War or Peace? 121
diploma to describe the Genevans should be translated as ‘subjects’ not ‘inhabitants’.
For their part, the Genevans repeatedly insisted that their city was a ‘frye keiserliche
stett’, directly dependent on the emperor, and therefore at liberty to sign treaties
with whomever it pleased. The arbiters appear to have taken into consideration
Bern’s contention that the Burgrecht with Geneva was not intended to take prece-
dence over previous Burgrechte with Savoy (even if Fribourg had notoriously failed
to sign them), for they upheld its legitimacy, provided that it could be shown that
it did not infringe the bishop’s prerogatives (a doubtful assumption!).449
On the question of costs it was predictable that both sides would inflate their
losses. Geneva claimed to have suffered 100,000 écus’ worth of damage, Savoy
200,000 écus, thereby restricting their ability to pay compensation. Savoy’s envoys
tried to shift the blame for the war onto the bishop, whose army, not the duke’s,
had attacked the city. Geneva tartly replied that the bishop had no power to raise
troops (which was not true), but it could not altogether deny that Pierre de la Baume
had asked members of the League of the Spoon to come to his aid. The judges at
Payerne took little time to find against Savoy. It was ordered to pay Bern, Fribourg,
and now Geneva 21,000 écus in damages over three years at midsummer (well
below what the two cities had originally demanded).450 Their suggestion that the
duke should raise the money from the bishop’s revenues, however, occasioned
some perplexity. His envoys doubted whether such a sum could be recouped from
episcopal income, let alone from that of other ecclesiastical foundations. They also
objected that the treaty of St-Julien had not included any payments to Geneva.451
The arbiters then declared that they had deliberated long enough, and would hear
no further submissions, thereby discountenancing Bern, which was arguing that,
because Savoy had failed to keep its side of the bargain that all prisoners be released,
the Vaud should as a result be forfeit. Savoy’s envoys were still rejecting this audacious
claim in the spring of 1531.452
For all the efforts of the Swiss cantons it cannot be said, on any dispassionate
view, that the arbitration at Payerne had achieved a satisfactory result. Savoy may
have dropped its claim for restitution over the destruction of the ducal coat of arms
on the Tour de l’Île, but no decision had been reached on what to do with the
Mammelu refugees. The position of the bishop also remained juridically ambiguous.
Duke Charles may have regained his vidomne; Bern and Fribourg’s Burgrecht with
Geneva may have been recognized. But how secure were these achievements in
the face of heightening confessional antagonisms? Although St-Julien and Payerne
have often been taken as milestones on the road to a peaceful settlement, in the
triangle of diplomatic relations they stored up problems for Geneva not only
449 EA IV, 1b, 1545, 1547, 1550–1 (Appendix 17: §§ 14, 32, 35, 36, 37). On Bern and Fribourg’s
stated refusal to accept any cancellation of the Burgrecht see SABE, Teutsche Missiven-Buch 21 S,
fo. 434r–435r.
450 EA IV, 1b, 1560.
451 EA IV, 1b, 1552–62. An error-strewn account of these matters is in Documenti di Storia Sabauda, 66.
452 EA IV, 1b, 1561–2. In fact, Bern and Fribourg had already made plain that they would insist
on taking control of the Vaud if the issue of the Burgrecht was not resolved to their satisfaction. SABE,
Teutsche Missiven-Buch 21 S, fo. 434r–435r.