98 The Swiss and Their Neighbours, 1460–1560
The French remained understandably perturbed. While no direct connection to
the events at Joux can be demonstrated, it was fear of retaliation that prompted
Bern, Fribourg, Luzern, and Solothurn at the end of June 1512 to send an army of
occupation into Neuchâtel to secure both county and city against the prospect of a
French invasion—rumours of which had been circulating for months.236 Just how
coordinated the campaign was is open to doubt. Bern and Solothurn took the lead
(Bern had already tried to go it alone the previous year but came up against strong
local opposition),237 with Luzern in May seeking further and better particulars,
and Fribourg plaintively requesting to be allowed to share in the administration of
what should become a common lordship.238 The occupation may have secured
the Confederation’s western borders, but it caused grave indignation among the
remaining cantons, who asked, with some justice, in whose name and in whose
interests the annexation had taken place.239 The four participating cities naturally
invoked their obligation of protection under the terms of their various Burgrechte.240
A modern historian has described the invasion as a ‘friendly occupation’, though it
is doubtful whether either the princes of Neuchâtel or the other cantons saw it in
that light,241 even though the four cities were quick to confirm Neuchâtel’s liber-
ties and introduced only minor judicial changes.242
During 1514 positions hardened. Bern, Fribourg, and Solothurn repeated their
willingness to hand back Neuchâtel, but only if given a share in the common lordship
of Rheintal.243 The other cantons suggested that Neuchâtel should swear loyalty to
all XII cantons as a common lordship, but the four cities insisted on their Burgrechte
taking precedence.244 In the end, the XII cantons’ view prevailed, and Neuchâtel
indeed became a common lordship of the Confederation,245 notwithstanding
Margravine Johanna’s repeated requests for the restitution of her authority.246
Only in 1518 was there a flurry of diplomatic correspondence which might have
led to Neuchâtel regaining its autonomy.
236 Reutter, Comté de Neuchâtel, 105; SASO, Denkwürdige Sachen 27, fo. 41r–v (Feb. 1512).
237 Reutter, Comté de Neuchâtel, 274.
238 SASO, Denkwürdige Sachen 27, fo. 37r, 129r, 151r (May 1512), 130v (after Aug. 1512):
The Solothurn envoys responded to Fribourg’s request with the sardonic remark: mögen wir nit
ferston, wie sy dz meinen. The tensions between Bern and Solothurn, on the one hand, and Fribourg
and Luzern, on the other, are stressed by Reutter, who argues that admitting the latter two cities was
the only way of preventing Neuchâtel falling into Confederal hands. Reutter, Comté de Neuchâtel,
284–5, 290, 302.
239 EA III, 2, 663–4 (no. 469: r) (Nov. 1512).
240 EA III, 2, 708–9 (no. 496) (Aug. 1513); 742 (no. 524) (Nov. 1513); 769–72 (no. 542) (Feb. 1514).
241 Christ, Zwischen Kooperation und Konkurrenz, 567.
242 EA III, 2, 626–7 (no. 448) (July 1512); 630 (no. 451) (July 1512); 633–5 (no. 454: p)
(July 1512); Reutter, Comté de Neuchâtel, 291.
243 EA III, 2, 693 (no. 487: a; b; c) (March 1513); 778–80 (no. 547: b) (March 1514). Reutter,
Comté de Neuchâtel, 303. Fribourg was not a party to these overtures. Luzern was already a joint
administrator in 1490, alongside Zürich, Schwyz, and Glarus. Uri, Unterwalden, and Zug followed in
1491, Appenzell in 1500, and Bern not until 1712! HLS, s.v. Rheintal.
244 EA III, 2, 769–72 (no. 542: e) (Feb. 1514). 245 Reutter, Comté de Neuchâtel, 324.
246 Reutter, Comté de Neuchâtel, 299; EA III, 2, 949–52 (no. 638: e) (Jan. 1516); 952–4 (no. 640: c);
1050–3 (no. 705: b) (April 1517); SASO, Ratsmanuale 18, p. 320 (Dec. 1527). By that time
Solouthurn was willing to concede: dann si erkennen, darzu dhein recht haben.