Le Consistoire fait savoir par la voix de Philippe de Ecclesia, pasteur de Vandœuvres, que la femme de Pierre Ameaux « est perseverante à ses folles opignions ». Ordonné de prendre informations et de la châtier selon ses délits. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Vendredi 26 septembre 1544, p. 38)
The Consistory reports, through the voice of Philippe de Ecclesia, pastor of Vandoeuvres, that the wife of Pierre Ameaux “persists in her foolish opinions.” It is ordered that information be gathered and that she be punished according to her offenses.
Pierre Ameaux accuse sa femme de paillardise et demande d’être séparé d’elle. La femme nie la paillardise, mais demande d’être séparée de lui parce qu’il la maltraite. Elle prie donc qu’il lui donne une pension pour vivre à part.
Ordonné que Pierre donne ses accusations par écrit et que, si elles sont vérifiées, sa femme soit punie. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Lundi 22 décembre 1544, p. 43)
Pierre Ameaux accuses his wife of sexual immorality and asks to be separated from her. The wife denies the immorality but asks to be separated from him because he mistreats her. She therefore requests that he provide her with a pension so she can live apart. It is ordered that Pierre submit his accusations in writing, and that if they are verified, his wife shall be punished.
Pierre Ameaux et Benoîte, sa femme. Benoîte demande que Pierre restitue son bien puisqu’il l’a mise hors de la maison. Pierre réplique qu’elle n’est pas sa femme puisqu’elle a paillardé. Benoîte dit que Pierre est seulement son paillard et que les autres sont ses maris, citant le passage de la Samaritaine. Pierre a offert de lui rendre son bien. Ordonné qu’elle soit constituée prisonnière. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Vendredi 9 janvier 1545, p. 45)
Pierre Ameaux and Benoîte, his wife. Benoîte asks that Pierre return her property since he has put her out of the house. Pierre replies that she is not his wife because she has committed adultery. Benoîte says that Pierre is only her adulterer while the others are her husbands, citing the passage of the Samaritan woman. Pierre offered to return her property. It was ordered that she be taken into custody.
Benoîte, femme de Pierre Ameaux, détenue. Ses réponses montrent qu’elle a commis adultère et elle croit que tous les hommes sont ses maris et qu’il n’est pas mal de forniquer. Vu qu’elle en a été réprimandée par plusieurs fois, ordonné qu’on ait consultation des avocats. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Lundi 19 janvier 1545, p. 46)
Benoîte, wife of Pierre Ameaux, in custody. Her answers show that she has committed adultery and that she believes all men are her husbands and that there is nothing wrong with fornication. Since she has been reprimanded for this several times, it is ordered that the lawyers be consulted.
Benoîte, femme de Pierre Ameaux, détenue. Selon son procès, elle veut toujours maintenir que tous les hommes sont ses maris et qu’elle ne ferait pas mal de converser charnellement avec son frère et que son époux Pierre Ameaux est son paillard. Elle avoue aussi avoir commis adultère avec d’autres et a proféré plusieurs paroles vilaines et contre Dieu et ses commandements. Parce qu’elle est « en aucune frenesie et debilité de esprit », ordonné qu’elle soit condamnée à être enchaînée et à tenir prison perpétuellement, à moins que par la grâce de Dieu, elle se repente. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Jeudi 22 janvier 1545, p. 46)
Benoîte, wife of Pierre Ameaux, in custody. According to her trial, she continues to insist that all men are her husbands and that it would not be wrong for her to have carnal relations with her brother, and that her husband, Pierre Ameaux, is merely her adulterer. She also confesses to having committed adultery with others and to having spoken many vile words against God and His commandments. Because she is “in a kind of frenzy and weakness of mind,” it is ordered that she be condemned to be chained and to remain imprisoned for life, unless by the grace of God she repents.
Les parents de Benoîte, femme de Pierre Ameaux, ont prié le Conseil de libérer Benoîte de prison et de commander à Pierre de lui donner son bien pour vivre. Ordonné que la sentence passée hier soit mise à exécution. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Vendredi 23 janvier 1545, p. 47)
The relatives of Benoîte, wife of Pierre Ameaux, asked the Council to release Benoîte from prison and to order Pierre to give her property back so that she might live on it. It was ordered that the sentence passed yesterday be carried out.
La femme de Pierre Ameaux. Ordonné que la sentence passée hier soit mise en exécution aujourd’hui. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Samedi 24 janvier 1545, p. 47)
The wife of Pierre Ameaux. Ordered that the sentence passed yesterday be carried out today.
Rémission du Consistoire. Pierre Ameaux demande permission de se remarier vu que sa femme est condamnée à la prison perpétuelle. Ordonné qu’il lui soit permis de prendre une nouvelle femme. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Mardi 2 juin 1545, p. 54)
Remission of the Consistory. Pierre Ameaux requests permission to remarry since his wife has been sentenced to life imprisonment. It is ordered that he be allowed to take a new wife.
Benoîte Ameaux est détenue pour être anabaptiste, ses parents demandant qu’on lui fasse grâce. Ordonné que grâce lui soit faite moyennant qu’elle n’y retourne plus sous peine de la mort et que l’affaire soit présentée devant les Deux Cents. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Vendredi 3 juillet 1545, p. 58)
Benoîte Ameaux is detained for being an Anabaptist, her relatives requesting that she be shown mercy. It is ordered that she be granted pardon on the condition that she does not return to it again, under penalty of death, and that the matter be brought before the Council of Two Hundred.
Les parents de Benoîte Ameaux supplient qu’on convoque les Deux Cents pour ratifier la grâce qui lui fut faite. Ordonné d’assembler les Deux Cents aux frais de sa famille. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Vendredi 17 juillet 1545, p. 60)
The relatives of Benoîte Ameaux beg that the Council of Two Hundred be convened to ratify the pardon that was granted to her. It is ordered that the Two Hundred be assembled at her family’s expense.
La supplique de Benoîte Ameaux sera présentée aux Deux Cents lundi. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Jeudi 23 juillet 1545, p. 61)
The petition of Benoîte Ameaux will be presented to the Council of Two Hundred on Monday.
Au Conseil des Deux Cents. Les parents de Benoîte, veuve de Jean Mugnier, mercier, femme de Pierre Ameaux. Ordonné de lui faire grâce pourvu que sa famille vienne promettre de la garder enfermée dans une chambre afin d’éviter des scandales. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Lundi 27 juillet 1545, p. 61)
Before the Council of Two Hundred. The relatives of Benoîte, widow of Jean Mugnier, mercer, and wife of Pierre Ameaux. It was ordered that she be granted pardon, provided that her family come and promise to keep her confined in a room to prevent further scandals.
À proposer Monsieur Calvin touchant Pierre Ameaux, que la fame est commune par la ville que led. Ameaux a heu ditz que led. Sr Calvin a presché fause doctrine par si-devant, comme la chose est notoire que led. Ameaux a ditz telle choses, se plaignant fort, et qu’il demande l’avis et vouldroyt estre à cent lieues d’ici, se offrant s’il n’eamoinig à la ville. Que Messieurs l’ont ouy et que le nom de Dieu en est blasmé. Que entre les Srs ministres, ont tenu tel propos d’en advertir en Consistoire et aultres bon advissement. Que la chose ne luy a pas esté à notisse de personne de la ville, et a prier le Consistoire de desliberer et regarder de ce qu’il seroyt bon d’en faire, et qu’il se retireront cependant que led. Consistoire en adviseront. Il se sont retirer.
L’advis : qu’il seroyt bon que tout le Consistoire se comparust demain avec les Srs Calvin et ministres et que l’on suspende le Conseil des Deux Cent soyt suspendu jusques à ung aultre jour. Cependant le Sr Calvin desclairerat ses dolences que sont grosses, et que tout le Consistoire veult participer en ses dolences. À proposer Monsieur Calvin touchant Pierre Ameaux, que la fame est commune par la ville que led. Ameaux a heu ditz que led. Sr Calvin a presché fause doctrine par si-devant, comme la chose est notoire que led. Ameaux a ditz telle choses, se plaignant fort, et qu’il demande l’avis et vouldroyt estre à cent lieues d’ici, se offrant s’il n’eamoinig à la ville. Que Messieurs l’ont ouy et que le nom de Dieu en est blasmé. Que entre les Srs ministres, ont tenu tel propos d’en advertir en Consistoire et aultres bon advissement. Que la chose ne luy a pas esté à notisse de personne de la ville, et a prier le Consistoire de desliberer et regarder de ce qu’il seroyt bon d’en faire, et qu’il se retireront cependant que led. Consistoire en adviseront. Il se sont retirer. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Jeudi 4 mars 1546, p. 197)
Regarding Mr. Calvin, concerning Pierre Ameaux, whose slander has become widely known throughout the city. The said Ameaux has said that Mr. Calvin preached false doctrine previously, as it is well known that Ameaux said such things, complaining bitterly and asking advice, wishing he were a hundred leagues away, offering himself if he might be reconciled to the city. The Lords have heard this and note that the name of God has been blasphemed. Among the ministers it was proposed that he be warned in the Consistory and given other good counsel. The matter was not yet made known to anyone in the city, and it was agreed to ask the Consistory to deliberate and decide what should be done, while the ministers withdrew until the Consistory had given its advice.
The decision: that it would be good for the whole Consistory to appear the next day together with the said Mr. Calvin and the ministers, and that the meeting of the Council of Two Hundred be postponed to another day. Meanwhile, Mr. Calvin will declare his grievances, which are considerable, and the whole Consistory wishes to share in his sorrows.
These are the footnotes to page 197-198:
774 C’est-à-dire Calvin et non pas Ameaux.
775 C’est à juste titre que NAPHY, p. 94, dit que le conflit qui s’annonce ici entre Calvin et Pierre Ameaux était « la première cause célèbre de 1546 ». Le 26 janvier, Ameaux avait médit de Calvin lors d’un souper. Comme on le dit dans la sentence rendue contre lui le 8 avril, il était accusé d’avoir dit : « que Maistre Jehan Calvin, ministre de l’Eglise de Geneve, avoit annoncée faulse doctrine en lad. ville par l’espèce que sept ans et avoit empesché que les enfans d’icelle ville ne fussent instruictz en la langue latine, affin que sa faulse doctrine ne feust descouverte. Que’il n’estoit qu’un Picard meschant. Que Messieurs de lad. ville ne faisoient rien en leur Conseil sans le vouloir dud. Seigneur Calvin, et non verroit que les Françoys gouverneroient lad. ville. Et plusieurs autres propos semblables. » (P. C., 2e série, n. 684, cité aussi dans NAPHY, p. 95, et avec une orthographe modernisée dans GALIFFE, Ameaux, p. 60.) Sur les témoignages reçus le 27 janvier, le Conseil ordonna l’emprisonnement d’Ameaux (R.C. 40, f. 359). Le 2 mars 1546, le Conseil des Deux Cents décida de gracier Ameaux sous condition de demander pardon à Calvin devant le Grand Conseil (c’est-à-dire les Deux Cents). C’est dans ce sens qu’ils décidèrent avec sa ratification en Petit Conseil le matin du 4 mars qui occasionna la présente délibération. À la suite de cette séance, Ameaux se présenta au Conseil et affirma qu’il ne participerait jamais à une cérémonie de réconciliation devant le Grand Conseil seul, disant qu’il ne remontrerait pas en chaire jusqu’à ce qu’il lui soit fait justice patente (publique). Il bloqua ainsi la grâce accordée à Ameaux par les Deux Cents. Le lendemain (5 mars), Calvin et les autres pasteurs se présentèrent devant le Conseil et renouvelèrent la demande de Calvin. Le 6 mars, Calvin et ses collègues réussirent à convaincre les Deux Cents de révoquer la grâce offerte à Ameaux (R. C. 41, f. 33v-34, 35r, 36r-37v (2-6 mars 1546)). Les pasteurs renouvelèrent leur demande de pardon au sujet Calvin avait refusé de toutes doctrines depuis sept ans. Ils insistèrent particulièrement, par analogie (R.C. 41, f. 52v-53 (16-17 mars 1546)). Enfin, Ameaux subit bien la cérémonie d’humiliation publique demandée par Calvin. Le 8 avril 1546, on exécuta la sentence prise le jour d’Ameaux : « soyt condamné à déboyrer fere le tour à la ville en chemise, teste nue, une torche allumée en sa main, et dempuis devant le tribunal venyr crier mercy à Dieu et à la justice, les genoulz à terre, confessant avoir mal parlé, le condamnant aussi à tous despens, et que la sentence soyt proférée publiquement » (R.C. 41, f. 68 (8 avril 1546), cité aussi dans GALIFFE, Ameaux, p. 60 (orthographe modernisée)). Cette humiliation laissa un goût amer dans la bouche d’Ameaux qui ne pardonna jamais à Calvin. L’affaire eut d’autres conséquences plus graves. Le pasteur de Jussy, Henri de La Mare, ayant pris parti d’Ameaux, le Conseil ordonna son emprisonnement le 16 mars, réitérant l’ordre le lendemain et de nouveau le 17 mars (R.C. 41, f. 52v-53, 55). Il fut mis en prison le 23 mars (R.C. 41, f. 57). Un mois plus tard, il fut démis de son poste et dut quitter Genève pour devenir pasteur à Gex (R.C. 41, f. 73v (15 avril 1546) ; voir aussi C.O. 12, col. 335-36, reproduit comme note reprise à NAPHY, p. 91). Enfin, les Genevois, surtout les Enfants de Genève et les habitants de Saint-Gervais, le quartier d’Ameaux, furent choqués de voir un citoyen obligé de subir une telle humiliation. La condamnation d’Ameaux suscita de telles mouvances à Saint-Gervais que la Seigneurie érigea un gibet dans le quartier à titre d’avertissement (NAPHY, p. 95-96 ; ROSET, p. 315). Cet épisode contribua, entre autres, à élargir le fossé entre Calvin et ses anciens alliés qui passaient de plus en plus à l’opposition.
776 Les raisons de cette attaque dirigée contre Calvin par Ameaux restent obscures. Ameaux avait demandé un divorce en décembre 1543, lequel lui fut enfin accordé. NAPHY, p. 94-95, pense que le procès de divorce avait suscité l’antipathie que Ameaux portait à Calvin. En revanche, KINGDON, Adultery, p. 33, prétend qu’Ameaux n’avait aucune raison de se plaindre de Calvin qui voulait lui accorder la demande. En effet, le Consistoire avait, dans un premier temps, soutenu la demande d’Ameaux, puis le Consistoire et Calvin avaient admonesté Ameaux de reprendre sa femme à la suite de ses repentirs [R.Consist. 1, p. 290-91 et 304-5 (20 décembre 1543 et 17 janvier 1544)]. Pourtant, comme KINGDON, Adultery, p. 49, le souligne, Calvin soutint de nouveau la demande d’Ameaux pour un divorce lors du second procès de la femme (avril 1544), et à nouveau le Conseil refusa de lui accorder. Malgré l’avis du Consistoire et celui de Calvin, ce ne fut que pendant son troisième procès (décembre 1544 à janvier 1545) que Benoite Ameaux avoua avoir commis l’adultère avec plusieurs hommes et, le 2 juin 1545, le Conseil accorda au mari le droit de se remarier (KINGDON, Adultery, p. 49-63). Il est possible qu’Ameaux blâma Calvin de ne pas avoir été plus constant dans son appui, mais cela n’est qu’une hypothèse. Il est certain que, malgré quelques différences, Ameaux se rangeait du côté des « Enfants de Genève », comme les Favre et les Berthelier, et qu’il appréciait peu l’influence croissante des Français à Genève. En outre, ayant eu le souper où Ameaux médit de Calvin, Jean Troillet resta sa grande réplique comme pasteur. Le Conseil avait soutenu cette demande, mais Calvin refusa absolument d’admettre Troillet au sein de la Compagnie des Pasteurs. C’est peut-être cet incident qui poussa Ameaux à accuser le Conseil d’être incapable d’agir sans l’accord de Calvin et d’être dominé par les Français. Sur le procès de la disgrâce d’Ameaux et de La Mare, voir surtout GALIFFE, Ameaux, ainsi que ROGET II, p. 207-23 ; NAPHY, p. 67 et 94-96 ; KINGDON, Adultery, p. 63-67.
774 That is to say, Calvin and not Ameaux.
775 Naphy is correct in stating (p. 94) that the conflict which here arises between Calvin and Pierre Ameaux was “the first celebrated case of 1546.” On January 26, Ameaux had spoken ill of Calvin at a supper. As recorded in the sentence rendered against him on April 8, he was accused of having said: “that Master John Calvin, minister of the Church of Geneva, had proclaimed false doctrine in the said city for the space of seven years and had prevented the children of the said city from being taught Latin so that his false doctrine would not be exposed. That he was a wicked Picard. That the gentlemen of the said city did nothing in their Council without the will of the said Lord Calvin, and that soon one would see that the French would govern the city. And several other similar remarks.” (P.C., 2nd series, no. 684; also cited in Naphy, p. 95, and in modernized spelling in Galiffe, Ameaux, p. 60.) On the basis of the testimony received on January 27, the Council ordered the imprisonment of Ameaux (R.C. 40, f. 359). On March 2 1546, the Council of the Two Hundred decided to pardon Ameaux on condition that he publicly ask Calvin’s forgiveness before the Grand Council (i.e., the Two Hundred). The decision was confirmed by the Small Council on the morning of March 4, leading to the present deliberation. Following that session, Calvin appeared before the Council and declared that he would never take part in a ceremony of reconciliation before the Grand Council alone, saying that he would not return to preach until open (public) justice had been done to him. By this, he blocked the pardon granted to him by the Two Hundred. The next day (March 5), Calvin and the other pastors appeared before the Council and renewed Calvin’s request. On March 6, Calvin and his colleagues succeeded in persuading the Two Hundred to revoke the pardon that had been granted to Ameaux (R.C. 41, f. 33v-34, 35r, 36r-37v (March 2–6 1546)). The pastors renewed their demand for repentance concerning the doctrines that Calvin had rejected for the past seven years. They pressed their case further (R.C. 41, f. 52v-53 (March 16–17 1546)). Finally, Ameaux underwent the public humiliation ceremony demanded by Calvin. On April 8 1546, the sentence against Ameaux was carried out: “he is condemned to make the round of the city in his shirt, bare-headed, carrying a lighted torch in his hand, and thereafter, before the tribunal, to cry mercy to God and to justice, kneeling on the ground, confessing that he had spoken ill, condemned also to bear all costs, and that the sentence be publicly proclaimed” (R.C. 41, f. 68 (April 8 1546); also cited in Galiffe, Ameaux, p. 60). This humiliation left a bitter taste in the mouth of Ameaux, who never forgave Calvin. The affair had more serious consequences. The pastor of Jussy, Henri de La Mare, having taken Ameaux’s side, the Council ordered his imprisonment on March 16, reiterating the order the following day and again on March 17 (R.C. 41, f. 52v-53, 55). He was imprisoned on March 23 (R.C. 41, f. 57). A month later he was dismissed from his post and forced to leave Geneva to become pastor in Gex (R.C. 41, f. 73v (April 15 1546); see also C.O. 12, col. 335–36, reproduced as a note in Naphy, p. 91). Finally, the Genevans, especially the Enfants de Genève and the inhabitants of Saint-Gervais, Ameaux’s quarter, were shocked to see a citizen compelled to undergo such humiliation. The condemnation of Ameaux stirred such unrest in Saint-Gervais that the magistrates erected a gallows in the quarter as a warning (Naphy, pp. 95–96; Roset, p. 315). This episode contributed, among other things, to widening the gap between Calvin and his former allies, who increasingly joined the opposition.
776 The reasons for this attack directed against Calvin by Ameaux remain obscure. Ameaux had requested a divorce in December 1543, which was finally granted to him. Naphy, pp. 94–95, believes that the divorce proceedings had provoked the antipathy that Ameaux felt toward Calvin. Kingdon, Adultery, p. 33, on the other hand, argues that Ameaux had no reason to complain about Calvin, who wished to grant his petition. Indeed, the Consistory had at first supported Ameaux’s petition, then the Consistory and Calvin admonished Ameaux to take back his wife after her repentance [R. Consist. 1, pp. 290–91 and 304–5 (December 20 1543 and January 17 1544)]. Yet, as Kingdon, Adultery, p. 49, points out, Calvin again supported Ameaux’s petition for divorce during the wife’s second trial (April 1544), and again the Council refused to grant it. Despite the opinion of the Consistory and that of Calvin, it was only during her third trial (December 1544 to January 1545) that Benoite Ameaux confessed to having committed adultery with several men, and on June 2 1545, the Council granted the husband the right to remarry (Kingdon, Adultery, pp. 49–63). It is possible that Ameaux blamed Calvin for not having been more consistent in his support, but that is only a hypothesis. What is certain is that, despite some differences, Ameaux aligned himself with the “Children of Geneva,” like the Favres and the Bertheliers, and that he disliked the growing influence of the French in Geneva. Furthermore, at the supper where Ameaux spoke ill of Calvin, Jean Troillet raised his great petition to become pastor. The Council had supported that petition, but Calvin absolutely refused to admit Troillet to the Company of Pastors. It was perhaps this incident that led Ameaux to accuse the Council of being unable to act without Calvin’s consent and of being dominated by the French. For the trial and downfall of Ameaux and La Mare, see especially Galiffe, Ameaux; as well as Roget II, pp. 207–23; Naphy, pp. 67 and 94–96; Kingdon, Adultery, pp. 63–67.
La seur de Pierre Ameaux.
A laquelle furent faicte remonstrances de ce qu’elle ne vastz guerre ex sermons. Item interroger de dire veriter de ce qu’elle scayt d’[u]ne chandelierre que l’on ditz que son frere entretient, ditz que pourtant que lad. servante a tant de authorité en lad. mayson, qu’elle s’en est bien dotté, et que les voysins en ont bien murmurer et qu’elle luy en a faict les remonstrances, qu’il respondoyt que l’on le chastiat s’il falloyt. Et c’est par plusieurs fois, et qu’il a envoyt [sic] tout, sinon la servante. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Jeudi 24 de juing 1546, pp. 306-307)
The sister of Pierre Ameaux.
To whom admonitions were given because she seldom attends sermons. Item, she was questioned to tell the truth about what she knew concerning a certain maidservant whom it is said her brother keeps; she said that indeed the said servant has such authority in the said house that she had become quite suspicious of it, and that the neighbors had murmured much about it, and that she herself had admonished him for it. He replied that if punishment were required, it should be done. And this, she said, happened several times, and that he sent away everything except the servant.
Le serviteur de Pierre Ameaux.
Auquel furent faictes remonstrances et interroger de dire veriter touchant de ce qu’il est le bruyt de la servante à Pierre Ameaux, son maistre, que sond. maistre l’entretient. N’en veult confessé. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome II 1545-1546, Jeudi premier de julliet 1546, pp. 307)
The servant of Pierre Ameaux.
To whom admonitions were given, and who was questioned to tell the truth concerning the rumor about the maidservant of Pierre Ameaux, his master — namely, that his said master keeps her. He would not confess it.
{1042} Ce passage montre que les prédications domestiques d’Ameaux avaient déjà commencé à cette époque, bien qu’il n’ait fait lui-même l’objet de remontrances qu’en 1549. Depuis son conflit avec Calvin en 1546 pour avoir dit que le réformateur prêchait une fausse doctrine, Ameaux s’abstint des sermons et des sacrements. En 1548, il prétendit qu’« il n’alloit jamais au presche que le ministre ne luy donnast tousjours quelque coup de bec ». Il fut renvoyé avec admonitions de mieux fréquenter le culte et de participer aux sacrements [R. Consist. 4, f. 22 (19 avril 1548) et, sur ses conflits avec Calvin, R. Consist. II, p. 155-57 (4 mars 1546) et n. 259]. Il se fit de nouveau remarquer par son absence aux sacrements en 1549 et on nota alors qu’« il presche en sa maison » [R.C. 44, f. 68 (15 avril 1549) : procès-verbaux du Consistoire perdus]. On révéla en mai 1551 qu’« il n’est fait pas allé au sermon depuis le 9 avril précédent. Ameaux, qui avait été fabricant de cartes à jouer avant la Réforme, dit que le pasteur Fabri avait prêché que « les cartier […] ne sont capable de s’en trovés en les congregations ». Ameaux aurait dit aussi que « la prédications est pour les infidelles et ignorans » [R. Consist. 6, f. 35v (21 mai 1551) ; R.C. 45, f. 291v (25 mai 1551)]. Ameaux mourut un an plus tard, le 29 mai 1552 (KINGDON, Adultery, p. 60). Sur d’autres personnes qui glosaient sur les sermons ou la Bible, voir ci-dessus, p. 17 (10 ? février 1547), interrogatoire de Vincent Fichet. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome III 1547-1548, footnotes, p. 211)
{1042} This passage shows that Ameaux’s domestic preachings had already begun by this time, even though he himself did not become the object of formal admonition until 1549. Since his conflict with Calvin in 1546 for having said that the Reformer preached false doctrine, Ameaux had abstained from sermons and from the sacraments. In 1548 he claimed that “he never went to the sermon without the minister always giving him some peck or jab.” He was sent away with admonitions to attend worship more regularly and to participate in the sacraments [R. Consist. 4, f. 22 (19 April 1548) and, on his conflicts with Calvin, R. Consist. II, pp. 155–57 (4 March 1546) and n. 259]. He again drew notice for his absence from the sacraments in 1549, and it was then noted that “he preaches in his house” [R.C. 44, f. 68 (15 April 1549): Consistory minutes lost]. In May 1551 it was revealed that “he has not been to the sermon since 9 April last. Ameaux, who had been a maker of playing cards before the Reformation, said that Pastor Fabri had preached that ‘card-makers […] are not fit to be found among the congregations.’ ” Ameaux is also said to have declared that “preaching is for the infidels and the ignorant” [R. Consist. 6, f. 35v (21 May 1551); R.C. 45, f. 291v (25 May 1551)]. Ameaux died a year later, on 29 May 1552 (Kingdon, Adultery, p. 60). For other people who commented irreverently on the sermons or on the Bible, see above, p. 17 (10 ? February 1547), interrogation of Vincent Fichet.
This series was translated by Thomas Lambert and Isabella Watt, but it’s not clear who’s commentary runs through these footnotes. The Watts (and others like Naphy) are obsessive in their interpretation of the events surrounding Ameaux in their writings to attribute some sort of nefarious agenda upon Calvin. Reading the source material itself leaves a very different impression. Unfortunately they never provide translations to source texts in their English works.
635 Le fabricant de cartes Pierre Ameaux, citoyen, avait été conseiller en 1535, 1545 et 1546 (GALIFFE IV, p. 12–13). Il soutenait sûrement la Réforme depuis au moins 1535 et il semble avoir soutenu Calvin et Farel lors de leur exil et au moment du rappel de Calvin en 1541. Il appartenait cependant au parti des Vieux Genevois. En 1546, Ameaux avait médit de Calvin lors d’un souper, l’accusant d’avoir « annoncé faulse doctrine » et le traitant de « Picard meschant. » Après une âpre bataille devant le Conseil, Ameaux fut condamné à « déboyrer fere le tour à la ville en chemise, teste nue, une torche allumée en sa maen; et dempuis devant le tribunal venyr crier mercy à Dieu et à la justice, les genoulz à terre, confessant avoir mal parlé, le condamnant ausy à tous despens. » Ameaux n’a sûrement jamais pardonné Calvin cette humiliation publique. Pour une discussion un peu plus approfondie de l’affaire Ameaux-Calvin, voir R. Consist. II, p. 156, n. 259.
À la suite de cette convocation devant le Consistoire et aux plaintes de Jean Calvin devant le Conseil, Ameaux fut réprimandé. Il nous semble toutefois, mises à part les usuelles remontrances, qu’il ne subit aucune autre conséquence majeure [R.C. 45, f. 291v (25 mai 1551); C.O. XXII, col. 482; R.C. Part. 4, f. 284 (3 septembre 1551)]. Ameaux mourut un an après la réprimande du Conseil, le 29 mai 1552 (GALIFFE IV, p. 12–13). (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome VI 1551-1552, footnotes, p. 102)
635 The card-maker Pierre Ameaux, a citizen, had served as a councilor in 1535, 1545, and 1546 (Galiffe IV, pp. 12–13). He had surely supported the Reformation since at least 1535 and appears to have supported Calvin and Farel during their exile and at the time of Calvin’s recall in 1541. He nevertheless belonged to the faction of the Old Genevans. In 1546, Ameaux spoke ill of Calvin at a supper, accusing him of having “announced false doctrine” and calling him a “wicked Picard.” After a bitter struggle before the Council, Ameaux was condemned “to make the round of the city in his shirt, bare-headed, holding a lighted torch in his hand, and then, before the tribunal, to cry mercy to God and to justice, kneeling on the ground, confessing that he had spoken ill, and condemned also to bear all costs.” Ameaux almost certainly never forgave Calvin for this public humiliation. For a fuller discussion of the Ameaux-Calvin affair, see R. Consist. II, p. 156, n. 259.
Following this summons before the Consistory and Calvin’s complaints before the Council, Ameaux was reprimanded. It seems, however, apart from the usual admonitions, that he suffered no other major consequence [R.C. 45, f. 291v (25 May 1551); C.O. XXII, col. 482; R.C. Part. 4, f. 284 (3 September 1551)]. Ameaux died one year after the Council’s reprimand, on 29 May 1552 (Galiffe IV, pp. 12–13).
Jaques Grissard, nepeveu de feu Ameaux, et Jehanne Coste.
Ladᵉ dictz et propose qu’elle demourant chez led. Ameaux, pensant estre adressee avec gens de biens, led. par quatre fois la vollu et l’a solliciter à faire et l’a solliciter de son deshonneur, avec grande deffence.
À quoy led. y nye par espres, mais qu’elle controver telz acte. Ne vouldroit jamais avoir penser en tel cas.
Ladᵉ luy a maintenu plusieurs propos infames et dissolus, monstrant sa vergogne. L’on a inciter à pars led. de dire la verité. Se submèt à grosse penne quant le cas fust ainsi.
Advis: que pour jeudi l’on aye les tesmoings, comme Bernardin, sa femme et tous ceulx de la mayson, pour veriffié le cas. (Registres du consistoire de Genève, Tome VII 1552-1553, Jeudi 20e de octobre 1552, pp. 165-166)
Jacques Grissard, nephew of the late Ameaux, and Jehanne Coste.
The said woman stated and alleged that while living in the house of the said Ameaux, thinking herself to be among respectable people, he on four occasions sought and solicited her to commit an act of dishonor, despite her firm resistance.
To this, the said man explicitly denied it, though she maintained her accusation. He declared that he would never have thought of such a thing.
The said woman maintained several shameful and immoral remarks to him, showing her distress. He was urged separately to tell the truth. He submitted himself to heavy punishment should the case prove true.
Decision: that for Thursday the witnesses should be heard, such as Bernardin, his wife, and all those of the household, to verify the case.
In 1545 the Council had, without reference to the ministers, appointed one Jean Trolliet as a pastor. When he was refused, they tried to saddle Calvin with him as a secretary. This also failed, but they had succeeded in worrying Calvin, and Trolliet was now his lifelong enemy. A year later a member of the Council, Pierre Ameaux, was brought before his fellow councillors because, says the Register, ‘It has been revealed that Ameaux has said that M. Calvin is a wicked man and only a Picard, and preaches false doctrine.’ In the end he was let off with the price of apologizing to Calvin in front of the Council. This again was only a little matter, but it was a distracting vexation and a humiliation to Calvin and his office. He told Farel about this time that hardly a week passed without some trouble. Later on he spoke his mind plainly and strongly in a sermon, and the Council, perhaps with some nervousness, minuted: ‘ M. Calvin, minister. The same preached to-day with great anger that the magistracy allows many insolences. It is ordered that he be called to the Council to explain why he preached like this; and if the city has committed some insolence, the Lieutenant must take note of it and see that justice is done.’ Two months later, on his thirty-ninth birthday, the Council again took umbrage at his preaching and the ministers were told (just as the German Confessing Church was told by the Third Reich) that they must preach only the gospel and not mix it up with current affairs. This interference was dealt with as faithfully as it deserved. But unfortunately, just at this stage a letter Calvin had written to Viret three years earlier fell into the hands of Trolliet, who was not slow in bringing it before the Council, seeing it contained this passage: ‘I perceive how evil-disposed they are, and already I have broken ground upon the subject of the internal state of the city in ten sermons. (T.H.L. Parker, Portrait of Calvin, p. 97)
Matters came to a head in 1546 when Pierre Ameaux, a citizen of Geneva, was publicly humiliated for opposing Calvin’s teaching on predestination. The council had proposed a fine, but Calvin and his colleagues insisted on
something more degrading: Ameaux was forced to walk through the city dressed only in a shirt and carrying a torch. De la Mare for his part was imprisoned and ultimately dismissed once it became clear that the ministers
in the city would never accept the reconciliation sought by the council. Calvin’s return was not without some settling of old scores. (Bruce Gordon, Calvin, pp. 131-132)
An early celebrated confrontation involved a playing-card manufacturer named Pierre Ameaux, who had petitioned the Consistory for a divorce from his adulterous wife. Angered by the delay in acting on his request,
Ameaux publicly questioned Calvin’s sense of fairness and competence as a theologian. Imprisoned for slander, Ameaux was required, at Calvin’s insistence, to make a public penance; clad in a penitential shirt, he walked about
the city, pausing at the public corners and begging God’s mercy-actually a proclamation, for all to hear, of Calvin’s authority. (Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform 1250-1550, p. 368)
“Ministers, too, got in trouble if they were caught criticizing Calvin, even in private. In 1546, Henri de La Mare, pastor in the village of Jussy, got on the wrong side of the reformer because he privately said that Calvin was an inflexible hothead. He also showed some sympathy toward Pierre Ameaux, a prominent citizen who had a bitter conflict with Calvin that exacerbated tensions between the pastors and members of certain influential Genevan families.One night a er dinner and a few glasses of wine, Ameaux apparently made some disparaging remarks about Calvin to the others at the table, most importantly that the reformer preached “false doctrine.”18 When he later defended(at least somewhat) Ameaux and criticized Calvin for his temper, de La Mare was briey jailed, made the subject of a criminal investigation, and eventually expelled from the ministry. The investigation detailed, among other things, a conversation between de La Mare and the physician Benoît Tixier about the words that Ameaux uttered against Calvin. When Tixier asked him if Ameaux had spoken “against God or only against men,” de La Mare replied, “I think that he said something against Calvin. . . . [A]nd if [Ameaux] was wrong, this was done a er having drunk [alcohol]. I have always known him as a good man,virtuous, and of a great spirit. Calvin is a bit subject to his tempers, [he’s an]impatient man, hateful, and vindictive.” To prove that he was not a vindictive man, Calvin ensured that de La Mare would never again serve as a minister in Genevan territory.”
(Watt, The Consistory and Social Discipline, p.19)
To give just one example, in 1546 Pierre Ameaux, a maker of playing cards,was reported as saying at a private dinner party that Calvin preached“false doctrine” and that he was an “evil foreigner” (meschant Picard) and that the French were going to takeover the city.On March 2, the Council of Two Hundred decided that Ameaux must ask forgiveness of Calvin in front of that body. For Calvin, the council members were being far too lenient toward Ameaux, and, with the support of the Consistory, he angrily went to the Small Council and declared that under no circumstances would he agree to a reconciliation with Ameaux before the Council of Two Hundred. He also refused to preach until Ameaux had been punished publicly. A er several more appearances of Calvin and his colleagues, the Council nally rescinded the previous sentence and condemned Ameaux on April 8 to perform a very humiliating procession through the streets of the city, bareheaded, carrying a torch and wearing the shirt of the penitent, and to get on his knees publicly and beg for mercy from God and justice.14 This harsh sentence nurtured animosity toward Calvin among some residents of Geneva and helped lead to the formation of the Enfants de Genève. Apart from disputes that involved Calvin directly, which represented a minuscule percentage of the con icts that were heard, the Consistory generally preferred promoting harmony rather than blaming one party over another. (Watt, The Consistory and Social Discipline, p.194)
———————————————————————————————————————
Ameaux, also a citizen, was a cardmaker whose career had been ended by the enforcement of the regulations against cards passed in 1536. After a plea to the Senate he had been hired to over see the storing of Geneva’s gunpowder supply. He first clashed with Calvin when he asked for a divorce from his adulterous wife and was ordered to take her back. Ameaux, already angered over the loss of his livelihood and Calvin’s insistence that he take back his adulterous wife, became em-broiled in a theological dispute with Calvin. Ameaux was arrested for comments he made at a dinner party at his home. He was reported to have said that “Calvin is nothing but a wicked man, cursed by God. He and his colleague shave been preaching false doctrine for seven years here. It is we who have the true doctrine, and I can prove it. For example, this seducer refuses to teach the children Latin lest they be able to discover his false beliefs, which he fears. He is a sinful Frenchman, he and his supporters want to be like bishops of Geneva.The magistrates don’t do anything without consulting him.”
Ameaux also attacked Calvin’s views on predestination, which, he said,made God the author of sin, and he attacked the Institutes as full of false doctrine. Calvin demanded harsh and immediate action. The magistrates were inclined to give Ameaux an ‘honourable fine’; he would have to apologise, in private, to the Senate and Calvin. This was wholly unacceptable to Calvin. He and the other ministers demanded that Ameaux be humiliated in public and, under intense pressure, the Senate agreed. Ameaux was forced to parade through the city dressed only in a shirt, carrying a torch. He had to kneel and kiss the ground in front of the main church and beg mercy from God, Calvin, and the magistrates in a loud voice. Popular fury at the public humiliation of a citizen led the magistrates to erect a gibbet in Ameaux’s district to prevent his neighbours from rioting. It is clear that this is one of the events of 1546 which finally destroyed the coalition which had ruled Geneva since the 1541 defeat of the Articulants. (William Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation)
———————————————————————————————————————
It can hardly be coincidental that that very evening the first cause célebre of 1546 began. On 26 January 1546, Pierre Ameaux launched a scathing attack upon Calvin, his theology, and the growing influence of the French in Geneva. However, the roots of this attack go deeper than the Trolliet affair. Indeed, the historical tradition has overlooked any connection with Trolliet and instead emphasized Ameaux’s personal dislike of Calvin. Ameaux is seen to have had two complaints against Calvin. First, his livelihood as a cardmaker had been destroyed by the religious changes after the Revolution and he had had to beg the city for work. This interpretation plays down the fact, discussed above, that these new regulations predated Calvin’s arrival in Geneva and were the result of magisterial action. Also, nothing in Ameaux’s appeals to the state for employment implied that he blamed Calvin. A second explanation for the clash between Calvin and Ameaux is considerably easier to defend. In late 1543 a long-running domestic dispute between Ameaux and his wife, Benoite Jaccon, erupted. He accused her of adultery; she retorted that he mistreated her.” For their part the magistrates accused her of unacceptable religious beliefs. To Ameaux’s great surprise and consternation, Calvin admonished him to take his wife back and be reconciled to her. Under intense magisterial pressure Ameaux complied, though this proved to be only a brief hiatus in the quarrel.” The dispute simmered for over a year until Benoite was arrested for adultery.After this, Ameaux was finally granted a divorce and allowed to marry Georgea Marchand.®
There can be little doubt that this affair produced a lasting animosity between Calvin and Ameaux. Nevertheless, the specific comments made by Ameaux in 1546 are understandable only in the context of the Trolliet case. The marital dispute can explain the depth of feeling expressed by Ameaux, but the apparent concern at the heart of his attack was Calvin’s consistent refusal, as he perceived it, to open the Company of Pastors to native Genevans and thereby dilute the growing influence of the French. Ameaux’s specific complaints are readily apparent from the court records. (William Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation p. 95)
———————————————————————————————————————
The city reacted to this dispute with division and uncertainty. Part of the leadership wanted Ameaux to apologise, while others demanded that Ameaux, a citizen, be humiliated in public. Initially the Petit Conseil, led by Claude Roset, tried to follow the more moderate course. Ameaux was unwilling to comply and the ministers were determined to see the harsher penalty applied. Under intense pressure from Calvin and the new, articulate Company of Pastors, the Conseil gave way. Popular reaction, especially in Ameaux’s neighbourhood, St Gervais, was fierce. The magistrates had to erect a gibbet in St Gervais as a warning to calm the enraged citizenry. In the end Ameaux was forced to parade through town clad only in a shirt with a torch and beg pardon in the centre of Geneva. He was ordered to give details, in an ‘haulte et intelligible voix’, of each charge he had made against Calvin, repudiate each criticism, and beg forgiveness from God, Calvin and the magistrates. (William Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation p. 95)
Naphy’s writing above has this end note (92): AEG/PC/2e Ser., 684 (26 Jan—8 Apr 1546).
The note refers to Volume 684 of the Second Series of Criminal Trial Records stored in the State Archives of Geneva, covering the period from January 26 to April 8, 1546. This volume contains the official court records, testimony, and proceedings related to the dispute and punishment of Pierre Ameaux.
———————————————————————————————————————
Pierre Ameaux, on whose initiative the first fully documented Genevan divorce case began, was a local citizen of some prominence. He had been active in the government during the critical years in which the city had revolted against the power of its Catholic prince-bishop and turned itself into a Protestant republic. He had been a member of the Council of Two Hundred in 1530, had been elected to the Council of Sixty in 1533 and 1534, and served on the Small Council during 1535 and 1536, when the final steps toward Protestant independence were taken. He was out of power when Calvin and Farel were expelled from the city but was once again a member of a governing council, the Council of Sixty, when Calvin was recalled in 1541. Ameaux remained in that position during the period of his divorce trial until 1545, when he was promoted once again to the Small Council. Following that election he was assigned the important position, always held by a council member, of Captain of the Artillery and Governor of the city’s war supplies.¹ He was a member of the Small Council when it made its final decision on his divorce petition. The chronology of Ameaux’s political career strongly suggests that he was a committed Protestant and an early supporter of John Calvin.
Ameaux’s support of Calvin seems to have been tempered before long, however, because of his profession. Like his father Jean, Pierre was best known as a maker of playing cards, probably also of dice and other devices for games. He apparently maintained a small shop for their sale. This was to prove a difficult profession to keep in Reformed Geneva. The playing of games was widespread in the city, but was often associated with gambling and with frivolous parties, involving abundant food and drink. Ameaux found this part of his livelihood increasingly regulated by the Consistory and other courts in Reformation Geneva. Earlier in the year in which he sought his divorce, Ameaux had been forbidden by the Council to continue making playing cards. This prohibition was curiously linked to an earlier one of manufacturing rosaries and votive candles, which had been banned as “superfluous and papistical things.”² It is not clear whether the actual use of playing cards was illegal. Ordinances forbidding “games” had been frequently passed both before and after the Reformation, but they do not specify the types of games that were forbidden, and they were clearly not enforced with any effectiveness. The ecclesiastical ordinances stipulated that the pastors were not supposed to indulge in illegal or scandalous games,³ and that had been interpreted to include gambling, but this prohibition did not apply to laymen. In the same session in which Pierre Ameaux appeared, a prominent nobleman then living in Geneva, François Bonivard, the former prior of the abbey of St. Victor, was closely questioned because of an accusation that he invited ministers to parties involving gambling with cards and dice. (Bonivard is probably best known today as the “prisoner of Chillon” celebrated in Byron’s poem for his constancy during years of confinement in a nearby castle, where he had been held by the government of Catholic Savoy because of his early support of the Protestant cause in the Geneva area.) Bonivard freely admitted that he gave these parties, argued that they were not illegal, and denied ever having invited a minister to one of them. A particularly prominent guest, Clément Marot, the poet and former courtier to King Francis I of France, had apparently been mistaken for a minister.⁴ It seems possible that Bonivard, given his love of gaming, was one of Ameaux’s more prominent customers.
Bonivard had become a committed Protestant, had been involved in the political revolution that had led to the ejection of the Catholic prince-bishop and the creation of the Protestant republic of Geneva, and had suffered considerable losses of property and status as a result. The extensive ecclesiastical properties that had made him a wealthy man had almost all been confiscated by the Genevan state or had reverted to Catholics. Like Ameaux, he also seems to have supported the recall of Calvin in 1541, to consolidate the Reformed regime to which they were both committed. Neither Bonivard nor Ameaux, however, was particularly enthusiastic about the direction in which Calvin took the Reformation once he had gained power. Bonivard was discreet in his opposition, but Ameaux, after his divorce, got into serious trouble in 1546 for raising questions about Calvin’s power. He could not have had complaints, however, about Calvin’s role in his divorce case. His divorce petition, as we shall see, was in fact strongly supported by Calvin.⁵
Blasphemy
Ameaux began the Consistory hearing on his case by announcing that three years earlier he had married a woman whom he now discovered held “an opinion that is against the Word of God, namely that she can associate with all men and that all are her husbands.”⁶ The notary’s contract for the marriage between Pierre and Benoite apparently does not survive, but other records tell us something about her and about their marriage. They reveal that Benoite also came from an established Genevan family of some prominence. Her father, Henri Jacon, had been a pike maker and bourgeois of Geneva.⁷ At the time of her marriage to Pierre, she was a widow who had previously been married at the not unusual age of eighteen to a man named Jean Mugnier. She had two surviving sons by that first marriage, Amied and David. She had inherited from her husband a substantial amount of property, including large amounts of cash and vineyards near the village of Jussy in the Genevan countryside. This property was earmarked for the support of Benoite’s sons. Pierre Ameaux became its administrator, but not, to be sure, for his own use. The existence of this sizable estate, nevertheless, suggests that one of the reasons Pierre had originally married Benoite was to gain control of this property. It reminds us of the considerable importance of economic factors in most marriages of this period. This property was to play an important role at later stages in the Ameaux divorce proceedings. Pierre Ameaux took seriously his responsibilities in managing the Mugnier property. One of the reasons he gave for requesting an early release from prison during his later trial on charges of slandering Calvin in 1546 was that he needed to be free to administer this property. This was the marriage that Pierre now claimed was threatened by Benoite’s strange ideas.
After hearing Pierre’s charge, the members of the Consistory asked Benoite if she really did hold the strange ideas which her husband attributed to her. She began a long and rambling answer that was barely coherent and suggests that she had serious mental problems. That possibility was to recur a number of times, as we shall see. Benoite was clearly very angry with her husband, whom she accused of saying horrible things contrary to the Word of God and with scandalous implications for her reputation. In substance, however, she admitted his accusation that in principle she believed in adultery. She said that she believed in the teaching of Scripture that we are all members of the single body of Christ, and that she would in consequence be content to receive a man other than her husband. She observed that she herself had been married for the first time at the age of eighteen and insisted that all women who do not marry at the appropriate early age become whores. She was taken aback when asked whether that rule applied to the Virgin Mary. She insisted that since marriage is ordained by God she, Benoite, would not be a fornicator if she enjoyed the company of another man. When asked where she had learned these ideas she said they came straight from God and that she had received them by a revelation from our Lord. She denied that she belonged to any sort of group that taught free love. (The Consistory was clearly worried that she might be a member of some sort of radical sect.) As she developed her argument further, it became apparent that she had pieced it together from a variety of allusions to the Bible that she seems to have picked up by listening to sermons. At one point she alluded to the verse in 1 Corinthians 7:9, the apostle Paul’s admonition that it is better to marry than burn, deducing from it that no one should ever be single.
Partway through this tirade Ameaux interrupted to say that given this evident scandal he really must be separated from her. At its end the members of the Consistory were clearly shocked and thought they detected malice in her ravings. They decided that she must be referred to the Small Council for punishment and that Ameaux should be given his divorce. They added an escape clause, however, in case she came to her senses and was prepared to recant the next day. She retorted that she would never recant, that what she had said was not against God, that a woman who lives with someone other than her legal husband is not a fornicator, and that it was all right for Adam to sleep with his daughters. She concluded by saying that all this had been revealed to her by the Holy Spirit. She then added that she had “learned it from the preachers.” Her parting remark is particularly revealing. It suggests that Benoite had taken too literally a number of the sermons she must have heard on the duty of Christians to love one another.
Benoite was brought before the Small Council the next day, and it was reported that she had said things before the Consistory that were “monstrous and infamous, against God and reason,” and that her husband wished to be separated from her.* The council also received a written summary of her testimony before the Consistory, prepared by its secretary. It recapitulated much of the testimony recorded in the Consistory registers but added interjections to the effect that Benoite had also uttered many other blasphemies that the secretary had not had time to write down. This summary ended with the conclusion that the Consistory felt it absolutely necessary that the government do something about this case in order to reestablish public order and administer justice.* Faced with this damning report, the council felt itself obliged to send Benoite immediately to prison and to begin legal proceedings against her. This meant that Benoite was taken to the municipal prison located in the former residence of the bishop. It also meant that she was turned over to the care of the Lieutenant. Thus began the first of three trials to which Benoite Ameaux was subjected. (Robert Kingdon, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva, pp 32-36)
———————————————————————————————————————
Already in 1546, it became clear that Calvin’s return to Geneva did not mark the end of tensions in the republic. Rather, they came to light in a whole new way. In 1545 in response to the council elections, Calvin wrote to Viret, “I don’t know what I should hope for, since under the pretext of Christ they wish to rule without Christ.”¹ And at the beginning of 1546, he wrote Viret, “I am a stranger in this city,” a complaint that he would repeat many times.²
In the same year, a conflict arose with a distinguished citizen, Pierre Ameaux, in which patterns emerged that were typical of the first decade. Ameaux belonged to the Small Council and was the owner of a business that manufactured playing cards, a livelihood that he had to give up in the new situation in Geneva. He had also been involved in a divorce suit because of the scandalous behavior of his wife, caused by a pathological fanaticism: she viewed all children of God as potential husbands. Calvin wanted to allow the divorce after he became aware that she desired him, too, as a potential mate, even though he was married. For a long time, however, the council pressed for a reconciliation between the two spouses. Ameaux could not bring himself to do so, and the divorce was finally settled.
In the meantime, it came to light that in the circle around Ameaux, the magistrates, and especially the consistory under Calvin’s leadership, were being strongly criticized (for details, see below). At a meal at which the wine flowed freely, Ameaux expressed such criticism in a private circle. Even according to Calvin, Ameaux, on this occasion, was not entirely responsible for his actions.³ Calvin wanted to take a conciliatory posture, so that the judges would not think that he was being spiteful. He made clear his insistence, however, that nothing of the reproaches against him should survive and that the honor of Christ should be preserved. Ameaux had called Calvin a bad man, a mere Picard, and claimed that he preached false doctrine. The first statement especially galled Calvin, but also the charge that his preaching was not sound. Dissension in the council rapidly increased, with some wanting to settle the matter with a simple confession, and others wanting to follow Calvin, who felt supported by the preachers in the orthodoxy of his doctrine. Surrounded by the entire consistory, he pleaded before the council for a form of discipline by which this offense could be removed from the church. Ameaux was sentenced to make a circuit of the city, clad only in his shirt, with a burning torch in hand, and to beseech God, the council, and even Calvin for grace. This deep humiliation led to severe unrest in the part of the city where Ameaux was held in high regard. In the presence of the council, surrounded by a well-armed force, a gallows was erected in front of the church of St. Gervais as a warning. Quiet was restored, but the peace was gone.
Ameaux had voiced his complaints to a private group, but he spoke for many who might have put up with Calvin’s teaching if it had been presented less stringently, and especially with fewer consequences for everyday life. Ameaux was advancing an argument that would become steadily louder in the years to come: Calvin was a Picardian who proclaimed a false doctrine. Resonating with this is an undertone of growing resistance to the French nationality of the preachers. (Willem van ‘t Spijker, Calvin, A Brief Guide to His Life and Thought, pp. 84-85)
———————————————————————————————————————
Calvin must have grown impatient with the accusations of heresy being hurled at him. In January 1546, Pierre Ameaux of Geneva accused him of false doctrine claiming Calvin denied any real distinction between the
Persons in God even labeling the Genevan a Sabellian heretic. (R. Ward Holder, John Calvin in Context, p. 283)
———————————————————————————————————————
That very evening, Ameaux held his dinner party and he was obviously furious with Calvin on behalf of Trolliet
who had clearly felt humiliated by the six-month ordeal. Ameaux accused Calvin of spreading false doctrine, of being a “sinful Picard” and, in a serious faux pas, went on to say the Senate did nothing “without Calvin’s permission” and that “the French rule the city.” In the end, under intense ministerial pressure, the city publicly humiliated Ameaux. The cost was high; Ameaux’s neighborhood, St. Gervais, was so infuriated that the city erected a gibbet as a warning to his enraged neighbors. (Brill, A Companion to the Reformation of Geneva, p. 82)
———————————————————————————————————————
With the collapse of bishops’ courts and with the abandonment of Catholic canon law in much of Protestant Europe, divorce with permission to remarry at last became legally possible. Pierre Ameaux seems to have been one of the first in Protestant Geneva to have taken advantage of this change. His petition led to a particularly sensational divorce case. It all began at the new Consistory of Geneva, soon after its creation. (Raymond Mentzer, Sins and the Calvinists, p. 2)
His sensitivity on this score is illustrated by the case of Pierre Ameaux, a member of the Small Council who opined at a dinner party in 1546 that Calvin taught falsely and exerted too much influence over the Small Council. When Ameaux’s words found their way to Calvin, he demanded action from the council. It decided to have Ameaux apologize on bended knees to Calvin before the assembly of Two Hundred, but this was not a public enough penance to suit the minister. He refused to present himself for the ceremony and was not satisfied until the council condemned Ameaux to process through the city, kneeling at every major square or intersection to
proclaim his regret at having dishonored the word of God, the magistrates, and the ministers. (Philip Benedict, Christs Churches Purely Reformed, p. 103)
He persuaded the Council of Two Hundred to impose on Ameaux the punishment of a public penance that included a walk around the town dressed only in a penitential shirt, begging for mercy on his knees at three
public squares. Calvin’s prescription was “rough halters for rough donkeys” (Monter 1967: 74; Naphy 1994: 66–7, 94–6). The effect was a public proclamation of Calvin’s authority. Public outcry against the humiliation of Ameaux was quelled by erecting a gibbet in Ameaux’s neighborhood. (Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations, p. 250)
All of the citations sourced above are secondary
The case of Pierre Ameaux shows a close connection between the political and religious Libertines. He was a member of the Council of Two Hundred. He sought and obtained a divorce from his wife, who was condemned to perpetual imprisonment for the theory and practice of free-lovism of the worst kind. But he hated Calvin’s theology and discipline. At a supper party in his own house he freely indulged in drink, and roundly abused Calvin as a teacher of false doctrine, as a very bad man, and nothing but a Picard. For this offence he was imprisoned by the Council for two months and condemned to a fine of sixty dollars. He made an apology and retracted his words. But Calvin was not satisfied, and demanded a second trial. The Council condemned him to a degrading punishment called the amende honorable, namely, to parade through the streets in his shirt, with bare head, and a lighted torch in his hand, and to ask on bended knees the pardon of God, of the Council, and of Calvin. This harsh judgment provoked a popular outbreak in the quarter of St. Gervais, but the Council proceeded in a body to the spot and ordered the wine-shops to be closed and a gibbet to be erected to frighten the mob. The sentence on Ameaux was executed April 5, 1546. Two preachers, Henri de la Mare and Aimé Maigret, who had taken part in the drinking scene, were deposed. The former had said before the Council that Calvin was, a good and virtuous man, and of great intellect, but sometimes governed by his passions, impatient, full of hatred, and vindictive.” The latter had committed more serious offences. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, p. 310-311)
foot note here states: Annal. 378 and 380. The ministers interceded in behalf of De la Mare, and the Council gave him six dollars (écus). Maigret was found guilty of neglecting his duties and visiting houses of ill fame
These are consistory records, but the citation is incorrect.
