Zurich and St Gall
Zurich and St Gall Sixteenth-century Switzerland was not overburdened with monasteries, which, politically and socially, posed less of a problem there than elsewhere. Some of the greater houses, Engelberg, Dissentis, Reichenau, for example, were outside the Federation, while no city state of the Federation was seriously troubled by the existence of a great monastery within its walls.
Schaffhausen had indeed the Benedictine house of All Saints with which to contend, and Zurich itself had at one time been almost an appanage to or dependent upon the Fraumiinster, but by the fifteenth century, the governments almost everywhere had reduced the Regulars to a state of semi-dependence.
There was not a single monastery in Uri or Unterwalden and effectively none in Schwyz; therefore there was no local feeling against them, whereas
Zurich had wealthy foundations within its territory, whence they received considerable revenues. Roughly speaking, where monasteries were numerous reform was welcomed; where they were few the opposite was the case. The difference between the 'possessionate' monks and nuns, professedly removed from the world, devoting their whole lives to the ordered services and internal routine of their houses, and the 'nonpossessionate' friars, preaching and begging among the people, had ceased to be a reality in the sixteenth century. They were all 'Regulars', with rule and a habit; some, like the Premonstratensians and Augustinians, were endowed canons with extra-mural duties; others, like the members of the order of St John of Jerusalem, had few obligations. All, however, had taken the vows of obedience, chastity and poverty and were familiar figures among the clerical population. The men were, in practice, almost invariably in priests' orders.
Zwingli, unlike Luther, was a secular priest and was well aware of the rivalries of the past between Seculars and Regulars. At the same time, he knew what monasticism implied and its claims to be the highest and best
Christian life. He had lived with the Dominicans in Berne, an uncle was a monk and at least one of his sisters continued to live in the cloister after accepting the new regime of sermons and vernacular services.
ZWINGLI The monastic orders had been under attack before Zwingli came to Zurich; Erasmus had made his dislike of monasticism very apparent, primarily because the monks were so often the enemies of' good letters', but also because they had so little to offer society from which they took so much. For Zwingli, monks and friars were the professional defenders of masses for the dead, of images, relics and indulgences, of clerical celibacy and papal supremacy. Preaching and Bible study were neglected by them.
These Regulars were all obvious targets for a Zwinglian, as also for a Lutheran, attack. Once vows of celibacy, restrictions on diet, payments for masses, the mass itself as a sacrifice, were rejected as unbiblical, it became difficult, if not impossible, for the defenders of monasticism to find justification for the institution.
What, then, was to be done with the monks and nuns who were now represented as the hypocrites par excellence ? There was no dramatic ' dissolution' of the monasteries in Protestant Switzerland, Regulars were not turned out from their homes into a hard and unaccustomed world, and there was hardly any wanton destruction of monastic churches and buildings. Provided men and women were free to leave at will, to marry, to cast off their habit, to earn a living with their hands or intellects, the Zwingliguided administration of Zurich was well content to allow monasticism to perish of inanition.1 It was agreed that no new monastic vows should be taken after 1524, and, in fact, the cloisters rapidly emptied. Their funds, which the Reformers had little difficulty in demonstrating had been often misapplied if not directly embezzled, were placed under the control of administrators appointed by the council and were reallocated for the benefit of the poor, for a limited amount of education and for the maintenance of the still numerous preachers and theologians.
Within the city walls of Zurich2 and in its immediate vicinity, at Oetenbach, Selnau, Kiissnacht, and at the practically deserted Cistercian house of Kappel, all this was relatively easily accomplished. Further afield, it was not so easy, as was discovered first at the Premonstratensian house of Riiti and then at Stein am Rhein. The happenings at Riiti are illustrative and instructive.3 Here, as elsewhere, a great deal turned on the administrative head, the abbot.4 Without his consent the corporate body could not act, while there was a great deal which he could do of his own authority both
1 See above, 115, 127, 142-3.
2 The Zurich monastic establishments are usefully listed in A. Niischeler, Die Gotteshduser der
Schweiz in. 2 (Zurich, 1873), 438-73.
3 Z iv, 520-4, supplemented by H. Zeller-Werdmiiller, Die Pramonstratenser-Abtei Riiti
(Zurich, 1897) (MAGZ xxiv) and an interesting article by P. Klaui, 'Kirche und Kloster
Riiti' in Zurcher Monats-Chronik 141 (1945), 28-31.
4 The word 'abbot' used of the head of each Benedictine and Carthusian house, but elsewhere limited, as with the Cluniacs, to certain houses only, had become in Switzerland practically a generic term displacing 'Prior* or 'Provost'.
Zurich and St Gall legally, for every subordinate owed him implicit obedience, and in practice.
At Rliti, Abbot Felix Clauser had at first rejected the orders from Zurich to eliminate images and pictures, to abandon the monastic habit, to introduce new forms of service, departing from tradition. He was not, however, ready for a collision with the government, the more so when the peasants of the neighbourhood at the beginning of 1525 were refusing to pay tithe and customary dues and services.1 They not unnaturally hoped that a triumph of the Gospel would bring them greater freedom and lower taxation. When in February 1525 the abbot indicated that he was prepared to leave the premises, he very reasonably asked that administrators might be appointed to ensure that the monastic property rights were not infringed.
While the Zurich officials were dealing with this request, on 22 or 23 April on a foggy night the abbot decamped with the seal, archives, cash, jewels and plate of his house to Rapperswil, which was outside Zurich's jurisdiction and where he had a confederate. As soon as he had gone, there was an attack on the monastic buildings and grounds by the local farmers. It was reported in Zurich that 1,200 rioters were moving across the fields, but the local governor, Berger of Grliningen, acting on peremptory orders from Zurich, dispersed the insurgents.
Instructions were then sought about the future of the monks of Rliti, now leaderless within their house, and about the disposal of their property and revenues. The council acted with considerable firmness. It was agreed that the abbot, having left, should not return; he had lost his authority, which devolved upon Hans Breitenmoser, who was sent to assist or direct operations. The monks might, if they wished, remain as before; there would be communal arrangements for meals and service, the infirmary attached to the monastery was to remain open, and each monk was to be allotted 30 gulden annually for his maintenance, but certain deductions were to be made from income accruing from distant benefices. As the monks died, the revenues allocated to them reverted to the Zurich council, but their personal property2 went to their heirs. A careful inventory of all the remaining properties and chattels was arranged. Finally, in August,
Zwingli wrote out his recommendations or requirements for the future.3
First and foremost, instruction in the Bible. For an hour every morning each inmate was to read aloud, at a moderate pace, four or five chapters from the Old Testament, beginning with Genesis. This Bible reading was to be followed by a morning service including four psalms, the Lord's
Prayer, the collect for the Sunday, Benedictus or Te Deum and the Kyrie.
1 See above, 199.
2 It is a measure of the general decline of the monastic ideal that this should exist, since individual poverty was nominally part of the rule.
3 Z iv, 526-9. Their significance is that, with modifications, they were widely copied later.
PZI
ZWINGLI After this service, a specially appointed teacher was to read for 45 minutes from the New Testament. There were to be Vespers in the evening consisting of a lesson from the New Testament, the psalms for the day, the Magnificat or Nunc Dimitis and a collect, a service curiously like the later
Anglican 'Order for Evening Prayer daily throughout the Year'. Being Canons, all this might be said in Latin, but to make sure that this was properly understood, Wolfgang Krowl (Chroil) was appointed to teach grammar if required, and external pupils were allowed to attend his classes.
He was married, received the same stipend as the canons (30 gulden) with a house rent free, but he had to act as parish priest as well as part-time teacher. Effectively the monastery had come to an end and a further precedent was set for action elsewhere.
Riiti was directly under the control of the Zurich council. The situation in the walled city of Stein on the Rhine was more complicated.1 This formerly free city had sought security in a defensive alliance with Zurich and Schaffhausen in 1459 which expanded in 1484 to protection. This meant that the Zurich council could, and was expected to, act as arbitrator in the increasing differences between the city and the wealthy Benedictine monastery of St George within its walls. The monastery had been founded by the sainted Emperor Henry II at the opening of the eleventh century, and the Holy Roman Emperors retained that nominal special relationship that everywhere appertained to founders' representatives. These rights of patronage by descent, purchase and agreement had devolved in the fourteenth century2 upon the Austrian Habsburgs and were now claimed for the Archduke Ferdinand on behalf of the Emperor.
The city of Stein argued that any imperial rights had disappeared after the Swabian war and the peace of Basle (1499), and that Zurich (or was it the Swiss Confederation ?) was the imperial substitute. The abbot in 1524 was the resourceful David von Winkelsheim, who had to face brethren, some of whom inclined to the new doctrines, a hostile city and the demand from Zurich that the monastic property should be placed under the control of a government-appointed administrator.3
Early in 1526 the Zurich Council was ready to treat the monastery at Stein in the same way as it had the Regulars within its own walls. Zwingli was twice consulted about the position, first in March and then in September 1526/ His first suggestions were that the monks (or canons) should preach the Gospel, that services should be of an evangelical type, Biblereading should be encouraged, monks who wished to marry and leave the cloister should be free to do so, and that the revenues from the monastic
1 See above, 145.
2 By the Kaufund Ubernahmebrief of 1359.
3 Conrad Luchsinger, one of Zwingli's most convinced supporters, was appointed.
« Z iv, 764(769)-72J Z v, 397(399)-40i.
Zurich and St Gall property, administered by Zurich, should be applied for the benefit of the poor.
The abbot was not willing thus to relinquish his authority, his monks were divided, and Rhellican, the preacher and lecturer sent from Zurich to instruct them in languages, was not popular. The abbot was naturally anxious to retain his position as long as possible and also, in the event of the monastery reverting to the status of a collegiate church, to obtain as much compensation for himself as possible. To put himself in a stronger bargaining position, he moved to Rudolfzell, where Austrian support was available, and negotiated further.
Zwingli's second report was more emphatic. The protection of Zurich must be accepted, a good understanding with the town of Stein was recommended, no novices or new monks were to be brought in, divine services as demanded by the parishioners were to be of an evangelical pattern, the monastic treasures and jewels were to be placed at the disposal of the administration to be used for the poor, Abbot David's personal property, including silver plate, would be returned to him on condition that he agreed to these proposals. For this he was not prepared, nor would he accept arbitration; refusing any concessions, he died on n November 1526. The city of Stein then somewhat awkwardly accepted the new situation, and Zurich became de facto owner of the monastic property.l
All this affected Zurich in its dealings with the city and monastery of St Gall, where, however, conditions were different. There was no question of any rights of jurisdiction, the monastery was far more powerful, and in the end, after a hopeful start, Zwingli's policy received a notable setback which affected Swiss history long after his death.
Zwingli was very well acquainted with the great abbey of St Gall.2 This famous foundation, in origin the result of Irish missionary activity in the sixth century, had become a wealthy Benedictine monastery with wide lands and a rich, if little used, library. Round the monastery, as at the English St Albans with which there are remarkable parallels, had grown up a walled town, whose industrious citizens had established a thriving linen trade and had largely succeeded in freeing themselves from dependence on their former overlord. There was thus a small but strongly civic-conscious
1 F. Vetter, Zwingli und Zurich in der Unterhandlung mit detn Abt von Stein im Jfahre 1526.
Beitrage zur vaterlandischen Geschichte 5 (Schaffhausen, 1884), 190-4, JSG 9 (1884) 30iff,
2 Situated in an entirely German-speaking area, the place is best known as St Gallen. For its origins, F. Blanke, Columban und Gallus. Urgeschichte des schweizerischen Christentums
(Zurich, 1940). J. M. Clark, The abbey of St. Gall as a Centre of Literature & Art (Cambridge,
1926) is the best study in English. Historischer Atlas Map 41 is helpful. The St Gall affair is well documented, Sabbata being particularly informative. Secondary studies of value are
Naf, Vadian; Spillmann 1; Spillmann 2; Spillmann 3; Miiller; Knittel; Muralt, Abtei;
W. Ehrenzeller, St. Gallische Geschichte im Spdtmittelalter und in der Reformationszeit
(2 Bde, St Gall, 1931, 1938).
10-2
ZWINGLI community facing the monks and their abbot, a prince of the Holy Roman Empire. The abbey had fallen into some decay in the fifteenth century but had been reactivated after the election of Ulrich Rosch as guardian
(Pfleger) in 1458 and as abbot in 1463.
After 1457 the city, with about 4,000 inhabitants, was accepted as a free imperial city {Reichstadt), and from then onwards the constant endeavour of the citizens was to free themselves from all monastic control and then to absorb the wide monastic possessions. These included much of the territory of the former hereditary Counts of Toggenburg, which the abbey had succeeded in acquiring in 1468 mainly by purchase.1 In the first place, there was the ancient demesne (alte Landschaft), land in the immediate neighbourhood of St Gall, including Wil, Waldkirch and Rorschach, which had been owned and ruled by the monastery from time immemorial, to which had been added individual manors and jurisdictional rights secured sporadically across the ages. Over Toggenburg and an area on the upper Rhine known as Hof Kriessern, still more recently acquired, the monastic control was lighter and more remote.2
Both abbey and city were closely associated with the Confederation.
Abbot Caspar von Landenberg had made a perpetual alliance (ein ewige Burg-und Landrecht)3 with Lucerne, Schwyz, Glarus and Zurich on 17 August 1451; and on 13 June 1454 the citizens of St Gall were accepted as perpetual confederates (ewiger Eidgenossen) by Zurich, Berne, Lucerne,
Schwyz, Zug and Glarus.4 The abbot gained a promise of assistance in case of any revolt by the tenants and serfs of the countryside, and promised to help his allies in the event of war. The city went further, sacrificing any independent foreign policy and renouncing any alliance that was incompatible with those of its confederates but gaining guaranteed security.
Protection for the abbey was obtained by the presence of a Protector (Schirmhauptmann) living in the abbey and appointed by the four protecting states for two years, each state nominating in turn.5
Representatives of both abbey and city were almost invariably summoned to the Diets of the Confederation, and they were usually included by name in Confederate treaties with outside powers.6 The abbey of St Gall was easily first among the allies or associates {Zugewandte), but neither city nor abbot secured any higher status. This was partly because their rivalry had become so intense as to make common action impossible.
1 T. Mayer (hg.), Adel und Bauern im deutschen Staat des Mittelalters (Leipzig, 1943), 140-1.
2 Kagi, 19; G. Thiirer, St. Galler Geschichte (St Gall, 1953) 1, 266-70.
3 EA 2. 255 (No. 387) Beilage 29, 864-6; Nabholz-Klaui, 52-6. It was renewed 9/11 June 1490.
Spillmann /, 11.
• EA 2., 878-81; Nabholz-Kaui, 56; Oechsli 2, 17; Thiirer I, 286-91.
5 By the Hauptmannschaftsvertrag 8 November 1479. Spillmann /, 12; Miiller, 2; Oechsli 2,
54-5.
6 Oechsli 2, 248-55.
Zurich and St Gall In particular, the demand by the city in 1490 that the abbot should not alienate any monastic property without the consent of the city (which had itself originally been part of this property and remained an island in the midst of it) ended all chance of effective cooperation. The government of the city was of the familiar concentric pattern with Biirgermeister, small council of 24 and great council of 90, with the six gilds extremely influential if not dominant.1 It was a prosperous community with a considerable export trade in linen.
Zwingli had a special personal connection with the city of St Gall that helps to explain events there. Joachim von Watt (1484-51) known as Vadian, was the son of a wealthy patrician of St Gall and one of a business family traditionally concerned with politics and interested in scholarship.
He and Zwingli were contemporaries at the University of Vienna in 1500, and although Zwingli left after two years Vadian stayed the whole course
(M.A. 1508 and Rector 1516). By March 1514 his public recognition by the Emperor Maximilian as a 'poet' {poeta laureatus) had established him as an exponent of studia humanitatis^ the associate of Cuspinian, Collimitius, Tannstetter, and others who cultivated elegant latinity {litterae politiores).
Like many another humanist, he turned to the study of medicine, then regarded as an entirely theoretical discipline, and became M.D. in May
1517. He was also one of the first geographers, he learnt a little Greek, was relentless in parading his considerable erudition and fully conscious of the potentialities of the printing press. In 1518 Vadian returned to his native
St Gall, where (after some months of travel, including Leipzig, Posen, Breslau, Krakau and Vienna), he married in October 1519, Martha, sister of Conrad Grebel who, like his father, was later to cause Zwingli so much trouble. He was soon city doctor, advised - from a safe distance - about taking precautions against the plague, and eagerly supported the few likeminded humanists with whom he came into contact. These included
Myconius, who taught Latin in the city for a time, and Glarean, who shared his admiration for everything Swiss. Erasmus, indeed, gave him very little encouragement, and his own contributions to serious scholarship were a little superficial, while his family connections made politics a natural focus for his interests.
Politics in St Gall were inextricably involved with the long struggle of the city to free itself from the clutches of the monastery and to become powerful in its own right. In 1489 the tension between city and monastery wassuch that the scholarly Abbot Rosch (fl. 1463-91) had planned to move the convent to the peace and quiet of Rorschach. New buildings were started there, but, aided by men from Appenzell, the citizens of St Gall
1 Thiirer, 209-33; Handbuch, 556.
ZWINGLI forcibly prevented their completion, and the abbot had to return to St Gall.
The Protecting Powers on appeal sent men to his support, the city of St Gall had to pay damages, but the abbot had to renew the treaty of protection and his lands became in practice almost a Mandated Territory.1
Attention now moved to the whole concept of monasticism. Some of the citizens were ready to question whether the monk was the true Christian, renouncing the world, benefiting all humanity by his continuous service of prayer and by the masses offered daily in the great monastic church which towered above the city. Were not the monks the allies of the opponents of humanism ? Vadian remained a layman and was no expert theologian; he had, however, the humanist's interest in a critical examination of the sources of knowledge, and he was early attracted by the writings of Luther. He also knew of the ferment in Zurich after 1519, but there is little to suggest any special interest in either Lutheran or Zwinglian teaching among the citizens of St Gall before 1522. Vadian himself had undertaken some critical Bible study in an effort to interpret the Apostles' Creed to his fellow-citizens. Without any crisis or personal conversion he found himself irresistibly drawn to the new teaching. This led him on to a study of the primitive church and of the Acts of the Apostles: he was discoursing to a small audience on the latter at the same time as the great Zurich debate was going on in January 1523. In October, indeed, he was a co-president at the second debate. From study of the Bible to acceptance of exclusive Bible infallibility was a considerable step, but Vadian took it, and slowly, at his own speed and in his own way, by the time he became Biirgermeister in 1526 he was a convinced Zwinglian.2
His influence, combined with the anti-monastic interests and sentiments of the leading traders of St Gall, brought about first toleration and then encouragement of evangelical preaching by Benedict Burgauer,
Wolfgang Wetter, Dominic Zili and John Kessler in the city. On 4 April 1524 the council required the priests in the city church of St Lawrence to preach the Gospel' clearly and plainly and in accordance with the text of the Bible.'3 A little earlier, Sebastian Hofmeister and Leo Jud, returning from a rather fruitless Gospel-mission to Appenzell, had reinforced these tendencies4 and in July 1524 the images in St Laurence were removed.
The sermons were popular and increased in numbers. At the same time 1 Spillmann 3, 62; Naf, Vadian I, 90-5; Miiller, 3-6.
2 This is discussed at some length by Naf 11, 165-80, Spillmann J, 14-18, and C. Bonorand,
Vadians Weg vom Humanismus zur Reformation und seine Vortrage iiber die Apostelgeschichte
(1523) (Vadian-Studien 7 (St Gall, 1962)).
3 Naf, Vadian 11, 189,195, Muralt/Fast, 339: Mass hailig evangelium predigend, clar und luter, wie sy das mit der biblischen geschrifft erhalten mogen'. Cf. Sabbata, 112. The Bible text was to be expounded 'hell, clar und nach rechtem cristenlichen verstand, one inmischung menschlichs zusatz\ Spillmann 2, 40; Egli 3, 349.
4 Miiller, 22.
Zurich and St Gall the city adopted, as Zurich had done, some elementary measures to relieve manifest poverty1 while at the same time forbidding begging in the streets. These happenings all intensified the division between city and monastery, the more so since in July 1525 the abbot had secured an appreciable increase in his authority over his tenants.2 There was also some considerable difficulty with the Anabaptists, who had been encouraged by the preaching of Lorenz Hochrutiner, a native of St Gall, Volimann,
Grebel and Blaurock, and who were said to have some five hundred adherents.3 Zwingli's treatise Vom Tauff dedicated to the St Gall council, may have helped the reaction against them,5 and by the end of 1526 the agitation had largely died down. Similarly, there was a little disorder created by those who wanted the immediate removal of images and pictures from the city churches; these were placated by a cautious but effective 'cleansing' of them in December 1526. After the Baden conference, which the city council had prohibited Vadian from attending, and where the abbot's steward had been one of the chairmen, St Gall was threatened with exclusion from Federal Diets because of its evangelical tendencies.6 The city council refused to yield to pressure, and although the mass was not officially abolished until 17 July 15287 it had already been replaced by an evangelical communion service and St Gall city had become a reformed enclave within a monastic state. The clear-cut division of the city of St Gall and the abbey of St Gall, which was an outcome of the Zwinglian reformation, was not apparent until after 1531, and is one of the lasting consequences of Zwingli's defeat and death. The city never succeeded in swallowing the abbey as Zurich swallowed the Fraumlinster or even as Schaffhausen reduced the monastery of All Saints to insignificance. Although Biirgermeister Vadian was in physical possession of the abbey buildings in 1530 and the abbot exiled in his castle of Meersburg, the legal continuity of the convent was unbroken. Similarly, although the evangelical teaching was accepted by a large majority of the villages of the countryside, there never was a complete 'reformation' of both city and monastery. The abbot retained his position, the convent in the end reentered into its possessions stronger than ever, and the city maintained its independence.
The evangelisation of St Gall in fact was secure only for as long as the 1 Naf, Vadian n, 198-9.
2 W. Miiller, Landsatzung und Landmandat der Fiirstabtei St. Galley MVG (St Gall, 1970)
19-31, 219-20.
3 Egli /, 377; E. Egli, Die St. Galler Tdufer (Zurich, 1887) 45~74 See above, 190-1.
5 When Zwingli's arguments were read in St Laurence's Church by Zili he was interrupted by Gabriel Giger declaring 'We want God's word, not Zwingli's.'bNaf, Vadian 11, 232; Sabbatay
145; Muralt/Fast, 388 n. 2, 389 n. 13.
6 Naf, Vadian 11, 248; EA 4, ia, 962-3, 1039.
7 Naf, Vadian 11, 266-7; Miiller 45.
ZWINGLI city could be sure of protection against its monastery, the Austrian administration and threats from the Catholic Confederate states. For this the alliance with Zurich was invaluable, and with such support the city council could, and did, carry through the dissolution of the two nunneries of St Catharine and St Leonhard in November 1527.1 What was really decisive, however, was the victory of the reformed teaching in Berne in Jantiary
1528, after which events happened quickly as political considerations came prominently to the fore.
For nearly a century the city had been the associate of Zurich, Berne, Lucerne, Zug and Glarus, but this combination was no longer effective after Berne had become evangelical. Local security was, moreover, still further assured when, on 3 November 1528, after considerable discussion,
St Gall was received into the Christian Civic Union2 with Zurich and Berne on an equal footing. This implied that the city had ceased to be an ally {zugewandter Ort) of the Confederation but was an equal partner of Zurich and Berne. It was also a city without territory, inside the lands of the abbey and thus unique in its position and problems.
The situation in present-day Switzerland of the two half-cantons of Appenzell Inner-Rhoden and Appenzell Ausser-Rhoden entirely surrounded by St Gall has no applicability to the sixteenth century. Appenzell3 was indeed the smallest and most recent of the Orte^ but its position as such was secure, whereas city and monastery of St Gall remained outside the Federation until 1798. To its north and south were the federallyheld Mandated Territories, Thurgau, Uznach, Gaster, Sargans and Rheintal. Neither St Gall city nor the monastery had any share in the government of these districts, but a good deal turned on their future. If they became Protestant and therefore within Zurich's sphere of influence, and if a Protestant city of St Gall took over the rights of its great monastery thus becoming a powerful and wealthy state, the balance of power in north eastern Switzerland would be decisively altered. For the inhabitants of Thurgau it might mean that districts subject to the monastery where
Bible reading and evangelical preaching had been discouraged4 would in future be able to worship as they chose and be freed from obligations to perform military service or to pay suit to the ecclesiastical courts. In any case the combined military forces of Zurich, Schaff hausen, St Gall,Thur1 Naf, Vadian II, 267-8; Miiller, 45. The nuns mostly went to Bischofszell. Knittel 1, 182;
ZSKG 55 (1961), 214-15.
2 See below, 352-3. EA 4, 1 a, 1433, 1526; Naf, Vadian 11, 281; Spillmann /, 20; Z vi ii, 346.
3 Appenzell, an Ort since 1513, was divided in religious allegiance after 1524, the inner portion
(die innerer Rhoden) remaining Catholic. Appenzell could thus speak only with a divided voice, and limited its intervention in external affairs to mediation or neutrality. H. Dorig,
Ein Datierungsproblem in der Appenzeller Reformationsgeschichte. St. Galler Kultur und
Geschkhte (Festgabe fur Paul Staerkle 2) (St Gall, 1972) 106-16.
• Knittel I, 118-20.
Zurich and St Gall gaii, Rheintal, with, probably, Glarus and Appenzell, would be formidable and thus a powerful potential ally for the Zwinglian-minded cities of south
Germany.
Hence the complexity of the situation. For the whole of north-eastern Switzerland to be dominated by Zurich would suit neither Berne nor the Catholics nor St Gall city. For the abbey to retain its authority would be greatly to the advantage of the Catholic states who would thus be able to maintain their communications with the Austrian Vorarlberg and so limit further Protestant expansion. If the city controlled the abbey lands when evangelised, it would be too powerful to suit the political ends of Zurich, which, as a protecting power, had rights over the abbey which might otherwise be lost. If the whole of the Mandated Territories remained evangelical this would be entirely to the disadvantage of the Catholics, who had a majority in the Diet of the Confederation. If Zurich were to control them and take over the secular jurisdiction of the abbot, it would benefit enormously and the city of St Gall would retire to its former relative insignificance.
Of the implications of this Zwingli was fully aware, but he was concerned primarily with its relevance to his preaching. Zurich was not anxious for the disappearance of the monastery of St Gall if this meant that the property and rights of the abbey would revert to the city, which could thus become an eastern rival. Rather, Zurich hoped to expand its influence by becoming de facto sole Protector of the abbey, administrator of its property and inheritor of its rights, all leading to thinly disguised aggrandizement. The city of St Gall would of course retain, perhaps even slightly increase, its autonomy, but nothing more.
Meanwhile within the city the tide was running strongly in favour of reform. The council was purged of Catholics in 1528. With Zwinglian services prevailing throughout the city since 1525, the mass abolished, images removed, the Bible opened, attention was naturally transferred to the abbey church. There, by order of the city council, a spectacular, but dubiously legal, cleansing took place on 23 February 1529.1 All images of saints were removed and destroyed, and the great screen which, as usual in a monastic church, separated choir from nave, was pulled down. No one was injured, and the crosses, chalices, candlesticks and altar cloths were unharmed. Dominic Zili preached evangelical sermons from the pulpit, and Vadian, as Biirgermeister, occupied the monastic buildings in the name of the city.
1 Sabbata, 311-12 (a vivid account); Miiller, 57-61; Naf, Vadian 11, 286-94; Z vi ii, 346. It was not done at the instigation of Zurich, as Strickler 11 (1879), 68 suggests. Spillmann 3, 67 n. 35.
Vadian argued that the monastic church was not exclusively for the monks but a public building for all citizens and that therefore the city could rightly intervene. Zx, 40 n 1; Vad. Br.
IV, 151-9.
ZWINGLI All this was taking place in the spring of 1529 just at the moment when a confrontation between the reformed states and the Inner States, supported by Austria, seemed likely and even imminent. In this situation a good deal turned on the abbot, Franz Gaisberg (Geissberg), distantly related to Vadian, a man of upright character, charitable and active, but determined to maintain to the full the rights of his monastery. He had withdrawn in October 1528 along with the few choir monks who constituted the 'convent', to Rorschach, where he now lay dangerously ill in the castle. At the same time a number of communities on monastic territory, as Altstatten,
Berg, Gossau, Bischofszell, Wil, Steinach, Steckborn, Arbon, Rorschach, and Waldkirch,were demanding evangelical ministers and services.1 Thus, monastic St Gall, like Vadian's city, was rapidly becoming a Zwinglian outpost.
The abbot was not likely to accept elimination without a struggle. His position was guaranteed by his alliance with Zurich, Lucerne, Schwyz and Glarus, and of these Lucerne and Schwyz were strongly Catholic but Glarus, at first uncommitted, became evangelical and joined forces with Zurich. Their joint authority was, however, exercised by Jacob Frei2 of Zurich. His appointment as Protector {Schirmhauptmann) had been properly made in November 1528 by Zurich, which thus had excellent opportunities for intervention. Up to that date the abbot had been able to rely upon the support of the Protector against his opponents. Now he could no longer expect such help in dealing with his tenants in spite of the fact that the Protector had instructions3 to uphold the rights and income of the abbey. Frei early received orders from the energetic Blirgermeister
Roist to take precautionary measures in case the abbot should die. In this event if the remaining monks could be persuaded not to elect a new abbot, without whom nothing could be done, they were to be guaranteed a good income for life, while Frei was to take over the administration of the 1 The abbot was patron of these churches, whose parishioners wished to choose their own ministers. Spillmann I, 23. Waldkirch has a special interest in that its affairs were the subject of one of Zwingli's many memoranda (Z v, 759-62). The monastic tenants there had been trying to improve their political, legal and social rights as against the abbey for half a century
(Knittel 1, 116-18). Their economic demands were refused in 1525, and an appeal to biblical prededents led to an order from the abbot forbidding the purchase or owning of a vernacular
Bible. Kagi, 36.
In 1527 the community called for the removal of images from their church, which of course the abbot, supported by Lucerne, Schwyz and Glarus, refused. They were able, however, with the good will of Zurich, to do just this in November 1528 and to welcome an evangelical preacher. After the battle of Kappel (1531) the commune was forcibly re-Catholicised by the Catholics.
2 Jacob Frei (c. 1480-1531, killed on 24 October on the Gubel) had been appointed for two years from 25 November 1528. He was an active politician and a strong supporter of the Reformation. Spillmann 1, 22. Jacob 156; Z x, 43 n. 2, 133 n, 1.
3 Spillmann /, 29.
Zurich and St Gall monastic territory in the name of the four protecting powers.1 The Catholics were aware that something was in the wind and took such countermeasures as they could.
The abbot and his advisers were in touch with the Five Catholic States and with representatives of Ferdinand of Austria at Feldkirch.2 They counted on aid from Marx Sittich of Hohenems and his brother-in-law the lord of Musso. This abortive intervention must be described elsewhere.
It did not, in fact, directly affect St Gall, but the possibility, and even the likelihood, of an armed attack was seriously anticipated.
It was in the light of this situation that, early in 1529, Zwingli had felt obliged to urge his government to intervene. He now suggested3 that the Zurich Council, of its own right or in conjunction with the city of St Gall, should at once enter into written communication with the abbot at Rorschach, who should be asked to receive a delegation from Zurich and St Gall. A further discussion of the matter with Berne should take place at Aarau. He urged that because of the progress already made by the reformed doctrines there should be an agreement by the eleven surviving monks of St Gall that on the death of their abbot they would not proceed to the election of a successor. The monks would then be free to marry and to obtain alternative employment, and they would receive generous pensions.
The monastic tenants should be assured that the conditions of their tenure would be substantially improved.4
Vadian, as Burgermeister of the city of St Gall, was far from happy with these proposals. If Zurich took over the jurisdiction of the abbot, his city might very soon find Zurich officials exercising authority within its walls, since the abbot still had admitted rights there, as well as over all the monastic territory. All this latter the city had plainly hoped would devolve upon its own Council when the monastery disappeared. Berne, equally, was not anxious to see the territories of its chief rival extending to the lake of Constance and perhaps beyond. The situation was obviously becoming critical. It was on 23 March 1529 that Abbot Gaisbergdied from dropsy at Rorschach.5 This should have been the occasion for the plans of both
Zwingli and Vadian to take effect and for the monastery to fade away into oblivion. Unfortunately for them, however, Jacob Frei as Protector and secular administrator of the monastery was slow off the mark. The monks
1 Spillmann j , 64, 66, 67; EA 4, ib, 59, 63; Strickler, 11 (1879) 29-30 (No. 46); Z vi ii, 348.
Zwingli was not directly associated with this action, but agreed with the policy. Z x, 43.
2 Z vi ii, 349-50; Spillmann /, 31. Ferdinand's election as King of the Romans following
Charles V's coronation by the Pope was anticipated.
3 Z vi ii, 354-60. Cf. EA 4, 1 b, 35-6. Zwingli could do no more than suggest - he was not a member of the council, which accepted full responsibility for action. Some of his suggestions were adopted, some ignored. (Spillmann /, 45-7.)
4 Z vi ii, 347. s Sabbata 314; Z vi ii, 350, 354 n. 5; x, 87-8; Miiller, 93 n. 2.
ZWINGLI of the convent - there were now effectively only five of them - had decided on their course of action. They kept the death a secret until they had got themselves safely on to neutral ground at Rapperswil. There, two days later, in a room in the Red Lion Inn, but with scrupulous care to observe the canonical requirements, they elected one of their number, Kilian
German, as their new head.1 This action, which Zwingli had been anxious to prevent, was a distinct political triumph for the Catholics, who hastened to recognise and promise support to the new prelate. He was wellconnected, intelligent if not very learned, popular and approachable. He had many friends and few enemies.
From Zurich, followed by Glarus,2 both protecting powers, came a shrill and emphatic note of protest inspired by Zwingli. The pretended election was invalid. The death of Abbot Franz had been concealed and the election had been made in secrecy where it should have been an open one: the protecting powers had not been informed,3 as had always been the case in the past, and they had not given the customary conge cfelire.
The election should properly take place at St Gall within the precinct wall of the monastery wherein the monks were required by their rule to remain.4 Rapperswil was not an acceptable place for an election, at which the titular Abbot of Riiti had, irregularly, been present. The abbot-elect had not been presented to the protecting powers; he had sought, but had not received, confirmation of his election from Rome and was thus an 'invader' or 'intruder'. He had none the less entered immediately upon 1 Miiller, 93-4; Spillmann /, 33; Z x, 87; Z vi ii, 355; Naf, Vadian 11, 298. He was also known as Koiffi, Kouffi and Germann.
2 Zwingli was always concerned about the progress of his teaching in Glarus. The first clear signs of open discontent with the Catholic regime appeared in 1527. Early in 1528, following the Berne disputation, images were removed from the churches at Matt and Schanden, and in August there was general expectation in Zurich that Glarus would declare openly for reform.
EA 4, 1 a, 1380; J. Winteler, Geschichte des Landes Glarus (Glarus, 1952) 1, 3O2ff; G. Heer,
Kirchengeschichte des Kantons Glarus (Glarus, 1900) in, 69, 71; G. Heer, Geschichte des
Landes Glarus2 (Glarus, 1898) I, 317-22. An attempt to secure agreement at a Landsgemeinde in May 1528 was unsuccessful (Winteler 1, 308; Z ix, 600), and the report which reached
Zwingli in January 1529 of a majority for his supporters - 'Clarone, vicit pars, que. est ab euangelio. Deo gloria!' - was premature (Z x, 50; Winteler 1, 312). The Landsgemeinde on 2 May 1529 by a majority accepted Zwinglian doctrine but allowed the Catholics freedom of worship (Winteler 1, 313O. From 1529 to 1531 Glarus was ranged on the side of Zurich and was no longer an ally of the Catholics: this was what mattered in the critical dealings with the Abbot of St Gall; Haas, Kappelerkrieg, 100.
3 Representatives from Lucerne and Schwyz were in Rapperswil, but Zurich and Glarus were given no information. Nothing in the original treaty of protection required that representatives of the protecting powers should be present at the election, and the precedents for the election of the previous abbots (1491, Giel von Glattbrugg and 1504, Franz Gaisberg) were not conclusive.
4 For the requirement of'stability' see Butler, Regula Benedicti (Freiburg i.B., 1912) XLVI;
G. G. Coulton, Five Centuries of Religion I (Cambridge, 1923), 207-10, 280. It could scarcely be seriously appealed to in the conditions of the sixteenth century,
Zurich and St Gall his office on 7 June, he had decamped in the fog with some monastic property (i.e. plate and service-books) to Steinach, tJberlingen and Meersburg,1 whence he tried to enforce the celebration of mass throughout the monastic territories (Alte Landschaft).
On technical points of law Zwingli was, in fact, standing on very dubious ground; canonically the election of Abbot Kilian was almost certainly valid.2 There were, however, many other matters to be taken into consideration. His consistent argument from 1523 onwards had been that there was no biblical ground for the exercise of temporal authority by ecclesiastical persons. Spiritual and temporal jurisdictions were separate; the duties of the clergy were to advise and exhort.3 He equally consistently maintained that the monastic life had ho biblical support and the institution therefore could not be upheld by Zurich. The absentee abbot could not justify his position (milnchenstand) from the Bible and thus any claims arising from it were invalid. Further, Kilian would obviously restore the mass throughout the monastic dominions if he could, and for the monastic income to be devoted to this undesirable purpose was entirely unacceptable. It was the duty of the protecting powers to ensure that the tenants benefited directly by their own funds.
An ingenious corollary from this was that the abbot's usurped or unwarranted jurisdiction devolved upon the four protecting powers. These were equally divided for and against - Lucerne and Schwyz opposing
Zurich and Glarus. In such a deadlock Zurich, it was argued, had a moral casting vote as Vorort^ which it obviously exercised in its own favour.4
At best, Kilian might have been accepted as guardian of the monastic estates, administering the revenues to benefit the poor and to improve the conditions under which his tenants lived. Instead, he had deserted his post and had sought foreign help. He was a usurper and a thief, a traitor and a rebel.5 He should be referred to only as 'Herr' Kilian Koiffi. The tenants had met together at Lommenschwil (April 1529) and had declared that they would abide by God's word and recognise no abbot who was not approved by Zurich.6 The Abbot of St Gall could find little comfort in the 1 Z x, 165 n. 2. Lavater had arrived too late to prevent the flight.
2 Muralt, Abtei 307-8. Zwingli was, in fact, well informed on the subject of canon law and probably recognised that the election could not be rejected on these grounds alone. Canon law, however, was man-made and was overridden by divine law (the Bible), from which the abbot could derive no support. F. Schmidt-Clausing, Das Corpus Juris Canonici als reformatorisches Mittel Zwinglis, ZKG 80 (1969), 14-21, esp. 16; Z vi ii, 683, 718-19.
3 H. Schmid, Zwinglis Lehre von der gottlichen und menschlichen Gerechtigkeit (Zurich, 1959),
237-8; Z 1, 462; 298-304; Spillmann 1, 22; 3, 68. See above, 117-118.
4 Muralt, Abtei, 304, 308, 311-12; Oechsli 2, 249; Kagi, 49-51.
5 Z VI ii, 628-32; Spillmann /, 60-1, 63-4; Miiller, 133.
6 ZWA XIII (1969), 28; Sabbata, 315-16; Miiller, 100. Zwingli had suggested that representatives from Zurich should attend the Lommenschwil meeting, but no such action was taken.
ZWINGLI outcome of the first Kappel war. In a series of well-informed notes or opinions1 Zwingli demonstrated to his council that the abbot's position was unbiblical and unlawful: the monastic tenants were entitled to the protection of their rights and property that had been promised to them, and the preaching of the Gospel was not to be hindered. The abbot had no 'Herrschaftrechten' and in his lands the mass should be discouraged if not suppressed.
The abbot, none the less, was in a strong position. He was recognised by Lucerne and Schwyz as protecting powers and by all the Catholic states, he was supported by Austria and was a Prince of the Empire, entitled to attend its Diets,2 and even Berne and Schaffhausen were cautiously prepared to negotiate with him.3 He was physically safe at Meersburg.
The Swiss Catholics insisted that Zurich and Glarus were irregularly interfering in the affairs of another state, thus acting contrary to the principles of the Confederation, and that, by negotiating with monastic tenants about the appointment of officials, they were supporting rebels, a point on which Berne was specially sensitive.
There was the further problem of the city of St Gall, a member of the Christian Civic Union and now thoroughly evangelised by Vadian. Zurich was very careful to maintain the distinction between abbey and city and to deal with each matter separately as an interested party. This was apparent when, at the end of August 1530, Zurich agreed that the city of St Gall was entitled to purchase for 14,000 gulden the site, buildings and some other possessions of the monastery.4 Any monks who remained in residence were to be under constant surveillance. The monastic treasures were to be recovered for the city, information about them being extracted by torture if necessary. But there was no question of the city of St Gall being allowed to secure any control over the former monastic territories when these were evangelised. This would be contrary to the expansionist policy of Zurich,
1 Z vi ii, 345-60, 372-81, 552-68, 611-32, 657-719. They were not all adopted by the Zurich
Council. Spillmann 3, 66. The most important is the 'Anbringen' of 8-9 January 1530. Cf.
EA 4, 1 b, 506-9.
2 He attended the Diet at Augsburg and, with support from Lucerne, appealed to the Emperor for help which was promised but did not materialise. Spillmann 3, 72; Miiller, 153-5;
Spillmann /, 86.
3 Miiller, 143. The case was again stated at a Federal Diet at Baden in January 1530, but without effect on either side. EA 4, 1 b, 507-9.
4 Vadian, Diarium in, 266 (in Deutsche Historische Schriften hg. E. Gotzinger, St Gallen, 1879).
For many other notices see pp. 227-528. EA 4, ib, 747-53; Z vi ii, 392; Vadian 11, 305-12;
Spillmann /, 101. From Zurich it was emphasized that the acquisition of site and buildings which had been in civic occupation since June 1529 was only reluctantly agreed to and that no rights of jurisdiction were conveyed with it. It is important not to over-estimate Zwingli's share in the vital St Gall negotiations. His advice was asked for and considered, but the council, and particularly the able Biirgermeister Rbist, acted quite independently. Spillmann
/, 77, 87. The abbot protested strongly against the city's action, and Berne never formally recognised the secularisation of the monastery.
Zurich and St Gall whose forces, it was intended, should garrison for an indefinite period a religiously ' liberated' alte Landschaft. This was not to the liking of the city of St Gall, which saw itself excluded from this 'ancient demesne' where the abbot and Zurich were now conscious competitors for power.
The triumph of the Reformation in Switzerland implied the elimination of the abbey. Zwingli was right to pursue his opponent relentlessly, for Kilian's courage and persistence greatly helped to strengthen Catholic morale. He visited Einsiedeln, then settled for a time in Wil, where he promised reductions in taxation and did everything in his power to please his tenants by generosity and concessions. Zwingli, for his part, recommended that Zurich should offer promises of reduced taxation accompanied by the exclusive encouragement of evangelical teaching.1 When the monastery had disappeared, Rorschach, Rosenberg and Oberberg should be garrisoned and the inhabitants should be given a new constitution including an oath of allegiance to Zurich.
After the first Kappel war and the occupation of most of eastern Switzerland by Lavater in June 1529, the abbot hurried from Steinach to safety at Meersburg and never returned to St Gall territory.2 The men of Rorschach took control of their own city. The tenants of the ancient demesne, however, who in September demanded substantial independence, including the right to choose their own Landamman with full legal authority to administer justice,3 were disappointed. When representatives of the protecting powers (whose rights were consistently upheld) met in October at Wil, it was clear that no agreement between them was possible while
Lucerne and Schwyz supported the abbot. The inhabitants wanted complete independence, which Zurich was not willing to grant; the Zurich policy really amounted to annexation. Zwingli's thoughts, it should be emphasised, were consistently on religion; freedom of preaching must be upheld at any cost throughout all the St Gall territories, especially his beloved Toggenburg. The eyes of the inhabitants had already been opened, they must not be closed again as assuredly they would be, forcibly, if the Catholics were allowed to regain control. After further discussion at a Diet at Baden in November,4 the Zurich council decided to take over the administration of the area, which was of considerable military importance to it; and a commission was set up at Zurich to draft a constitution. Berne had reluctantly agreed to allow Zurich a free hand.
On his return from Marburg Zwingli had joined Biirgermeister Roist, Ochsner, Schwyzer, Cambli and Werdmiiller in a kind of working-party5 on the matter, which recommended that the existence of the abbot should
1 Z vi ii, 359-60.
2 Spillmann 2, 41; Miiller, 119; Sabbata, 319.
3 EA 4, ib, 366-7 (StAZ A. 244. 2 No. 14).
4 EA 4, ib, 438.
5 Z vi ii, 616 (StaZ.A.244.2 No. 17); Spillmann 3, 70.
ZWINGLI be ignored and that the views of Glarus, if unfavourable, should be overridden. There was now no suggestion of granting the independence which the inhabitants called for.
Not all of this was acceptable to the Zurich council, which opened unilateral negotiations with the tenants at Wil1 on 10 December. These negotiations were to be based on a draft constitution of fifteen articles, partly drawn up by Zwingli himself,2 by which the powers of the local
Landammann were transferred forthwith to Zurich. Instead of their own elected Landammann, authority was to be vested in the Protector (S chirmhauptmann), still nominally acting on behalf of the four protecting powers but in practice an evangelical nominated by the Zurich Council. He was to be appointed for two years and assisted by an advisory council of twelve, four his own nominees and eight chosen by the twenty-nine communities of the countryside. This body in turn would appoint the local magistrates or administrative officers, with approval from Zurich, while the parishes (Gemeinden) would be free to choose their own ministers who, however, must be tested and certified as suitable and competent at Zurich,
Constance or St Gall and would then obtain a certain security of tenure.
Church property, valuables and vestments were to be taken over by the government, which collected tithe, rents and customary payments as before. These revenues would be applied through churchwardens
(Kirchenvorstehern) for the support of the minister, the fabric of the church and the relief of the poor. Evangelical preaching3 was to be enforced by the Protector in consultation with Zwingli. Berne, which had no authority in St Gall, wanted peace there, but accepted Zurich's argument that the abbot was subordinate to the Protecting Powers, which had come to mean
Zurich; and Zurich, obliged to uphold God's word, was equally obliged to defend the monastic subjects from any attempt by the abbot to oppose the Bible or Bible-preaching.
There was little enthusiasm for this draft when presented locally. It was obvious enough that real independence or local self-government was to be denied.
The discontent of the monastic tenants was vocal enough for Zurich to send an ultimatum - if they did not cooperate, Zurich's protection would be withdrawn.4 In Wil the government representatives had to seek refuge in the castle in face of a serious, if bloodless demonstration, but the discontent died down. There was a meeting there for further discussion on New Year's Day 1530,5 where a vague promise was given that obligations
1 Where the appointment of Lorenz Appenzeller as Statthalter had been resisted by Lucerne and Schwyz. Miiller, 165; Spillmann 3, 71.
2 Z vi ii, 628-30 (StAZ.E. 1.3.1 No. 57).
3 'dem gottlichen wort, ouch evangelischer leer und warheit giinstig und nit zewider sige\
Miiller, 183: EA 4, ib, 1496. Cf. Z vi ii, 625.
4 Miiller, 169-78. s Spillmann /, 78; Vad. Br. iv, 195-7 (No. 588).
Zurich and St Gall to the abbot would be fulfilled provided he justified his c mtinchenstand' by the Bible, which, of course, he could not do. The constitution itself, after further discussions, was produced in its final form on 25 May.1
Although some social and economic improvements were vaguely promised, in fact the tenants found that services and dues were required of them exactly as previously; only the church liturgy and sermons were altered.
It was also an entirely unilateral arrangement. Schwyz and Lucerne, whose rights all along had been nominally safeguarded, recognised Abbot Kilian as the only lawful ruler and supported his efforts to maintain the mass and Catholic services. To appeals by the abbot to the Diet of the Confederation and to charges that the innovations were illegal, Zurich replied by appealing to the terms of the first peace of Kappel2 and to the Zwinglian doctrine of the incompatibility of spiritual with temporal authority. The position of the abbot, it was asserted, was based on canon or papal law which was man-made and could not supersede divine law. The monastic tenants wanted and needed access to God's word, and in this they should be supported. To recognise the abbot would be to reject reform and return to popery, an argument with which Berne reluctantly agreed, refusing to recognise the abbot and leaving Zurich a free hand.3 Lucerne vainly attempted to appeal to the Emperor at Augsburg to intervene, and for all practical purposes Zurich was left in full control. With the purely secular and administrative implications of this fact Zwingli was personally not directly concerned.
When, however, Abbot Kilian, round whose contested election so much had turned, was drowned while crossing the river Ach on his horse on 30 August 1530, he was succeeded, unchallenged on the Catholic side, unrecognised on the Protestant, by Diethelm Blarer von Wartensee,3 an imperial nominee well suited both for the times and the office. On the following 25 November, the term of office of the Zurich-nominated
Protector, Jakob Frei, came to an end. His place was now due to be taken by the nominee of Lucerne, Jakob am Ort, who was, of course, a Catholic.
The peace, however, interfered with this, for it had been provided that the protector should be well disposed to evangelical teaching, should take an oath to uphold the constitution, and should allow the monastic tenants to continue their new forms of worship.4 This he refused to do, and attempts
1 It was in the form of an agreement between Zurich and Glarus with representatives of twenty-nine Gemeinden of the St Gall territory. EA 4, ib, 644-53, 1493-1499 (Beilage 12),
Spillmann j , 73, with a facsimile; Naf, Vadian 11, 315; Miiller, 178-81 (for the preliminary negotiations).
2 Z vi ii, 683-4. See below 375.
3 Naf, Vadian 11, 316-17; Miiller, 205-6; Spillmann, 2, 61; 3, 74; Strickler II, 667 (no. 1673 a, b).
4 'by gottlichem wort und irem cristenlichen ansechen beliben lassen'. ZWA xm (1969), 30;
Miiller, 183.
ZWINGLI by Berne to arrange a compromise failed. Lucerne was not prepared to rule, through its representative, over heretical communities; Zurich was determined not to accept a return of the abbot. Frei, in fact, remained in charge. Neither side was prepared for anything like 'parity' or 'recognition'; each hoped to swing the whole Confederation to its viewpoint.
Lucerne could appeal to the Stanser Verkommnis of 1481 which guaranteed complete independence and equality to each state. The Zwinglians now argued that this was no longer applicable since freedom and power, if misused, could be properly abrogated. A Catholic administration would reimpose Catholicism on the St Gall tenants, and this Zurich could not allow. Contra iniustitiam non est ius. The city of St Gall had no option but to support its Zurich ally when in 1530 conflict became unavoidable. It therefore reluctantly joined with Zurich in bringing the pressure of economic blockade to bear on the Inner States. At the same time, because of fear of a Catholic attack from the north east, it constantly urged peace and negotiation. When the Inner States declared war on Zurich in 1531,
St Gall was prepared to support the latter, knowing that a Catholic victory would be a gain for the monastery. This was in fact what happened.
The help that Zurich received from St Gall, itself threatened by Marx Sittich of Hohenems, was indeed negligible. Thus, while the St Gall situation was partly responsible for the second Kappel war, the outcome of this was a serious setback to the city. Blarer was recognised as abbot, the monastic estates became Catholic again, mass was said in the abbey church, and the Zurich-given constitution was forgotten. Inside the city,
Vadian with difficulty saved what had been gained, and the two St Galls, the Protestant free imperial city and the Catholic abbey at its gates, went their separate ways until the French Revolution.