Savoy Strikes Back 107
as Savoy drifted into the imperial camp,311 Duke Charles was helpless as Spanish
troops caused havoc in Piedmont on their way to France. Savoy’s envoys sent an
urgent appeal to the Swiss to restrain Fribourg from offering the Spaniards any
assistance312—a sure sign that the city remained at odds with Savoy. Then, reacting to
rumours that Lausanne was seeking to conclude a Burgrecht with Fribourg and Bern,
the duke by September was laying plans to besiege the city.313 There can be little doubt
that Fribourg was the instigator of this alliance:314 several Lausanne magistrates were
in fact natives of Fribourg, while other councillors had familial or marital ties with the
Fribourg elite.315 Whether that justifies Henri Naef ’s verdict that Lausanne’s struggle
for autonomy paved the way for Geneva’s independence a decade later is a matter of
judgement:316 in Lausanne a clear antagonism existed between the bishop, Sébastien
de Montfalcon, and the commons317 (as in other episcopal cities in the Empire),
whereas, despite his pusillanimity, Pierre de la Baume in Geneva could pose—
admittedly with diminishing plausibility—as champion of the city against Savoy.
Bern had grave reservations about Fribourg’s initiative, describing it in diplomatic
language as ‘inopportune’.318 The city council was anxious not to infringe existing
treaties with Savoy, preferring to reach an amicable settlement.319 In the ensuing
and protracted negotiations Bern found support from Solothurn.320 What made
an agreement all the harder to achieve was that Lausanne could claim to be an
imperial city. In 1434 Emperor Sigismund had granted the city that privilege while
reserving the bishop’s rights, though these were rather nominal.321 This diploma
was renewed by Emperor Frederick III in 1469.322 Against that Savoy’s lawyers
pointed out that Lausanne had to refer judicial appeals to the Savoy bailiff of the
Vaud.323 Yet how opaque the constitutional status of Lausanne (and Geneva)
311 See the discussion in Chapter 17 on Duke Charles’s attempts to remain neutral despite his fateful
learnings towards the emperor in 1524.
312 EA IV, 1a, 675 (no. 278: d) (May 1525).
313 EA IV, 1a, 774–7 (no. 305) (Sept. 1525); 780 (no. 308) (Sept. 1525).
314 It appears that secret negotiations were already under way in early 1523, which were then
extended to include Bern and Solothurn. Jean-François Poudret, La Maison de Savoie évincée de
Lausanne par Messieurs de Berne (Cahiers de la Renaissance Vaudoise, 42) (Lausanne, 1962), 132–3.
315 Naef, Fribourg, 31–4.
316 Naef, Fribourg, 34: En travaillant à leur propre sécurité,les bourgeois de celle-ci [Lausanne] préparaient
l’autonomie de celle-là [Geneva].
317 In 1510 Emperor Maximilian transferred the imperial vicariate to the bishop of Lausanne.
In 1518 the city explicitly acknowledged the bishop’s exclusive authority despite anti-episcopal unrest.
In fact, there were pro-episcopal and pro-ducal factions in the city. Maxime Reymond, ‘Lausanne et la
maison de Savoie’, Revue Historique Vaudoise, 32 (1924), 353–69, here at 367.
318 EA IV, 1a, 776 (no. 305: 11) (Sept. 1525); Helvetia Sacra, 1, 4: Le diocèse de Lausanne
(VIe siècle–1821), ed. Patrick Braun (Basel/Frankfurt am Main, 1988), 34.
319 EA IV, 1a, 775–6 (no. 305: 9) (Sept. 1525). The Small Council maintained that it was threatened
by the Bernese commons, who were strongly anti-Savoy. Naef, Fribourg, 62–3. On Bern’s continuing
efforts at mediation see BA, Abschriftensammlung XIX Torino, Archivio di Stato: Lettere particolari,
vol. 104, nos 9, 12, 13. The mediation was to involve both Fribourg and Solothurn.
320 For their correspondence see EA IV, 1a, 785–7 (no. 311: 2; 3; 5) (Oct. 1525); 795 (no. 318: II;
III) (Oct. 1525); Naef, Fribourg, 60, 63, 73.
321 Gasser, Territoriale Entwicklung, 170–1; Reymond, ‘Lausanne’, 362–3.
322 Reymond, ‘Lausanne’, 363–4.
323 EA IV, 1a, 803–6 (no. 322: I; II) (Nov. 1525). The dukes of Savoy had accumulated rights over
Lausanne from the mid-thirteenth century, and obtained the imperial vicariate in 1365. Despite