The Struggle for Geneva 113
to Geneva off their own bat.374 There were good reasons for its caution. Although
Bern harboured many evangelical supporters before the Disputation of January 1528
the Small Council was far from unanimous. Anton Bütschelbach, a councillor who
was a co-signatory of the Burgrecht of 1526 and who had been one of Bern’s envoys
to Duke Charles on Geneva’s behalf the following year, remained a devout Catholic;
stripped of all his offices in 1528, he was escorted to the safety (as he hoped!) of
Geneva by Besançon Hugues, clearly warming to his role as chaperon.375
Above all, Bern was exercised by the reaction of the other cantons, first and fore-
most Fribourg.376 The warnings issued in March had gone unheeded. In December
1527 the Catholic cantons returned to the attack, urging Bern to desist from any
attempt to stage a religious colloquy.377 The council hurried to gain undertakings
from Fribourg and Solothurn that they would abide by their Burgrecht with Bern
(with the latter’s implied threat of cancellation), to which they repeated their assur-
ances of March by affirming their loyalty to the old faith but at the same time
promising not to act against Bern.378 The latter was not altogether reassured,379 for
the magistrates then accused Fribourg of stirring up unrest among its subjects.380
When it came to the Disputation itself, the representatives of both Fribourg
and Solothurn (who at least agreed to attend, which is more than Geneva did!)381
opposed the ten evangelical articles which had been tabled.382 Yet both city coun-
cils were reluctant to join the proposed Catholic Christian Union, which was
intended to counteract the evangelical cities’ Christliches Burgrecht of 1527.383 In
the meantime, Bern was concerned that the Catholic cantons would seek to oblige
Bern and Fribourg’s common lordships to adhere to the old faith384—their fate
was to become a running sore in the years to come.
In the spring of 1528 Bern faced a more pressing danger. News of the city’s
formal adoption of the Reformation by decree unleashed a revolt among its
subjects in the Bernese Oberland.385 In June Johannes Haller, an assistant at the
Great Minster in Zürich, was sent to preach the new doctrines at Frutigen but
was chased out within days. Matters grew more intractable when the abbey of
Interlaken’s subjects saw their chance to throw off the convent’s yoke and submit
374 Even news of fresh Savoy acts of violence only prompted the magistrates to send envoys to
Duke Charles and to the bishop; Fribourg did likewise. EA IV, 1a, 1083–4 (no. 441: 2; 8) (May
1527); 1092 (no. 443: I) (May 1527). The prohibition on Reislaufen had to be repeated at regular
intervals. SABE, Teutsche Missiven-Buch 20 R, fo. 56r (Oct. 1528), 157v (Feb. 1529).
375 Naef, Bezanson Hugues, 65–8. His flight must have been after June 1528, for he was still
recorded as one of Bern’s envoys to Geneva at the beginning of that month. EA IV, 1a, 1338 (no. 545: 1)
(June 1527).
376 AEF, Missivale 9, fo. 42r (Dec. 1527). 377 EA IV, 1a, 1215–16 (no. 496: I) (Dec. 1527).
378 EA IV, 1a, 1216 (no. 496: to I) (Dec. 1527); 1217–18 (no. 498: 4) (Dec. 1527).
379 EA IV, 1a, 1221–4 (no. 500) (Jan. 1528). 380 EA IV, 1a, 1222–4 (no. 501) (Jan. 1528).
381 AEF, Missivale 9, fo. 38r (Dec. 1527). The bishop of Lausanne, by contrast, did send an envoy.
EA IV, 1a, 1246 (no. 503: 59) (Jan. 1528).
382 EA IV, 1a, 1225–66 (no. 503: 36; 47; 55; 112) (Jan. 1528).
383 EA IV, 1a, 1274–6 (no. 505: to d; 2; 4) (Jan.–Feb. 1528). The Christian Union was not solem-
nized until April 1529 in Waldshut.
384 EA IV, 1a, 1287–8 (no. 515: to b 4) (March 1528).
385 EA IV, 1a, 1307–8 (no. 525: 1) (April 1528); Moser, Diesbach, 182, notes that the Oberlanders
were hostile both to the Diesbachs and to France.