The Geneva Councils: Powers and Transition in a Reforming City (1534-1544)

Welcome to "Really Calvin, is this an ideal life? A historical podcast." In this episode, we delve into the intricate workings of Geneva's political institutions during a pivotal decade marked by the rise of the Reformation. Through an in-depth analysis of council records and historical documents, the study uncovers the mechanisms that shaped governance in the city.
The research focuses on the Petit Conseil, Geneva's executive body, examining its internal hierarchy, attendance patterns, and discrepancies in official records. These details reveal how decisions were made and implemented during this transformative period. By highlighting the complexities of governance and avoiding broad generalizations about longer historical periods, this episode offers a nuanced perspective on Geneva's political life amidst the challenges of religious and institutional change.

If you prefer another audio platform (Spotify, Podcast Addict, Deezer, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Overcast...), click here!

*******

Speaker #0 - Welcome back everyone. Today we're going deep, really deep into 16th century Geneva. 

Speaker #1 - Ooh, exciting. 

Speaker #0 - Using an excerpt from Christophe Chazalon's work. It's called "Les Conseils de Genève de 1534 à 1544". Now, if you think power struggles, religious upheaval, and a city, you know, just forging its own path, that's exactly what we're talking about. It's a fascinating time, and we're going to uncover some surprising details about how Geneva's government actually worked back then. 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. It's a period of just immense change, you know. Geneva had just won its independence and embraced the Reformation. 

Speaker #0 - Huge. 

Speaker #1 - The city was reinventing itself, figuring out totally new ways to govern. 

Speaker #0 - So let's talk about the "Petit Conseil", this is the Council of 25, the big decision makers. You'd think they'd have like a rigid top-down structure. 

Speaker #1 - Yeah, you'd think so. 

Speaker #0 - But Chazalon suggests it was a little more complicated. 

Speaker #1 - Right. There were attempts at order, of course, like assigned seating and voting procedures, but the reality was, well, more fluid. 

Speaker #0 - More fluid. OK. 

Speaker #1 - Chazalon even mentions this concept of the "échelle d'honneur". 

Speaker #0 - Interesting. 

Speaker #1 - Literally meaning "ladder of honor". 

Speaker #0 - OK. 

Speaker #1 - It hints at a hierarchy within the council. 

Speaker #0 - OK. 

Speaker #1 - But it seems this idea of a strict pecking order, you know, might not have fully taken hold until later. 

Speaker #0 - That's really interesting. It makes me wonder if this loose structure was, you know, intentional, like a way to navigate those early uncertainties of a newly independent city, or if it was just things evolving over time. 

Speaker #1 - That's a great point. And the early council records really reflect this ambiguity. 

Speaker #0 - How so? 

Speaker #1 - Attendance lists were inconsistent. Sometimes in one column, sometimes multiple. The order of names, seemingly random, and it wasn't until a specific ordinance in 1492, that things became standardized. 

Speaker #0 - So bureaucracy is starting to creep in? 

Speaker #1 - Yeah, you could say that. 

Speaker #0 - What did this new order look like? 

Speaker #1 - Well, the 1492 ordinance stipulated a specific voting order, starting with the syndics. They were the top officials. 

Speaker #0 - At the top. 

Speaker #1 - Followed by counselors in a specific pattern. It also forced secretaries to record attendance more systematically, separating syndics from counselors in the records. 

Speaker #0 - I'm guessing this meticulous record keeping wasn't just for posterity?

Speaker #1 - You're right. 

Speaker #0 - Was it tied to compensation? 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. Council members received a small payment for each session they attended...

Speaker #0 - Interesting. 

Speaker #1 - ... even members of the larger councils, like the "Conseil des Soixante" and the "Conseil des Deux Cents", when they were called upon. 

Speaker #0 - Oh, wow. 

Speaker #1 - And interestingly, this payment system was abolished in 1537. 

Speaker #0 - That's curious. What could have prompted that change? Was it purely financial or was it a shift in how the council's role was viewed? 

Speaker #1 - It's difficult to say for sure. Perhaps a combination of factors, including budget constraints and evolving ideas about civic duty. Chazalon doesn't really delve deep into the reasons, but it definitely raises questions about the motivations for serving on the council. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah. We've talked about the structure, but what about the individuals? Who are these council members and how did their personal dynamics influence decisions? 

Speaker #1 - Well, while there were attempts to establish a clear hierarchy. Chazalon suggests it wasn't always about formal titles. Factors like personality, social standing, and competence likely played a significant role. 

Speaker #0 - So, it's not just about who sits where...

Speaker #1 - Right. 

Speaker #0 - ... but who commands respect and influence. 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. 

Speaker #0 - It sounds like a very human system.

Speaker #1 - It was. 

Speaker #0 - Driven by personalities and relationships as much as by rules and procedures. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. It's important to remember that applying our modern day ideas of rigid structures to the 16th century, especially in those early years of Geneva's independence, wouldn't capture the full picture. 

Speaker #0 - That makes sense. We need to avoid imposing our present-day perspectives on the past. 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. 

Speaker #0 - Now, what about the syndics? We know they were the top dogs. 

Speaker #1 - Yeah, at the very top. 

Speaker #0 - But was there a clear hierarchy among them as well? 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. Their hierarchy was based on "l'assiette". 

Speaker #0 - "L'assiette"! 

Speaker #1 - Which essentially translates to seating arrangement. 

Speaker #0 - Interesting. 

Speaker #1 - And ordinances from 1543 clearly state that seniority should determine the ranking of syndics. Longer service means a higher position.

Speaker #0 - Sounds straightforward enough, but knowing history, I suspect it wasn't always that simple. 

Speaker #1 - You're right to be skeptical. Chazalon provides several examples where seniority took a backseat to other factors. 

Speaker #0 - Such as? 

Speaker #1 - In 1536, for instance, Ami Porral, a seasoned syndic, found himself ranked below Étienne Chapeaurouge, who was new to the position. 

Speaker #0 - Oh, wow. 

Speaker #1 - And in 1543, Antoine Chicand, despite his experience, was placed behind Girardin de La Rive. 

Speaker #0 - So, it seems like seniority wasn't the only path to prominence. 

Speaker #1 - Definitely not. 

Speaker #0 - What other forces might have been at play? I imagine political alliances, personal influence, maybe even rivalries between different factions in the city. 

Speaker #1 - You're on the right track. Geneva at that time was divided between the "ville haute", representing the citizens... 

Speaker #0 - The citizens. 

Speaker #1 - ... and the "ville basse", comprised mostly of merchants and foreigners. 

Speaker #0 - Got it. 

Speaker #1 - Maintaining a balance between these factions likely played a role in shaping the council's dynamics. 

Speaker #0 - It sounds like a delicate balancing act. ..

Speaker #1 - It was. 

Speaker #0 - ... with the syndics not only navigating the complexities of governing a newly independent city, but also trying to appease different interest groups. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. 

Speaker #0 - Were they always successful? 

Speaker #1 - Not always. And this is where another fascinating aspect of Chazlan's work comes into play. 

Speaker #0 - Okay. Tell me more. 

Speaker #1 - The issue of absenteeism among council members. 

Speaker #0 - Absenteeism. 

Speaker #1 - Yeah. 

Speaker #0 - You'd think with all these rules and procedures, pendants wouldn't be an issue, especially if they were being compensated. 

Speaker #1 - You would think so, wouldn't you? 

Speaker #0 - I would. 

Speaker #1 - But the text reveals a surprising number of council members. 

Speaker #0 - Really? 

Speaker #1 - Even syndics frequently missing meetings. This was despite official regulations and potential penalties. 

Speaker #0 - That's wild. What might have led to this lax attitude towards such an important civic duty?

Speaker #1 - Well, Chazalon provides a few interesting examples. Étienne Chapeaurouge, the same syndic we mentioned earlier, often missed meetings due to his business trips to Lyon...

Speaker #0 - Makes sense.

Speaker #1 - ... and there's Claude Richardet who, when summoned for a meeting, casually informed the authorities that he was having dinner...

Speaker #0 - Wow! Dinner over a council meeting. That suggests a certain level of nonchalance or perhaps even a deliberate act of defiance.

Speaker #1 - Possibly.

Speaker #0 - Was this a common occurrence or were these just isolated incidents? 

Speaker #1 - Well, Chazalon doesn't provide specific numbers. He highlights these cases to illustrate a broader trend of absenteeism, particularly among council members with demanding professions and business interests. 

Speaker #0 - That makes sense. We're talking about a time when public service wasn't necessarily a full-time job. These were individuals juggling their civic duties with their personal and professional lives. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. And this brings us to the financial side of thing, which might offer another clue to this puzzle. 

Speaker #0 - Interesting. 

Speaker #1 - You might assume that council members were primarily motivated by personal enrichment. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah, you would think. 

Speaker #1 - But the text paints a more nuanced picture. 

Speaker #0 - Oh, I'm curious to hear more. Did serving on the council offer significant financial rewards? 

Speaker #1 - Not necessarily. Chazalon highlights several cases where council members actually had to fight... 

Speaker #0 - Really? 

Speaker #1 - ... to receive their due wages, or settled debts owed to them by the Signory, Geneva's governing body. 

Speaker #0 - You mean they weren't rolling in riches from their government positions? 

Speaker #1 - No, not at all. 

Speaker #0 - Could this financial strain explain the absenteeism? 

Speaker #1 - It's possible. 

Speaker #0 - Maybe they were prioritizing their personal businesses or other sources of income. 

Speaker #1 - It's certainly a possibility. Chazalon cites examples like Jean Lambert, Claude Savoye, and Ami Chapeaurouge, all struggling to get what they were owed. It suggests that financial gain might not have been the primary motivator for many council members. 

Speaker #0 - So we're seeing a complex picture emerge here. 

Speaker #1 - We are. 

Speaker #0 - It wasn't just about power and hierarchy, but also about individual motivations, financial realities, and the challenges of balancing public service with private life. 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. 

Speaker #0 - It makes you wonder if money wasn't the driving force. What compelled these individuals to serve on the council? 

Speaker #1 - That's a great question. And it leads us to another crucial element in understanding Geneva's government: the role of the "Conseil Général", the General Council. It was a body that represented a broader cross-section of Genevan society and often played a decisive role during times of crisis. 

Speaker #0 - This is where things get really interesting. Before we delve into that, let's take a moment to reflect on what we've learned so far. 

Speaker #1 - Okay, sounds good. 

Speaker #0 - We've seen that the Petit Conseil, despite its attempts at order and structure was a dynamic and often unpredictable entity. The interplay of personalities, political maneuvering, and the ever present tension between individual interests and civic duty created a fascinatingly complex system of governance. 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. 

Speaker #0 - It's a reminder that history is rarely neat and tidy. 

Speaker #1 - No, it's not. 

Speaker #0 - It's a messy human affair. The ambition, compromise, and the constant push and pull between different forces. 

Speaker #1 - I agree. 

Speaker #0 - Okay. So. We've been exploring this inner workings of the Petit Conseil, you know, with all its intrigue and complexities. But let's shift our focus now to the Conseil General, the General Council, which you mentioned, played a crucial role. 

Speaker #1 - Yes, especially during times of upheaval. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah. Okay, so tell me about the Conseil General. 

Speaker #1 - Well, the Conseil General served as a voice for a broader segment of Genevan society. You can think of it as counterbalance to the Petit Conseil, ensuring that the interests of the wider populace were considered. 

Speaker #0 - So not just an elite group making decisions behind closed doors. 

Speaker #1 - Not at all. 

Speaker #0 - Was there genuine participation from ordinary citizens? 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. And a prime example of this dynamic in action is the Articulants crisis of 1540, which Chazalon details in the text. It involved a controversial treaty with Berne. 

Speaker #0 - Okay. 

Speaker #1 - A dramatic coup attempt and a swift execution. It's a story that really highlights the power struggles and uncertainties of this era. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah. It sounds like something out of a political thriller. 

Speaker #1 - It does, doesn't it? 

Speaker #0 - What exactly happened? 

Speaker #1 - Well, a Geneva ambassador signed a treaty with Berne. 

Speaker #0 - Okay. 

Speaker #1 - But many saw it as ceding too much control to Berne over lands traditionally shared between the two cities, and this ignited outrage among certain factions in Geneva, and things escalated pretty quickly. 

Speaker #0 - So a diplomatic blunder leads to public outcry. What happened next? 

Speaker #1 - A group of dissenters led by Jean-Philippe attempted to seize power. 

Speaker #0 - Wow. 

Speaker #1 - They even went so far as to condemn the ambassadors, the so-called Articulants to death, even though they weren't present. 

Speaker #0 - Wow. That's... that's a bold move. 

Speaker #1 - It was. 

Speaker #0 - Talk about high stakes. 

Speaker #1 - High stakes indeed. 

Speaker #0 - What was the Conseil General's role in all of this? 

Speaker #1 - The Conseil General was convened repeatedly during this crisis, demonstrating its importance as the ultimate authority in Geneva. It was during these assemblies that the coup was thwarted. Jean-Philippe was arrested. tried and swiftly executed. 

Speaker #0 - So the People's Assembly stepped in and restored order. 

Speaker #1 - They did. 

Speaker #0 - Why does Chazalon focus so much on the Conseil General's role in this event? 

Speaker #1 - Well, Chazalon uses this crisis to illustrate how the events of 1540 challenged the notion of solidifying aristocracy. 

Speaker #0 - Interesting. 

Speaker #1 - Despite the efforts to formalize power within the Petit Conseil, the Conseil General, with its broader representation, ultimately held the reins. 

Speaker #0 - Yeah. 

Speaker #1 - It's a fascinating reminder that power is rarely static, especially in such a volatile period. 

Speaker #0 - It makes you wonder if this crisis was a turning point for Geneva. Did it solidify the power of the Conseil Général or did things eventually swing back towards elite control? 

Speaker #1 - That's a great question, and it's the kind of historical inquiry that Chazalon encourages us to explore. He reminds us that simple narratives often fail to capture the true complexity of the past. 

Speaker #0 - Right. It's not a linear progression, but a dynamic process with competing interests, shifting public opinion and external pressures all playing a part. 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. 

Speaker #0 - And this is especially true for Geneva in the years between 1534 and 1544. Remember, this is a city navigating its newfound independence, the impact of the Reformation, and a delicate relationship with powerful neighbors like Berne. So much change packed into a single decade. 

Speaker #1 - A lot of change. 

Speaker #0 - It's no wonder there was so much tension and uncertainty. 

Speaker #1 - It's understandable. Precisely, and to fully grasp these events, we need to kind of zoom out and consider the broader context. The Reformation was sweeping across Europe, reshaping not just religious beliefs but also the political landscape. 

Speaker #0 - Huge changes. 

Speaker #1 - Traditional hierarchies were being challenged, and new ideas about governance were emerging. 

Speaker #0 - So Geneva wasn't an isolated case, but part of a much larger European transformation. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. It's like watching a chain reaction with each city-state dealing with the aftershocks of the Reformation. 

Speaker #0 - It must have been a truly exhilarating and terrifying time to be alive. 

Speaker #1 - I imagine so. 

Speaker #0 - So much uncertainty, so much potential for both progress and disaster. 

Speaker #1 - Imagine the passionate debates, the alliances forged and broken, the fear and the hope that gripped the city. It's a powerful reminder. That history is more than just dates and names. It's a tapestry woven with human emotions and aspirations. 

Speaker #0 - Beautifully put. 

Speaker #1 - Thank you. 

Speaker #0 - As we wrap up this part of our deep dive, what are the key takeaways for you? What's the so what for our listeners? 

Speaker #1 - Well, I think Chazalon's work reminds us that power is rarely absolute, even in seemingly hierarchical systems, the fluid dynamics of Geneva's early government, the influence of individual personalities, and the power of the people. Through the Conseil General, all paint a picture of a society constantly negotiating its own destiny. 

Speaker #0 - It's a story of ambition. compromise, and the constant push and pull between order and chaos. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. And for me, the most compelling aspect is this. 

Speaker #0 - OK. 

Speaker #1 - Despite the attempts at structure and order, human behavior, with all its unpredictability and complexity, always finds a way to disrupt even the most carefully laid plans. 

Speaker #0 - It's a reminder that history is made by people, not just by systems, and sometimes those people are more interested in dinner than council meetings. 

Speaker #1 - Precisely. And with that in mind, let's move on to our final segment where we'll explore what Chazalon's insights about Geneva's past can teach us about power, politics, and the human condition today. 

Speaker #0 - Sounds good. So we've journeyed through this intricate world of Geneva's early government. You know, witnessed power struggles, absentee council members, and even a dramatic coup attempt. 

Speaker #1 - Yeah, it's... 

Speaker #0 - It's clear that this wasn't just a time of political and religious change, but a period of immense human drama. 

Speaker #1 - What fascinates me is how Chazalon uses these seemingly mundane details like seating arrangements, attendance records, financial disputes, to reveal the personalities and motivations behind the official narratives. It's like piecing together a historical puzzle where each detail offers a glimpse into the lives and decisions of these individuals. 

Speaker #0 - It's like we're getting a behind-the-scenes look at history. You know. Seeing the human foibles and ambitions that shaped these events. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. 

Speaker #0- So let's play detective for a moment. 

Speaker #1 - Okay. 

Speaker #0 - What's the overarching message Chazalon wants us to take away from all of this? What can Geneva's story teach us about power and politics that's still relevant today? 

Speaker #1 - If we connect this to the bigger picture, I think Chazalon's work reminds us that History is never truly settled or static. Even the most meticulous attempts to impose order and structure can be disrupted by individual ambition, political maneuvering, and the simple fact that humans are, well, human.

Speaker #0 - It's like a constant tug of war, isn't it? 

Speaker #1 - It is. 

Speaker #0 - Different forces pulling in different directions, creating a dynamic tension that never quite settles into equilibrium. 

Speaker #1 - Exactly. And that's what makes studying this period so captivating. We see the push and pull between those seeking stability and control and those who challenge the status quo whether through their actions, their absence, or their outspoken dissent. It speaks to a fundamental tension that exists within any system of governance. 

Speaker #0 - It makes you wonder if this tension is inherent in any form of collective decision making. 

Speaker #1 - It's a good question. 

Speaker #0 - You need rules and structure to create order, but you also need flexibility and adaptability to respond to those unexpected twists and turns that history inevitably throws our way. 

Speaker #1 - I think you've hit on a key insight there. It's about finding that delicate balance between maintaining order, and allowing for the dynamism that drives progress and change. It's a lesson that's as relevant today as it was in 16th century Geneva. 

Speaker #0 - Absolutely. It reminds us that effective governance isn't just about following the rulebook. It's about understanding the human element, the motivations, the compromises, the inevitable messiness that comes with any collective endeavor. 

Speaker #1 - And this brings us back to the challenge of interpreting historical sources. 

Speaker #0 - Okay. 

Speaker #1 - Something Chazalon emphasizes throughout his work. He cautions against viewing the past through our modern lens, urging us to consider multiple perspectives, and acknowledge the limitations of the evidence at hand. 

Speaker #0 - So it's not about passing judgment on the past... 

Speaker #1 - No. 

Speaker #0 - ... but about trying to understand it on its own terms, to step into the shoes of those who lived through these events, to see the world through their eyes, and to appreciate the complexities they faced. 

Speaker #1 - Precisely. And as we conclude our deep dive into Chazalon's work, I'd like to leave you with this thought. Despite attempts at order and structure, Geneva's early government was a dynamic and often unpredictable entity. Individual ambitions, shifting political alliances, and the constant struggle for power ultimately shaped the city's destiny. 

Speaker #0 - It's a story that underscores the fact that history isn't a static monument, but a living, breathing process full of twists and turns, triumphs and setbacks, and the enduring power of human agency to shape events. 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. 

Speaker #0 - It's a reminder that we're all part of this ongoing story.

Speaker #1 - We are. 

Speaker #0 - And our choices, big and small, contribute to the ever-evolving narrative of human history. A huge thank you to you for this incredible journey through Geneva's past. 

Speaker #1 - It was my pleasure. 

Speaker #0 - And to you, our listeners, we hope this deep dive has sparked your curiosity and left you pondering the intricacies of history and the enduring power of the human spirit. 

Speaker #1 - Absolutely. 

Speaker #0 - Keep exploring, keep questioning and keep diving deep.

Here are a few suggestions for discovering the structure and management of the Geneva Council in ancient times:

• Bianca BAECHLER, Le Petit Conseil de Genève (1460-1540). Étude prosopographique d'une élite dirigeante dans une période de crise politique et religieuse, Genève: Université de Genève, 1995, 2 vol., 589 p. (thèse de doctorat)
• Raphaël BARAT, "Prééminence aristocratique, vote et rituel dans les élections populaires à Genève à la fin du XVI^e siècle", in Jean-Philippe GENET / E. Igor MINEO (dir.), Marquer la prééminence sociale, Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne / Rome: Publication de l'École française de Rome, 2014, p. 233-255: article généraliste qui regroupe tout le XVIe en un seul bloc sans tenir compte des particularités et de la pratique réelle  (web)
• Mathieu CAESAR, "Gorvernment and politcal life during an age of transition (1451-16003)", in John BALSERAK (ed.), A companion to the Reformation in Geneva, 2021/01, p. 27-50  (web)
• Mathieu CAESAR, Le pouvoir en ville. Gestion urbaine et pratiques politiques à Genève (fin XIII^e-début XVI^e siècles), Turnhout (BE): Brepols, 2011, 441 p. (coll. Studies in European Urban History, n° 25): probably the best study of pre-Reformation Geneva
• Pierre DUBUIS, "Genève et sa mémoire administrative au XV^e siècle, d'après les registres de décisions du Conseil", in Agostino PARAVICINI BAGLIANI (éd.), La mémoire du temps au Moyen Âge, Florence: SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2005, p. 231-247
• Lucien FULPIUS, Les institutions politiques de Genève des origines à la fin de l'ancienne République, Genève: Institut national genevois, 1965, 36 p.
• James E. McLELLAN, Old Regime France and its jetons: pointillist history and numismatics, Turnhout: Brepols, 2020, 268 p.
• William E. MONTER, Studies in Genevan government: 1536-1605, Genève: Droz, 1694, 128 p.
• Mathieu PICHARD RIVALAN, Rennes, naissance d'une capitale (1491-1610), Rennes: Université Rennes 2, 2014, vol. 1, 678 p.: thèse de doctorat  (web)
• Amédée ROGET, "Le Petit Conseil", Étrennes genevoises. Hommes et choses du temps passé, Genève: Julien Carey imprimeur-éditeur, 1877, p. 1-53  (web)
• Christophe VUILLEUMIER, Les élites politiques genevoise (1580-1652), Genève: Éditions Slatkine, 2009, 809 p.
• Georges WERNER, "Les institutions politiques de Genève de 1519 à 1536", Étrennes genevoises, 1926, p. 8-54