Religion or Politics? 129
The uproar in Geneva in the first half of the year, as Catholics and evangelicals
struggled for supremacy, is not part of our story, except in so far as it throws light
on the respective attitudes of Bern and Fribourg. Conventional accounts stress the
former’s commitment to supporting evangelical preachers—Farel on his return was
accompanied by Pierre Viret and Antoine Froment—and the latter’s threat to
abandon its Burgrecht if Geneva went Protestant. This narrative sidelines an issue
of equal significance, namely Bern’s campaign for compensation. In January it
unleashed a thunderbolt by demanding 9900 écus for the military assistance it had
rendered (despite the payments which Geneva had already made).520 How Bern
arrived at this figure is unclear: one wonders whether it was a ploy to place Geneva
under such duress that it would capitulate to Bern’s religious agenda. That Geneva
in March handed over 150 écus merely underscores the discrepancy between cred-
itor and debtor.521 Geneva asked for an easement, but was abruptly informed that
not only were Bern’s subjects in town and country impatient for payment, but
Solothurn and Biel were as well.522 Geneva’s envoys vainly recalled the provisions
of the Payerne arbitration, which called upon Savoy to pay 7000 écus to each of
the three cities, and that it had remitted its share to Bern. Bern was unmoved.523
It must therefore have been particularly galling for Geneva that a few days later, at
the beginning of April, Bern granted Savoy yet another year’s grace in settling its
outstanding payments.524
Meanwhile, all efforts by the Genevan council, conservative and cautious, to
calm the situation had availed little. An attempt to stage a colloquy in January
before the Council of Two Hundred went off at half-cock when the spokesman for
the Catholic party, the Dominican monk Guy Furbity, accused his opponents of
being lackeys of the Swiss, whereupon fresh rioting ensued and Furbity was called
upon to retract. Three days later, in a four-hour confrontation with Farel and Viret,
Furbity refused to withdraw his slander and was then dragged off to prison, where
he languished for two years.525 Fribourg, keen to shore up the Catholic cause but
unwilling to back the (fugitive) bishop against the city, wished to continue its
Burgrecht, but was wrong-footed by the disclosure of a document which purported
though some Reforming activity is recorded in the city. EA IV, 1c, 228 (no. 118) (Dec. 1533)
and Appendix 4.
520 EA IV, 1c, 239 (no. 129: I) (Jan. 1534). A simple calculation would suggest a balance of 10,000
écus, once Geneva had paid back 5,000 écus of the 15,000 écus originally demanded. In December
1536 Geneva finally paid 8,000 écus rather than 9,900 écus, but was granted no discount! EA IV, 1c,
806 (no. 489: I) (Dec. 1536).
521 EA IV, 1c, 253 (no. 129: XXX) (March 1534).
522 EA IV, 1c, 291–2 (no. 143: I, 2; II, 2) (March 1534).
523 EA IV, 1c, 297 (no. 149) (March 1534). Bern rejected Geneva’s claim that it had never submit-
ted final accounts. Two copies existed, Bern rejoined: this was simply Geneva’s device to procrastinate.
SABE, Teutsche Missiven-Buch 23 U, pp. 101–2 (26 Feb. 1534).
524 EA IV, 1c, 300 (no. 152) (April 1534). According to a letter from Solothurn to Fribourg in
August, the duke had seemingly now paid all the war reparations. SASO, Missiven 14, p. 364 (26 Aug.
1534). But according to Segre (who is not always reliable), by May 1533 all arrears had been paid to
Bern and Geneva. Documenti di Storia Sabauda, 88. This cannot be true since in late 1534 Bern was
still granting Savoy further extensions.
525 Monter, Calvin’s Geneva, 51–2; EA IV, 1c, 239–55 (no. 129: II; III; IV; V; IX; XII; XV; XVI;
XIX; XXIV; XXIX) (Jan.–March 1534).