FOOTNOTES:

HIGH ALTAR, CHUR CATHEDRAL. (From a Photograph.)HIGH ALTAR, CHUR CATHEDRAL.(From a Photograph.)

in preventing it. This latter state with Venice had effected an alliance with Protestant Bünden, and that party strongly opposed the Spanish union for which the energetic but headstrong Rudolf von Planta was working. Fuentes, a Spaniard, Governor of Milan, furious at the resistance offered, erected a chain of strong forts on Lake Como, with the view of cutting off the Valtellines. Before long, George Jenatsch from the Engadine, Tschusch, and other high-minded and patriotic Protestants, began to decry the Spanish scheme, and tumults arose. An attack on Planta's manor, Zernez (1618), having failed through the escape of Rudolf, Zambra, Landammann in Bregaglia, and Rusca, a priest in the Valtellina, both greyheaded old men, were seized. They were sentenced to death by a new court which had been set up at Thusis, a court which raged against popery and spread terrorism for some months. In the Engadine a strange thing happened. The respective chiefs of the hostile clans were the two brothers Von Travers, and a hand-to-hand fight between the opposing parties having begun, suddenly the wives, daughters, and sisters of the combatants rushed amongst them like the Sabine women of old, and checked them. Foremost amongst these noble women was the spirited Anna Juvalta. The Plantas were now in exile, and were conspiring with Austria. Their cousin Robustello (Valtellina) at a given signal broke into the houses of the Protestants, and, with the help of hired assassins, put the inmates to the sword. This was on the 19th of July, 1620, and throughout the whole valley no quarter was given. Zurich and Bern on hearing of this shockingmassacre—the "St. Bartholomew of the Valtellina"—sent troops, but they were defeated at Tirano by the Spanish forces and adherents. The Plantas returned from exile and asked the Forest Cantons to give their countenance to their party, and these were not unwilling; but the plot itself was opposed by the Protestant Grisons with scorn and fury. Jenatsch penetrated to the castle of the Plantas at Rietberg, and Pompejus fell by his hands (1621). The Catholics were defeated at Valendas, and the country was cleared of the troops of the Forest Cantons and of Spaniards. However, Jenatsch failed to take Valtellina.

The Austrians still claimed supremacy over part of theZehngerichte,[69]and we find them, from 1620 to 1629, twice invading and occupying Graubünden. The most dreadful cruelties marked the passage of their general, Baldiron, and Catholicism was reintroduced by force. In 1629, the Emperor Ferdinand had reached the height of his success and greatness, and Bünden with all its dependencies lay prostrate at his feet. France came to the rescue. Richelieu pursued the policy of Henry IV. to re-establish the balance of power by breaking down the prestige of the Habsburgs. With the view of gaining supremacy for France, he had drawn Sweden into the Thirty Years' War; and on the death of Gustavus Adolphus, when the zeal was somewhat flagging, he revived it by sending French troops into Alsace, South Germany, and the Grisons. The command of the Franco-Grison army was entrusted to Duke Henryde Rohan, godson of Henry IV. of France (and godfather to Charles I. of England), one of the noblest characters of his age. De Rohan was also appointed ambassador to the Eidgenossen states in 1631. He had been leader of the Huguenots, and had supported the Edict of Nantes in opposition to Louis XIII. Becoming obnoxious to the king in consequence, he withdrew to Venice. There he wrote a treatise on the strategical importance of the Grisons, as if he foresaw his future mission.[70]During his residence in Switzerland he watched zealously over its interests, smoothing over difficulties in the Diet to avoid war. Richelieu sent him neither money nor help, but left him to extricate himself as best he could from his position in that isolated mountain fastness; yet Rohan was the idol of his soldiers and of the people of the Grisons, and was always spoken of by them as the "good duke." In 1635, when France was doing its utmost to oust Austria, open war broke out, and Rohan gained four brilliant victories in succession—Jenatsch serving as local guide and combatant in advance, his superior tactics proving too much for the Austro-Spanish forces. Yet the "good duke" was soon to fall a victim to the perfidious policy of Richelieu, and the treachery of Jenatsch. This latter was a strange mixture of the noble and the vile—fierce, and ambitious, a seeker of gain, yet a man of honour,full of a wild patriotism and thirst for freedom. Eager to free his country from the grasp of the stranger, he and the hot-tempered Bündner, at whose head he was, suddenly found that they were but exchanging masters. Sticking at nothing to gain his ends Jenatsch entered into a secret understanding with Austria and Spain, and even turned Catholic to win more favour with them. Then, forgetting the many kindnesses he had received from his friend Rohan, he betrayed him to his enemies. It should be observed, parenthetically, that the question in dispute was that of the Valtellina, and Rohan had had no instructions from Richelieu to return that territory. Suddenly the French general found himself surrounded by hostile troops from the Grisons, and was compelled to capitulate (1637). Unable to bear the sight of France again, he fought for her under the banner of Bernhard von Weimar, and fell at Rheinfelden, in Aargovy, seeking rather than fearing death. Jenatsch, however, did not long enjoy the fruits of his guilty action. Two years later he was stabbed at an officers' banquet, during the carnival, by some masked figure. Rudolf Planta, son of Pompejus, was said by some to have done the deed, whilst another story has it that the avenger was Rudolf's sister, Lucretia, who was burning for vengeance on the slayer of her father.[71]One of the first German novelists of our time, Ferdinand Meyer, of Zurich, has worked these thrilling episodes into his fine story, "Jenatsch." The hero was buriedwith pomp at Chur, but his murderer remained unpunished. Thus Graubünden, after a struggle of nearly a hundred years, recovered both its independence and its lost territory.

That memorable event of the seventeenth century, the signing of the Peace of Westphalia, which concluded the Thirty Years' War, whilst, on the one hand, it sanctioned the dismemberment of the German Empire, yet ratified the independence and autonomy of the Swiss republics. This result was chiefly due to the noble efforts of two men—Wettstein, Burgomaster of Basel, who most effectively championed Swiss interests at the Congress; and Henry d'Orleans Longueville, count and reigning prince of Neuchâtel, the French representative at the same conference, who supported the Swiss claims.

The religious strife of Villmergen in 1656, which ended in the defeat of the Protestants, cannot be gone into here. Suffice it to note that this defeat was fully repaired by the second war of that name in 1712. A more important matter was the Peasants' Revolt, in 1653. It promised to grow to alarming dimensions, but was put down by the Government. This rising, however, is noteworthy, as marking the vast chasm which had formed between the labouring and the governing classes. The peasantry were now in a state of complete subjection, and patiently awaited the dawn of a brighter day, which nevertheless came only with the French Revolution. What they claimed was the restoration of their old liberties, relief from the excessive taxation, and the general improvement of their material interests. But many of the governingclasses, councillors,landvögte, and others, had served abroad at foreign courts, and had drunk in the spirit of absolutism, and were as much imbued as any James I. or Louis XIV. with notions as to the "divine right" of the privileged classes to govern. They claimed seats on the administration as a right. From their superior positions they looked down on the labouring classes, and had little or no sympathy with them. Except in name the Swiss cantons were as absolutely governed by aristocracies as France was by Louis XIV. Nothing is more ludicrous, or more clearly shows the affectations and narrow pedantries of the age, than the childish delight in long or high-flown titles, by which the Swiss "regents," as they were called, were wont to address each other, and be addressed even by foreigners. "Leurs excellences," "noble-born," and so forth, were as common amongst Swiss republicans as in any monarchy.[72]Nor were they behindhand in the adoption of court fashions, wigs, frills, and the like; whilst they hunted eagerly for patents of nobility, and placed the "von" so unblushingly before their names that the higher classes, and really well-born for the most part dropped it for a time.

The Eidgenossen, however, were eminently useful soldiers, and Louis XIV. in 1663 wheedled or tricked them into the renewal of the alliance with France, an alliance into which Le Barde had tried in vain for thirteen years to coax them. The wily Louis invited a Swiss embassy to his Court, and for a whole weekamused and flattered his guests with a succession of banquets, ceremonies, and entertainments. Molière played before them by royal command. The ambassadors were thus beguiled into admitting some of the most important points in the treaty, the neutrality of Burgundy, the liquidation of the old debt, &c. On the 18th of November, in the presence of the whole French Court, at Notre Dame, the Swiss representatives agreed to a disgraceful and humiliating bargain with Louis. The king was not, however, inclined to lavish money on them like his predecessors had done. One day Louvois complained to him that his Swiss troops stood him dear, that for the money they had cost him and his predecessors the road could be paved with crown-pieces from Paris to Basel. Stuppa from the Grisons, overhearing this, quickly retorted, "Sir, you forget that with the Swiss blood spilt in the French service you might fill a canal from Basel to Paris."

Despite the engagements to France which Switzerland had entered into, it never ceased to give shelter to the French refugees who fled to escape the persecutions of Louis—to the Waldenses and the Huguenots. After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, sixty-six thousand emigrants are said to have found shelter in Switzerland. Amongst the Swiss cities Geneva stands out conspicuously and honourably by her great benevolence. Not to speak of the vast amount of private assistance given, the municipality spent on the relief of the religious refugees no less a sum than five million florins between 1685 and 1726. Gradually the Eidgenossen became alive to the realcharacter of Louis and his negotiations with them, and ashamed of their own lack of patriotism. As early as 1689, indeed, we find Swiss envoys from Bern and Zurich at Paris, rejecting his bribes, his golden chains, and what not. And on their return home they received the eulogies of their people for their integrity and independence. Gradually the league with France was set aside, or ignored. Nevertheless, the system of mercenary service remained an evil—one may say a cancerous evil—in the Swiss policy of the later centuries.

FOOTNOTES:[68]Appealing to the absurd pretended national relationship between Swedes and Switzers, an etymology of the Middle Ages.[69]See the chapter on the Swabian wars.[70]Rohan was a great friend to Zurich, and presented to its city library which was then forming his "Parfait Capitaine," a Hebrew Bible, and his portrait. He was by his own request buried at Geneva, and his death was greatly regretted by the reformed cities. The letters written by his family in reply to the "Condolence of Zurich" are still preserved in the library. See pamphlet on Rohan by Professor von Wyss.[71]In Meyer's novel, Lucretia is betrothed to Jenatsch and takes the veil after the murder of Jenatsch, but this story has no foundation in fact.[72]A few of these magnificent titles, or epithets, may be noted: "Hoch," "Wohlgeachtete," "Edle," "Fromme," "Fürsichtige," "Fürnehme," "Weise Herren," and many more such like.

[68]Appealing to the absurd pretended national relationship between Swedes and Switzers, an etymology of the Middle Ages.

[69]See the chapter on the Swabian wars.

[70]Rohan was a great friend to Zurich, and presented to its city library which was then forming his "Parfait Capitaine," a Hebrew Bible, and his portrait. He was by his own request buried at Geneva, and his death was greatly regretted by the reformed cities. The letters written by his family in reply to the "Condolence of Zurich" are still preserved in the library. See pamphlet on Rohan by Professor von Wyss.

[71]In Meyer's novel, Lucretia is betrothed to Jenatsch and takes the veil after the murder of Jenatsch, but this story has no foundation in fact.

[72]A few of these magnificent titles, or epithets, may be noted: "Hoch," "Wohlgeachtete," "Edle," "Fromme," "Fürsichtige," "Fürnehme," "Weise Herren," and many more such like.

Politically Switzerland presents much the same aspect in the eighteenth as in the previous century, and it needs here only a few words to indicate more clearly the temper of the times. In Swiss lands, as elsewhere, we have the inevitable division into the two classes of governor and governed. The rank and file of the "reigning families,"regiments-fähig, patricians or plutocrats, rigorously kept all power to themselves, and held sway over the ordinary burghers and common folk. Unchecked rule and superiority and a life of ease and luxury on the one side; blind submission and toil on the other, especially in the rural districts. Even in the professedly democratic cantons the same despotism is met with; chieftains and family "dynasts" seizing the reins of government, and overruling thelandsgemeinde, whilst they contend with each other for supremacy. Just as in the case of the oligarchies, thelaendermake the most of their "divine right" to govern. No wonder risingstook place, as that of the Leventines against the harshlandvögteof Uri, and that of the Werdenberger (St. Gall) against Glarus, though these revolts were in vain. In Zurich, Schaffhausen, and Basel, there was less oppression, the guilds keeping the nobility at bay, though this guild system itself was not without blemish. The chief cities or cantonalchefs-lieuxone and all held sovereign sway over the country districts attaching to them, but, like the old nobility of France, shifted off their own shoulders nearly all taxation, whilst they monopolized trade and industry. Thus the peasantry were crushed with the weight of taxes, imposts, tithes, and what not.

Religious differences had deepened since the second war of Villmergen (1712), which had brought the Protestants to the fore, and had established the principle of religious equality. The Catholics, having lost their supremacy in certain bailiwicks or subject districts, began to dream of regaining their lost position. To this end they entered into a secret agreement (ligue à la cassette) with Louis XIV. of France shortly before that monarch's death. It was not till 1777, however, that France really gained her point. In that year the common fear of Austria induced both Protestants and Catholics to enter into a league with Louis XVI. Thus, for the first time since the Reformation, the Confederates were a united body, or at any rate were agreed as to their joint plan of action.

Interesting though the task might be, it is here impossible to investigate the various conditions of the government in the subject lands—Aargau,Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, part of St. Gall, portions gained by conquest, or fragments acquired by purchase. We should meet with curious remnants of feudalism, and strange mixtures of the mediæval and the modern. But our space will permit of only a glance. The subject lands were deprived of all self-government, and thelandvögteruled them as an Eastern satrap might rule his satrapy. A somewhat strange arrangement for a republic to make and allow; but yet, on the whole, the government was excellent, and this state of things continued for a long period. Abuses, bribery, extortions, and the like of course crept in, but it is to be remembered that thelandvögtewere strictly controlled by the central government.[73]Many of them, especially at Bern, kept up much state; possessed horses, carriages, and livery-servants, and kept open house. In their lordships they ruled as veritable sovereigns, but they cared for their people, as good sovereigns should. They were, indeed, more like the patriarchs of old, rewarding or admonishing their peoples as circumstances required. One specimen of the class was greatly admired by Goethe, viz., Landvogt Landolt von Greifensee (Zurich). A few traits will serve to mark the man and the system. This governor was of the old school, and hated enlightened peasants and modern revolutionary ideas. He advocated compulsory attendance at church, and firmly believed in flogging as the most rational form of punishment. On the other hand, he was bothbenevolent and humane, and watched over his people with a fatherly care. He was equally anxious to improve their farms and their morals. He was wont to go aboutincognito—generally dressed as a Tyrolese—and visited the printshops to find out the gamblers and the drunkards. The latter he had put into a revolving cage till they got sober. Quarrelling couples he shut up together, and forced them to eatwith the same spoon![74]But among many subject lands the system had greatly changed.

The greatest holder of subject territory was Bern, with its forty-four lordships or bailiwicks, Zurich coming next with twenty-nine. The largest subject district was Vaud, and, thanks to its thriving agriculture, and the wise, though harsh, administration of Bern, it flourished greatly. The Vaudois had on the whole submitted quietly to Bernese rule, though the upper classes amongst them did not relish their exclusion from the conduct of State affairs. However, bowing to the inevitable, they gave themselves up to the enjoyment of a life of pleasure and to intellectual pursuits. About this time Lausanne, their capital, had become the resort of men like Gibbon, Fox, Raynal, Voltaire, and many men of lesser mark. They were attracted by the beauty of the scenery and by the high repute of the Vaud gentry for good breeding and affability. These noble families opened their salons to the distinguished foreigners who resided among them, andGibbon seems to have particularly appreciated their good qualities.[75]The historian spent much of his life at Lausanne. An unlucky attempt had been made by Major Davel, in 1723, to rescue Vaud from the grasp of Bern. This enthusiastic patriot had himself concocted the plot, and attempted to carry out his plans without informing a single person of his intentions. Mustering his men, Davel, on some pretence, led them to Lausanne, where the council were then sitting, thelandvögtebeing up at Bern, and informed the board what he proposed to do. But the members of the council were not yet prepared to seek emancipation, and, simulating an understanding, betrayed the luckless patriot to the Bernese authorities. "Leurs Excellences"—such was the official title of the Bernese rulers—made use of the rack, with the object of extorting from him the names of his accomplices, but in vain, and he was beheaded.

Amongst the leading cities of the Confederation, Zurich was conspicuous as the centre of Liberal tendencies and intellectual progress, whilst Bern was the political centre, and the leading financial focus.[76]Like a modern Rothschild, Bern then lent to various European states. Part of her treasure went towards paying the cost of Napoleon's expedition to Egypt. Among her sister cities, Freiburg, Solothurn, and Lucerne, Bern presented the most perfect exampleof an oligarchy, admired by Montesquieu, Napoleon, and even Rousseau. Her decided bent was for diplomacy, and she was completely absorbed in rule and administration, and she had few other tastes. Trade and industry she considered beneath her dignity; even literary pursuits to a great extent. The Bernese aristocrats were politicians from birth, so to speak, and the young men had a curious society amongst themselves, "Äusserer Stand," a society formed for the purpose of cultivating the diplomatic art and practising parliamentary oratory and tactics, especially their more formal outward side. Thus trained in bearing and ceremonial they acquired their much-admired politicalaplomb. Bern was French in fashion, in manners, and in language, and the German tongue was as little appreciated amongst the Bernese patricians as at the Court of Frederick the Great. The constitution presents some features quite unique in their way. There was an exclusiveness which has lasted in all its force even down to our own days; and three classes of society sprang up, as widely separated from each other as the different castes in India. All power was vested in the 360 "reigning families"; the number of these was at length, by death and clever manipulating, reduced to eighty, and even fewer. From these families alone were the councils selected, and to the members of these only were governorships assigned. If male heirs were wanting, then the seats on the council were given to the daughters as dowries. So exclusive was this governing body, that even Haller, the great poet, was not allowed to enter it. The class nextlower in rank was that of the burghers,ewige habitanten, with no political rights, and with not a vestige of power in the commonwealth. They were not allowed to hold officerships abroad, but trade, industry, and the schools and churches were theirs. Lastly came the Ansässige (settlers), the proletariat, including the country labourers, foreigners, refugees, and commoner folk generally. Many were their disabilities; they were not permitted to buy houses, to have their children baptised in the city, to have tombstones set up over the graves of members of their family.[77]They might not even appear in the market till their betters had done their business, viz., 11 a.m., and they were strictly forbidden to carry baskets in the archways (les arcades de la ville), in order that these should not damage the hooped petticoats of the patrician ladies.[78]Bern has often been compared with ancient Rome, and certainly its stern council somewhat resembles in its austerity, solemnity, and pomp the august Roman Senate. It is not surprising that many attempts should have been made to induce the Government to relax its severity. In 1744 certain citizens petitioned the council to that effect, but were banished for their pains. Five years later a famous man named Henzi, with several associates, formed a plot against the council, but they were detected and executed.

But in truth there were risings in almost every one of the cantons. Of these only the most remarkablecan be touched on here, those of Geneva. These are real constitutional struggles, and, indeed, form the preliminaries in their way to the French Revolution, on which indeed their history sheds no little light. These troubles in Geneva are not unlike those of the Gracchi period in Roman history. By the Constitution of 1536 Geneva had been granted the right of a "Conseil Général," but this council had never been allowed to act or meet. The patricians who occupied thehaut de la citéhad arrogated to themselves well-nigh all power. But as early as 1707, the burghers, ever on the alert to regain their liberties, rose with the view of re-establishing the General Council of 1536. The movement was headed by the generous and noble-minded Pierre Fatio, himself a patrician. In fiery speeches, made in the open places of the town, he championed the popular rights, asserting with vehemence that the rulers were not the masters and tutors of the people, but the executors of its sovereign will. The attempt to gain popular liberty miscarried, Fatio was shot in prison, and his followers were exiled. Yet Fatio's idea lived on amongst the working classes, and later were again advocated in the pamphlets of Micheli du Crêst. In the years 1734 and 1737 the insurrections burst out afresh, and resulted in the establishment of the Constitution of 1738, which secured for a quarter of a century a happiness it had never before known.

However, the second half of the century witnessed new troubles between the burghers and the patricians. These latter were called, by way of nickname, "Négatifs," because they denied the people reform,whilst the burghers were styled "Représentants," because they presented petitions for political liberty. The artizan class were nicknamed "Natifs." It is impossible here to follow closely these "tea-cup squabbles," as Voltaire called them, but the philosopher's sympathies were with thehaut de la ville, while Rousseau, on the contrary, sided with thebas de la ville.

Of all the Swiss lands the most equitable and righteous government was that enjoyed by Neuchâtel, under Frederick the Great (1740-1786). This state had of its own free will in 1707 accepted the ducal sway of the kings of Prussia, in order to escape the grasp of Louis XIV. At one time, however, Frederick II. so far forgot himself as to infringe the "states'" right of taxation, and the semi-republican duchy at once rose in rebellion. Gaudot, the vice-governor, Frederick's devoted minister, was shot in the fray (1768). Yet, thanks to the monarch's wise moderation, and the intervention of the Swiss Confederation, the storm was calmed, and Neuchâtel continued in her peaceful and happy condition. It is clear that there was in Switzerland plenty of combustible matter, needing only the French Revolution to raise a conflagration.

FOOTNOTES:[73]The unrighteous and cruel Landvogt Tscharner was punished with death by the Bernese Government in 1612.[74]For further particulars about this original man the reader is referred to the charming novel bearing his name, by Keller (Keller's "Zurcher Novellen").[75]Madame de la Charrière, the novelist, writes: "Nous vivons avec eux, nous leur plaisons, quelquefois nous les formons, et ils nous gâtent."[76]The Bernese peasantry had attained unusual wealth by its excellent management and the strict administration of its government.[77]Prof. Vögelin, "Schweizergeschichte," p. 344.[78]See "Die Patrizierin," a recent fascinating novel by Widmann, a Bernese writer.

[73]The unrighteous and cruel Landvogt Tscharner was punished with death by the Bernese Government in 1612.

[74]For further particulars about this original man the reader is referred to the charming novel bearing his name, by Keller (Keller's "Zurcher Novellen").

[75]Madame de la Charrière, the novelist, writes: "Nous vivons avec eux, nous leur plaisons, quelquefois nous les formons, et ils nous gâtent."

[76]The Bernese peasantry had attained unusual wealth by its excellent management and the strict administration of its government.

[77]Prof. Vögelin, "Schweizergeschichte," p. 344.

[78]See "Die Patrizierin," a recent fascinating novel by Widmann, a Bernese writer.

Barren and uninviting is the waste of politics in Switzerland at this period of our story, and it seemed as if the republic was quietly crumbling out of active existence. But the literary and scientific renaissance runs through it all like a fertilizing stream, and saves it from utter sterility. Feeble though it was politically, Switzerland yet produced on all sides men of mark in science, in literature, in philosophy. Time would fail to tell of them all, and we must be content to follow briefly the three great currents of the movement, which centred respectively around Geneva, Zurich, and the Helvetic Society. The two former of these may indeed be said to form a part (and an important part) of the great general awakening of the eighteenth century, an awakening beginning with the French "period of enlightenment," and crowned by the era of German classicism. Yet the French movement itself was based on English influence.Just as, at the Restoration, England had copied the France of Louis Quatorze, so France in return drew intellectual strength from the England of the second half of the eighteenth century—England was then vastly ahead of the Continent—and brought forth the "siècle de la philosophie." Of the great Frenchmen who learned in the school of English thought, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Voltaire stand foremost, and of these again Voltaire occupies indisputably the highest place. Voltaire was not only the founder, but the very heart of the philosophic school which reared its front against the statutes and traditions and pretensions of the Church. He had drunk deeply of the spirit of Newton and of Locke during his exile in England, and spread abroad their views and discoveries, assisted by his genius, his sparkling wit, his lashing satire, and his graceful style. None equally with him naturalized on the Continent English free thought and English rationalism. Voltaire and Rousseau were as two great beacons planted in the century guiding as they would the course of philosophy. Both were champions of personal freedom and religious tolerance in a benighted and down-trodden age. But the influence of the two men worked in very different ways, for in the one it was based on the head, in the other on the heart. Voltaire, the realist, by his venomous and even reckless satires on the Church and on Christianity, dealt a severe blow to religion at large. Rousseau, the idealist, plunged into the mystery of good and evil, and was wrecked by the very impracticability of his system.

Voltaire, as is well known, spent the last twenty years of his life—his "verte vieillesse"—almost at the gates of Geneva, and Rousseau, actually one of its citizens, passed the greater part of his life wandering abroad, though he loved Geneva so dearly that he once fainted with emotion on leaving it. Yet while both did battle so to speak from Geneva, neither of them was reckoned as a prophet in that city. After Voltaire had spent a couple of years at "Les Délices"—this was subsequent to his break with the great Frederick—he bought Tournay and Ferney, close to Geneva, to "keep aloof from monarchs and bishops, of whom he was afraid." Ferney, with itsparc à la Versailles, and its fine castle, he made his residence; and there his niece did the honours of the house to the countless visitors who came from all parts to do homage to the illustrious "Aubergiste del' Europe," as he pleasantly styled himself. It was not the salons of Ferney that induced him to reside there, but care for his health and a wish to be free from all fear of bastilles.

Geneva was not inclined to bow in admiration before her famous neighbour, as has been already stated. She had by this time become a great intellectual centre. Men of science, naturalists, and philosophers there congregated, and a reaction against the everlasting study of theology, of which the fashion had been introduced by the Huguenot refugees, having come about, the study of nature had taken its place. Whilst France was being governed by the Pompadours, Geneva was ruled by a society of savants, inclined, it is true, to absolutismand narrow Calvinism, but still savants. It is a common error to suppose that Voltaire's influence took deep root in Geneva. Voltaire set the current running for the world at large indeed, but Geneva was not specially affected. In truth, most of her learned men were disinclined to do more than follow Voltaire half way, as it were, into his philosophy, whilst some of them, as, for instance, Charles Bonnet, were particularly narrow in their views, and were even heretic hunters.[79]Voltaire's contest with the city authorities respecting the establishing of a theatre is a good illustration of his want of real authority and influence there. It greatly tickled his fancy to seduce the "pedantic city still holding to her old reformers, and submitting to the tyrannical laws of Calvin" from the ancient path, and to make war on her orthodoxy. And as part of his plan he determined to introduce theatrical performances into the city. The ball was set rolling by an article in the "Encyclopédie" by D'Alembert, but the arguments there adduced in favour of the theatre proved of no avail. Rousseau made a furious reply, and averred that a theatre was injurious to the morals of a small town. In a large city, where the morals were already corrupt, it did not signify. The Consistoire was in a flutter, for it had pretended that the Genevans had a prodigious love for light amusements. However, one day Voltaire invited the city authorities to "Les Délices," and there treated them to a representation of his "Zaïre," and it was no little triumph to the wily old schemer that hisaudience were overcome with emotion. "We have moved to tears almost the whole council—Consistory and magistrates; I have never seen more tears," he delightedly reports; "never have the Calvinists been more tender! God be blessed! I have corrupted Geneva and the Republic." Nevertheless he was not to triumph. The theatre at "Les Délices" had to be closed. He opened his theatre several times elsewhere in Genevan territory, and began to draw crowds, but in every instance was compelled to close again. In truth, it was not till 1766 that Geneva had a theatre of its own, and even then it lasted but two years. The building was set on fire by some Puritans, and, being only of wood, was rapidly consumed. Crowds ran to the conflagration, but finding that it was only the theatre that was on fire, they emptied their buckets, shouting, "Let those who wanted a theatre put out the fire!" "Perruquesortignasses," exclaimed Voltaire, with irritation, "it is all the same with Geneva. If you think you have caught her, she escapes."

Rousseau (1712-1778) was the son of a Genevan watchmaker, and received but a very desultory education in his early days. Whilst yet but a boy he had drunk in the republican and Calvinistic spirit of his native town, hence his democratic leanings. He was a lover of nature, and fond of solitude, and was possessed of a deep religious feeling, even though his religion was based on sentiment. He witnessed the revolt of 1735-37, and,enfant du peupleas he was, rebelled against the tyranny of the patricians, and gave vent to his indignation in his writings. He thusbecame the mouthpiece of a down-trodden people craving for liberty, of a society satiated with culture. His prize essay on "Arts and Sciences" is an answer in the negative to the question propounded by the Dijon Academy, Whether the New Learning had resulted in an improvement to morals. His next essay on "L'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité" is a sally against the state of society. In it he advocates a return to the condition of nature, on which Voltaire sarcastically retorted, "I felt a great desire to go on all fours." "Emile" (1762), which Goethe calls the "gospel of education," declares against the hollowness of our distorted and over-refined civilization, and advocates a more rational training based on nature. And Pestalozzi, pedagogue and philanthropist, though he styled "Emile" a "book of dreams," was yet nourished on Rousseau's ideas. "Emile" is opposed to deism and materialism on the one hand, whilst on the other it objects to revelation and miracles, and declares that existing religion is one-sided and unable to save mankind from intellectual slavery. The excitement the book created was immense on both sides, and it was publicly burnt both at Paris and Geneva. Its author was compelled to flee.

ROUSSEAU.ROUSSEAU.

PORTRAIT OF PESTALOZZI. (From a photograph of the statue, at Yverdon, by Lanz.)PORTRAIT OF PESTALOZZI.(From a photograph of the statue, at Yverdon, by Lanz.)

A similar untoward fate befel the same author's famous "Contrat Social," perhaps the most important political work of the eighteenth century. In this Rousseau advances much further than Montesquieu. Indeed the former was a strong Radical, whilst the latter might be more fittingly described as a Whig. Rousseau advocates republicanism, or rather a democracy, as the best form of government; whilst Montesquieu points to the constitutional government of England as his model, insisting on the right to equality of all before the law. The "Contrat Social," as is well known, did much to advance the revolutionary cause, and became indeed the textbook of the democracy, and formed the principal basis of the Constitution of 1793. But Rousseau himself was no agitator. On the contrary, when the burghers of Geneva rose on his behalf, to save "Emile" and the "Contrat" from the flames, he hesitated hardly a moment, but begged them to submit to order, as he disliked disorder and bloodshed.

His novel, "La Nouvelle Heloïse" (1761), introduced the romantic element, and opened a new era in literature. It was, in fact, a manifesto against a bewigged and bepowdered civilization. Poetry was invited to withdraw from the salons and come once more to live with nature. But this sudden onslaught on the stiff conventionalism and narrowness of the time was too much, and there ensued an outburst of excitement and feeling such as we in our day can scarcely realize. A great stream of sentiment poured into literature, and gave rise to that tumultuous "storm and stress" (Sturm und Drang) period in Germany, out of which sprang Schiller's "Räuber" (Robbers). Goethe caught up the prevailing tone of sentimentality and supersensitiveness in his "Werther" (1774). This tearful, boisterous period is but the outrush of a nation's pent-up feelings on its sudden emancipation from the thraldom of conventionalism. And it led the way to the golden era in German literature, the era of Schiller and Goethe.

The brilliant literary court of Madame de Staël at Coppet succeeded that of Voltaire at Ferney. Though born in Geneva she was in heart a Frenchwoman, and her native country but little affected her character. "I would rather go miles to hear a clever man talk than open the windows of my rooms at Naples to see the beauties of the Gulf," is a characteristic speech of hers. Yet amongst women-writers Madame de Staël is perhaps the most generous, the most lofty, and the grandest figure. Her spirited opposition to Napoleon, her exile, her brilliantcoterieat Coppet, andher famous literary productions, are topics of the greatest interest, but as they do not specially concern Switzerland, they cannot be more than hinted at here.

HALLER.HALLER.

From the very depression, political and social, prevailing in Swiss lands arose the yearning for and proficiency in letters and scientific culture which in the period now before us produced so prolific a literature in the country. And it was not in WestSwitzerland alone that this revival of letters showed itself. Basel prided herself on her naturalists and mathematicians, Merian, Bernoulli, and Euler; while Zurich could boast of her botanists, Scheuchzer and John Gessner. Bern produced that most distinguished naturalist, Haller, who was also a poet; Schaffhausen claims Johannes von Müller, the brilliant historian; and Brugg (Aargau) Zimmermann, philosopher and royal physician at Hanover. Bodmer and Breitinger formed an æsthetic critical forum at Zurich. And no country of similar area had so many of its sons occupying positions of honour in foreign universities. A whole colony of Swiss savants had settled at Berlin, drawn thither by the great Frederick; others were to be found at Halle. Haller, who had lived at Göttingen ever since 1736, likewise received an invitation from Frederick, but found himself unable to accept it, being greatly averse to Voltaire and his influence. A perfect stream of Swiss intellect poured into Germany, and by its southern originality, greater power of expression, and its true German instinct, quickened German nationality, and witnesses to the fact that there is ever passing between the two countries an intellectual current.[80]It is impossible within the limits of the present volume to do more than touch upon the most characteristic literary movements of the period.

Amongst the upper classes in Switzerland, French culture reigned supreme, just as did French fashions,French manners, and it may almost be said, the French language. Nevertheless, the Swiss were the first to throw off the French supremacy in literature, turning rather to England as a more congenial guide and pattern. Bodmer speaks of Shakespeare and Milton "as the highest manifestations of Germanic genius." As for German literature itself, it was still in a state of helplessness—what with the Thirty Years' War, and the German nobility given over to French tastes and French influence—and fashioned itself in foreign modes till the close of the Seven Years' War, in 1763, when it took the leading position it has ever since maintained.

Bern and Zurich, which had both risen to wealth and independence, were stout opponents of the French policy. Both cities were homes of thebelles lettres, and Zurich was a veritable "poets' corner." The chief figure there was Bodmer, who wielded the literary sceptre in Switzerland and Germany for well-nigh half a century. A fellow-worker with him, and his well-nigh inseparable companion, was Breitinger, and these two more than any others helped to break the French spell. Bodmer (1698-1783), was the son of a pastor of Greifensee, and had himself been at first destined for the church, though he was at length put to the silk trade. But neither calling could keep him from his beloved letters, and in 1725 he became professor of history and political science at the Zurich Carolinum. His aim was to raise literature from its lifeless condition. As far back as 1721, he had joined with Breitinger and others, in establishing a weekly journal on the model of Addison'sSpectator—"Discurseder Maler." Breitinger was professor of Hebrew, and later on, canon of the minster of Zurich, and was a man of profound learning and refined taste. The new paper treated not only of social matters, but discussed poetry andbelles lettresgenerally. Gottsched (1700-1766), who occupied the chair of rhetoric at Leipzig, was supreme as a literary critic. His tastes were French, and he held up the French classics as models. In his "Critical Art of Poetry" (1730), he tries to teach what may be called themechanicsof poetry based on reason, and pretends that it is in the power of any really clever man to produce masterpieces in poetry. In 1732, appeared Bodmer's translation of "Paradise Lost," to the chagrin of Gottsched, who, feeling that he was losing ground, furiously attacked the Miltonian following. His mockery of the blind poet roused Bodmer's anger, and he replied with his work the "Wonderful in Poetry." A fierce controversy raged for ten years. In the name of Milton the young men of talent took the side of Zurich, that is, of the German, as opposed to the French influence in literature. The result was that by the efforts of such men as Haller, Klopstock, Wieland, and Kleist, the French influence was ousted and the national German influence came to the front.

Albrecht von Haller (1708-1777), whom Goethe calls "the father of national poetry," was the first representative of the new school of poets which began to turn to nature for inspiration and illustration rather than to mere dead forms. His poems on the Alps (1732) paint the majestic beauty of the Bernese highlands, and contrast the humble and peaceful butnatural life of the shepherd with the luxurious and artificial life of the patrician, and the dweller in cities. Haller's writings made a great impression on the polite world.[81]Klopstock it was, however, whom Bodmer welcomed as the harbinger of a new era, as the German Milton. Klopstock had been trained in the Swiss school of thought, and regarded Breitinger's "Critical Art" as his æsthetic bible, whilst Bodmer's translation of "Paradise Lost" inspired his epic, "Messiah." The first three cantos appeared in the "Bremer Beiträge" in 1748, and created such afurorethat he was declared to be an immortal poet. Wieland's first poems were, in 1751, published in the "Swiss Critic," and met with a reception hardly less favourable if somewhat less enthusiastic. A strong friendship springing up between Bodmer and the young Klopstock, the former offered the poet a temporary home at his Tusculum (still standing) on the slopes of Zurichberg, that he might go on with his great epic. The fine view of the lake and mountains, the "highly cultivated city beneath," was greatly prized by Goethe who sounds its praises in "Wahrheit und Dichtung." However, Bodmer was disappointed with his young guest, for Klopstock loved the society of the young men and young women of his own age, and the progress made with the "Messiah" was well-nighnil. However, it is to Klopstock's sojourn there, that we owe some of hisfine odes, especially that on Zurich lake. But meanwhile Bodmer's friendship had cooled, and Klopstock went to the house (in Zurich itself) of Hartmann Rahn, who later on married the poet's sister. With this same Rahn was some years afterwards associated the philosopher Fichte, when he lived at Zurich (1788). Fichte in fact married Rahn's daughter, Johanna. In 1752, Wieland[82]repaid Bodmer for his previous disappointments, by staying with him for some two years.

Bodmer's zeal for the advance of literature was unremitting. Though he could not himself boast of much poetic genius, he was a prolific writer in both prose and verse. His great merit is his bringing to light again the fine old mediæval poetry long since forgotten. The manuscript of the "Minnesänger" and the famous "Nibelungen" he had dug up from the lumber-room of Hohenems Castle. He moved heaven and earth to obtain royal protection and patronage for German literature. But little did he gain at the court of the great Frederick. To Müller, who presented the "Nibelungen," his majesty replied in characteristic fashion that the piece was not worth a single "charge of powder." Not less characteristic was Voltaire's reply when a request was made for the royal favour to Klopstock. "A new 'Messiah' is too much of a good thing, the old one has not been read yet."

Bodmer's influence on the young man of parts is noticeable. He gathered round him a large following of young Zürcher who had a taste for letters.Crowds of them would accompany him in his evening walks in the avenue Platzspitz, drinking in his words of wit and wisdom. Of the disciples thus gathered round "Father" Bodmer—for so he was affectionately styled—some attained no little eminence in later life. Amongst them we may mention Sulzer, who became art professor at Berlin, and stood in high favour with the king; and Solomon Gessner, the painter poet, whose word pictures are hardly less beautiful than the productions of his brush. His "Idylls," published in 1756, gave him a European reputation. The work was translated into all the literary languages, and in France and Italy was read with great eagerness, a first edition in French being sold out within a fortnight. Another important work is Hirzel's "Kleinjogg," or the "Socrates of the Fields." In this Hirzel, who was a physician and a philanthropist, brings to the fore the despised peasantry. "Kleinjogg" is not a work of fiction solely, but an account of Jakob Gujer who lived in a small Zurich village. Jakob was a man of great intelligence, indomitable resolution, and practical wisdom, who by his admirable management raised a wretched country home into a model farm. Goethe, who on a visit ate at his table, was delighted with the philosophic peasant, and called him "one of the most delicious creatures earth ever produced."

Heinrich Pestalozzi, the philanthropist, but better known for his efforts in the cause of education, was also a Zurich man. His principles of education are embodied in his novel of rural life, "Lienhard and Gertrude" (1781). His ideas are partly borrowedfrom Rousseau, but he failed to realize them in practice. The work at once won for Pestalozzi European fame. Ludwig Meyer von Knonau, a country magnate, was a poet and a painter, and wrote "Fables." Johannes Casper Lavater, Bodmer's favourite pupil, stirred to their depth the patriotic feelings of his countrymen by his famous "Schweizerlieder," which he composed for the Helvetic Society, in 1767. Indeed literary tastes seem to have been very prevalent amongst the Swiss at that time. More of Winkelmann's great work on Æsthetics were sold in Zurich and Basel then would in our own day probably be sold in such cities as Berlin and Vienna. And Solothurn, we find, produced thrice as many subscribers to Goethe's works as the great cities just mentioned.

Back to Index Next