, ‘your proceedings

are seditious.’--‘The necessity of escaping from slavery makes them

lawful,’ replied Berthelier, Maison-Neuve, and their followers. The

mountain torrent was rushing impetuously down, and men asked whether

the dykes raised against it would be able to restrain its fury.[190]

The party of Savoy resolved to strike a decisive blow. No one was

more threatened than Berthelier. The two princes might perhaps have

spared the lives of the other citizens whose names were contained

in the letter; but as for Berthelier, they must have his head, and

that speedily. This was generally known: people feared to compromise

themselves by saluting him, and timid men turned aside when they

saw him coming, which made Bonivard, who remained faithful to him,

exclaim with uneasiness: ‘Alas! he is abandoned by almost everybody of

condition!’ But Berthelier did not abandon himself. He saw the sword

hanging over his head; he knew that the blow was coming, and yet he

was the most serene and animated of the citizens of Geneva; it was he

who ‘by word and by example always comforted the young men.’ He asked

simply that _right should be done_. ‘I am accused of being a marplot

because I ask for justice;--a good-for-nothing, because I defend

liberty against the enterprises of usurpers;--a conspirator against

the bishop’s life, because they conspire against mine.’ His case was

adjourned week after week. His friends, touched by the serenity of his

generous soul, loudly demanded a general council. The people assembled

on the 19th of January: ‘All that I ask,’ said Berthelier, ‘is to

be brought to trial; let them punish me if I am guilty; and if I am

innocent, let them declare it.’ The general council ordered the syndics

to do justice.[191]

They hesitated no longer: they carefully examined the indictment;

they summoned the vidame and the procurator-fiscal three times to

make out their charges. The vidame, knowing this to be impossible,

got out of the way: he could not be found. Navis appeared alone, but

only to declare that he would give no evidence. All the formalities

having been observed, the Grand Council, consisting at that time of 117

members, met on the 24th of January, 1519, and delivered a judgment

of acquittal. The syndics, bearing their rods of office and followed

by all the members of the council, took their station (according to

the ancient custom) on the platform in front of the hôtel-de-ville. An

immense crowd of citizens gathered round; many were clinging to the

walls; all fixed their eyes with enthusiasm on the accused who stood

calm and firm before his judges. Then Montyon, the premier syndic, a

mameluke yet a faithful observer of the law, said to him: ‘Philibert

Berthelier, the accusations brought against you proceeding, not from

probable evidence but from violent and extorted confessions, condemned

by all law human and divine. We, the syndics and judges in the criminal

courts of this city of Geneva, having God and the Holy Scriptures

before our eyes,--making the sign of the cross and speaking in the name

of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,--declare you, Philibert, by our

definitive sentence, to be in no degree attaint or guilty of the crime

of conspiring against our prince and yours, and declare the accusations

brought against you unreasonable and unjust. Wherefore you ought to

be absolved and acquitted of these, and you are hereby absolved and

acquitted.’ This judgment, delivered by a magistrate devoted to the

duke and the bishop, was a noble homage paid to the justice of the

cause defended by Berthelier. A solemn feeling, such as accompanies

a great and just deliverance, pervaded the assembly, and the joyful

patriots asked if Berthelier’s acquittal was not the pledge of the

liberation of Geneva.[192]

But if the joy among the huguenots was great, the consternation of

the mamelukes was greater still. This _mystery_--for such they called

the acquittal of an innocent man--terrified them. They had fancied

their affairs in a better position, and all of a sudden they appeared

desperate. That noble head, which they desired to bring low, now rose

calm and cheerful in the midst of an enthusiastic people. To complete

their misfortune, it was one of their own party that had delivered that

abominable verdict of acquittal. They sent the news to their friends in

Piedmont, adding that their affairs had never been in a worse position.

Berthelier’s acquittal created a deep sensation at the court of Turin.

It was a triumph of law and liberty that compromised all the plans of

Savoy. By seizing Berthelier, they had hoped to extinguish that fire

of independence and liberty, which they could discern afar on the

Genevan hills; and now the fire which they hoped had been stifled, was

shooting out a brighter and a higher flame.... The Archbishop of Turin,

who had sworn to destroy all republican independence, represented

to his sovereign the true meaning of the sentence that had just

been delivered. The feeble duke, who knew not how to carry out his

enterprises and feared spending money more than losing his dominions,

had remained until this moment in a state of foolish confidence. He

now awoke: he saw that the alliance with Switzerland would deprive

him of Geneva for ever, and considered Berthelier’s acquittal as an

outrage upon his honour. He determined to break the alliance, to quash

the judgment, and to employ, if necessary, all the force of Savoy. He

began, however, with diplomatic measures.[193]

On the 30th of January his ambassadors, the president of Landes, the

seignior of Balayson, Bernard of St. Germain, and the skilful and

energetic Saleneuve, arrived in Geneva, and, having been introduced to

the general council, made at first loud protestations of friendship.

But soon changing their tone and wishing to terrify by their threats,

they said: ‘Nevertheless his Highness learns that some of you are

conspiring against him.’ At these words there was a great commotion

in the assembly: ‘Who are the conspirators? name them,’ was the cry

from every side. The seignior of Landes, who had let the word escape

him, corrected himself, and assured them that the duke was delighted

to hear that the people had refused to favour those who were opposed

to him. But the ambassador changed his tone to no purpose--the Genevan

susceptibility was roused: that unlucky word _conspire_ spread through

the city. ‘To conspire against the duke he must first be our prince,’

said some. ‘Now, whatever he may say, he is only _vidame_, that is,

a civil officer, and as such subordinate to the supreme council. We

will make no reply to the ambassadors of Savoy so long as they do not

name the conspirators.’ The Savoyards increased their attentions, and

showed the tenderest regard for the purses of the Genevans. ‘We are

quite alarmed,’ they said, ‘at the quantity of gold florins you will

have to pay Friburg for its alliance.’ They carefully hid themselves

under sheep’s clothing; but do what they would, the wolf’s fangs peeped

out unexpectedly now and then; and while the chiefs were enshrouding

themselves in diplomacy, sharp disputes occurred between the citizens

and the ambassadors’ attendants. ‘All the Genevans are traitors!’

exclaimed a servant belonging to the treasury of Chambéry. The varlet

was reprimanded, but the ambassadors thought it prudent to leave the

city. They were exasperated, and on their return to Turin told the

duke: ‘You will gain nothing by reasoning with these citizens. If

you say you are their prince, they will maintain that you are their

vassal.’--‘Well, then,’ said the duke, ‘let us settle the matter not

with the pen but with the sword.’ That was just what the energetic

Saleneuve desired.[194]

History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin. Vol. 1 (of 8) · 第 14 / 30 章