128 The Swiss and Their Neighbours, 1460–1560
under strain as city and bishop were increasingly at odds. In a long list of grievances
Lausanne’s citizens challenged the bishop’s authority, accusing him of exceeding
his powers. Much of their fury was directed against the licentious behaviour of
the cathedral chapter, whose members were physically and verbally assaulted; one
canon was captured and held prisoner. These traditional animosities now acquired
an evangelical thrust: images were destroyed in the church of St Laurence and
the clergy denounced for immoral living, including the holding of concubines.
Tellingly, the articles also denounced the bishop, Sébastien de Montfalcon, for
harrying Bern’s Reforming preachers in Aigle and Les Ormonts.509 In these dissen-
sions Fribourg now took the side of the bishop (with whom it had recently allied),
much to the annoyance of Bern, which claimed that its ally was breaching the
Burgrecht of 1525/26.510
Fribourg’s disquiet at developments in Lausanne paled beside the murder in
Geneva of a cathedral canon, Peter Werli, who was also a citizen of Fribourg.511
During the unrest in May Werli had used the absence of some of Geneva’s mer-
chants at the Lyon fair to rally support for the Catholic cause, but was wounded in
the skirmishing and then killed as he attempted to flee. The Genevan council made
haste slowly to find the perpetrators,512 whereupon Fribourg took matters into its
own hands. While Bern was prepared to mediate, Fribourg persuaded the bishop,
Pierre de la Baume, to return to Geneva under its own armed escort, including the
Fribourg magistrate (Schultheiß), after an absence of five years.513 The bishop’s
efforts to try the suspects were thwarted, however, by the council’s refusal to recog-
nize the jurisdiction of the episcopal court, so that, after two weeks, the bishop
quit Geneva, never to return.
Relations between Bern and Fribourg continued to deteriorate. An offer of
mediation by the Savoy bailiff of the Vaud, Aymon de Genève-Lullin, was turned
down.514 Bern was perturbed at the expulsion of Farel from Geneva and by the
lack of protection vouchsafed to adherents of the new doctrines there.515 Fribourg
for its part denounced the activities of evangelical preachers in the city.516 It dis-
missed rumours that it was planning an attack on Bern; the latter gave similar
assurances to Fribourg and promised to uphold their joint administration of the
common lordships.517 In Geneva itself the agitation showed no signs of abating,
with Bern still clinging grimly to its demands for compensation.518 The year 1534
had begun ominously.519
509 EA IV 1c, 81–8 (no. 55) (May 1533), esp. §§ 40, 45.
510 EA IV, 1c, 97 (no. 63: 1) (June 1533). 511 Account in Monter, Calvin’s Geneva, 51.
512 EA IV, 1c, 79 (no. 53: II; to IV, 1) (May 1533); 114–21 (no. 71: II) (July–Aug. 1533).
513 EA IV, 1c, 114–21 (no. 71: I) (July–Aug. 1533). It seems that Geneva had refused to guarantee
his safety: EA IV, 1c, 76 (no. 53: I) (May 1533).
514 EA IV, 1c, 215 (no. 114) (Nov. 1533). How disinterested the offer was may be questioned.
515 EA IV, 1c, 231–2 (no. 120: I) (Dec. 1533).
516 EA IV, 1c, 232 (no. 120: II) (Dec. 1533).
517 EA IV, 1c, 235–6 (no. 126: 1; 2) (Jan. 1534).
518 EA IV, 1c, 231 (no. 120: 1) (Dec. 1533); 291 (no. 143: I, 2) (March 1534).
519 Further cracks in the façade appeared when Bern cancelled the long-standing Burgrecht with
Besançon which it had concluded alongside Fribourg and Solothurn. The diploma gave no reason
for the rupture, but it is reasonable to think that confessional differences were to blame, even