DUTOIT: A Family from Moudon, Switzerland
Johannes GACHET (ID #I7491)
(male)
- TITLES/'DIT' NAMES/OCCUPATIONS: notary
- BIRTH: BEF 1350
- DEATH: BEF 1425
Father: Perrodus GACHET (b. bef 1320)
Family 1
:
Perrussona _____ (d. bef 1425)
- +Petrus GACHET (b. BEF 1371, d. BEF 1450)
- Francesia GACHET (d. aft 1425)
- Vuilliermus GACHET (d. bef 1425)
The most ancient of the Gachet family in the vicinity of Payerne that we have been able to connect with complete certainty to the later generations there. Very little is known about his father, Perrodus. Johannes was the brother of a Nicoletus Gachet whose son was Roletus, subject in 1450 of a complicated dispute over inherited property at Villars-en-Vully (known today as Villars-le-Grand). He cannot be the same Jean Gachet of Villars-en-Vully who witnessed a document dated 30 dec 1431 (AEF Vallon 3, regarding a bequest of Jaquetus Cosander alias de Sales), since the present Johannes or Johannodus was already deceased when his son Petrus made a "reconnaissance" on 04 dec 1425 (ACV Fl 392, fol. 159) and another on 14 may 1425 (AEF Grosses Estavayer 121, fol. 131).
It is worth noting that the notarial records, so far as we have been able to discover, do not qualify the early generations of this family as "Noble." It is only when we reach the 16th Century that we find that designation, and then only for the descendants of Pierre Gachet and Jaquaz du Truict. In fact, the earliest document found so far that calls any of the family "Noble" is a marriage contract dated 07 dec 1561 for Blaise Chalon and Janne Goudard, at which "Nobles Chrestien Chalon, Jehanamey et Jehan Gachet freres" are listed among the witnesses (Benoit Nible, notary, ACV Dp 73/2, fol. 116). Prior to that date, and sometimes after it, the children of Pierre Gachet and Jaquaz de Torculari or du Truict bear no special title, apart from designations of the various offices they held in the city government. After this document of 1561, also, all of the sons of Pierre Gachet are labeled as "Noble", more or less consistently. How exactly did this designation come into use? It was not the case that the nobility of the wives of the seven brothers rubbed off on them, because only a few of those wives came from recognized noble families. Nor did all of the brothers hold important positions or perform notable exploits. However, if there was some particular event or official decision that caused this family to be called "Noble", we have found no mention of it.
This observation leads us to question the story of the origins of the family advanced by Marcel Henchoz and Arnold Gachet (a descendant of the apparently unrelated family at Bioley-Orjulaz), who are named as authorities on the family in an issue of the Saaner Jahrbuch that discussed the literary and artistic output of Niklaus Gatschet (Ulrich Christian Haldi, Saaner Jahrbuch, 5:145-168, 1973).
The section that concerns us is framed as a question posed by Haldi, and answered by Henchoz and Gachet:
"Question: Quelles sont les origines de la famille de Nicolas Gachet, aquarelliste de qualité, dont les oeuvres sont malheuresement trop peu connues?
"Réponse: La famille noble Gachet ou Gatschet est originaire de Savoie, ce qui peut être prouvé diplomatiquement par d'anciens documents, tels que donations, fondations religieuses, contrats de mariage, où des nobles de cette famille de chevaliers et d'écclésiastiques honorés de charges à la Cour de leur maîtres, les anciens comtes et ducs de Savoie, paraissent dès le milieu du 12me siècle avec d'autres nobles personnages de ces temps comme témoins dans des actes publics de leurs anciens seigneurs et dans nombre d'autres de la noblesse de Savoie et du Pays de Vaud.
"Humbert Gachet, chevalier, vivait vers le milieu du 14me siècle et descendait sans aucun doute (la légalité du nom et des armoiries en sont des preuves incontestables) de Jean Gachet surnommé de Mont St-Jean, fondateur de la chapelle de St-Maurice à Chambéry en l'an 1136 et de Raoul Gachet, chevalier, qui se croisa en 1147 avec nombre de nobles et Savoie et du Pays de Vaud, pour accompagner son maître Humbert 1er, Comte de Savoie, à la Guerre Sainte.
"Humbert vivait dans sa maison ou château, situé au-dessus de Coppet dans le Pays de Vaud, qui était alors un fief noble relevant des Ducs de Savoie. Il porte encore aujourd'hui le nom de Gachet, quoique changé en simple rural. Outre cela, Humbert possédait plusieurs autres fiefs et terres nobles proches de Payerne, relevant des mêmes ducs de Savoie et comtes de Vaud, comme aussi de Monsieur l'Evêque de Lausanne, tels que Trey, Donneloye et Froideville. Son fils, aussi nommé Humbert, se domicilia à Payerne en 1389 et se maria avec Jeanne de Combremont. A l'occasion de ce mariage, Humbert reçut de son père pour dot la Terre de Trey et devint son héritier universel après sa mort survenue en 1396.
"Les descendants d'Humbert continuèrent à demeurer à Payerne et contractèrent des alliances avec la meilleure noblesse des environs. Ces alliances et la chapelle avec la tombe de famille dans l'église paroissiale de Payerne prouvent l'ancienneté de leur noblesse."
Unfortunately, we have not encountered a single mention of the nobility of the family before the 16th Century in the documents of the notaries or in the terriers, nor any mention of these "noble fiefs" that they should have held. If the ancient knights bore the same arms as Gachet of Payerne, that would be strong evidence for descent, but this is not what we find in Donald Galbreath's Armorial Vaudois, which may be the source of some of the information quoted above.
In fact, it seems that Henchoz and Gachet, or someone else they consulted, may have misread Galbreath, who says this about the Gachet of Payerne: "Famille bourgeoise de Payerne, citée en 1389 en la personne de Humbert Gachet, donzel. Jean-Amédée, avoyer de Payerne 1563-1573, possédait le fief de Bellevaux (Neuchâtel) et d'autres fiefs à Froideville près Payerne, Trey et Donneloye." Galbreath does not say that these are noble fiefs, nor that they were owned by the family prior to the time of Jean-Amey Gachet (ignoring for the moment that it was not Jean-Amey, but his brother Jean Gachet, who acquired the fief of Bellevaux by his marriage to Denise Regnaud), and in fact, it is our reading that some of these properties were not particuarly large or significant, and that others came into the family as a result of marriages in the 16th Century. We might know more if the partage among Jean-Amey and his six brothers (1560) could be found — we have only an outline of the agreement, recorded by Abraham Chuard, notary at Payerne. The citation of Humbert Gachet as "donzel" in 1389 is the sole indication of nobility prior to the 16th Century that has come to our attention, and we have so far not discovered the source. The date of foundation of the private chapel in the parish church has likewise not been discovered, but we learned that the same chapel (being at that moment vacant, since the family had died out in Payerne) became in 1818 the home for the modern funerary monument to Queen Berthe, whose famous but counterfiet donation was supposed to have established the adjacent abbey. The bones installed there with great ceremony have since been determined not to be those of Queen Berthe, a double indignity for the posterity of the Gachet family.
The argument for descent from knights of the Crusades thus depends on the identity of the arms for a family of the same surname. It has not been established that the Gachet of Payerne or any of the others from neighboring regions actually descend from the Gachet of Coppet, nor that the Humbert who is supposed to have resided there actually descends from the Crusaders or was in any way connected with the Crusades. Stories such as these have been advanced for a number of families, but these stories have sometimes proved far less certain than they seemed.
Nevertheless, the manuscript armorial of Niklaus Gatschet (1736-1817) bears a striking illustration of a knight whose shield bears the Gachet arms. Did Niklaus believe this to be the origin of his own family? Apparently he did. The passages attributed to Marcel Henchoz and Arnold Gachet (op. cit.) indicate that Niklaus held this opinion, and that he had investigated the matter on the ground, in churches that are today destroyed or transformed, and collected citations of ancient documents. Henchoz and Gachet also reported that the most ancient document they could locate that placed the Gachet family at Payerne was among the parchments of the Priory of Payerne at the Archives Cantonales Vaudoises (this should be somewhere in the series ACV C VII b), dated 08 may 1368 or 1378, concerning a sale by Olivier Gachet, donzel, son of Pierre Gachet, donzel and bourgeois de Payerne. Now that the catalogue of the ACV is on the internet, can this document be identified? After studying the "copy registers" for the district of Payerne (ACV Aa 12, especially volumes 1 and 2), we realized that this may simply be a misreading for Oliverius Galcherii domicellus filius quondam Perrodi Galcherii — prominent landowners, but from a completely different family. The document in the inventory of the parchments of the Priory of Payerne that comes closest to matching the date appears to be C VII b 362, dated 08 may 1364 according ot the inventory (and evidently with considerable uncertainty regarding the year, because it appears out of order in the chronological sequence, between two documents from 1368), but the document itself is so faded that it is nearly impossible to make out even two words in succession. The date, in particular, is virtually invisible, to the extent that we cannot confirm any part of it. The back of the parchment bears an old notation in Latin indicating it is a reconnaissance pertaining to the late Humbertus Rappinat. The names at the beginning are Oliverius Galcherii domicellus filius Peri (presumably an abbreviation for Perreti or Perrodi) Galcherii domicelli. Based on the information in the inventory (suggesting that the date was once believed to be 1368) and the fact that the first line of the document does indeed mention names very similar to those quoted by Henchoz and Gachet, it would be a very striking coincidence if this were not the document that these authors intended. Hence, the evidence for the nobility of the Gachet family in the 14th Century seems extremely doubtful. If someone were looking for the name in the old documents, it would be very easy to mistake Galcherii for Gascheti. especially when the ink has faded so badly that only a ghostly shadow of the original is now visible. The text of C VII b 362 was independently summarized in the old inventories of the "Nouveaux Titres" of the ACV. These inventories have recently been added to DAVEL, the on-line catalogue of the ACV: "C XXII NF02521 C VII b 362 Cote ancienne: Nouveaux Titres: 2722 Intitulé: 13.. mai 8. (Peut-être 1368 ou 1378. Date effacée). - Vente en franc-alleu, au prix de 20 livres, de 20 sols 4 deniers de cens annuel dus pour divers fonds sis au territoire de Payerne, faite en faveur du prieuré de ce lieu pour Olivier Gachet (Gascheti), donzel, fils de Pierre Gachet, donzel, bourgeois de Payerne." However, the family name, to our eyes, is clearly Galcherii, and the reading Gascheti recorded by some early archivist (and that was probably the source of the information reported by Henchoz and Gachet) seems to support our conclusion that this was the source of the assertion that the Gachet of Payerne were a noble family. There are many very clear references to this Oliverius Galcherii domicellus; for example, in Fm 3, a terrier for rents held by the parish church at Corcelles-près-Payerne, quoting or paraphrasing transactions involving this Oliverius in the 1370's.
The remaining citation to this effect, the document of 1389 mentioned by Galbreath, remains a tantalizing mystery. However, we consider it very likely that these citations, supposed to prove the nobility of the family, have resulted from misreadings of Galcherii and so forth. It is almost inconceivable that a noble family would not be consistently identified as such in the vast series of documents that survive and that we have examined in detail for the districts of Payerne and Avenches (the latter including Villars-en-Vully and the surrounding area, where the Gachet family of Payerne still held property adjacent to and sometimes in common with the descendants of Nycodus Gachet as late as the 16th Century). In particular, the reference to Humbert Gachet and his wife Jeanne de Combremont near the end of the 14th Century might lead us to the source of this account, through the documents concerning the history of the seigneurie of the two Combremonts (Grand and Petite) and commune of Trey. If we cannot locate Humbert as a Gachet or as a Galcherii in the inventories of the old documents, perhaps we can find him as the husband of one of the Combremonts.
Citations such as a document recorded on 10 apr 1432 by Nicod Mareschet, notary working in Vully (ACV DP 64/1, fol. 3), suggest that the present Johannes was a notary. The document refers to another transaction manu quondam Johannes Gacheti recepto (i.e., recorded by the late Johannes Gachet).
Emile Ritter states that a Hans Gatzchet of Willar owned vines at Le Landeron about 1408. This might be the same person, but see our discussion of Johannes Gachet son of Roletus, some of whose descendants also settled at Le Landeron. It seems likely that the family had holdings there over a very long period.
André Bardet, a native of the place, has published a volume entitled Villars en Vully, mon village: Six siècles de l'histoire d'une petite communauté rurale racontés par ses archives (Commune de Villars-le-Grand, 1983). He reports citations of a Pierre Gachet (1410), Rolet Gachet (1441), Aimon Gachet (1505), and that the Gachet family is mentioned as late as 1636. He does not appear to have investigated the records of the notaries or other records at the Archives Cantonales Vaudoises.
The origins of the family were also the subject of notes from the "von Mülinen genealogies", presently at the Burgerbibliothek in Bern (Gatschet Mss.Mül. 642.1, Gatschet N° 26, this collection attributed to Niklaus Friedrich von Muelinen, 1760-1833, with occasional supplements by Egbert Friedrich von Muelinen, 1817-1887, Eberhard von Muelinen, 1861-1924, and Prof. Wolfgang Friedrich von Muelinen, 1863-1917), of which we give a partial transcript by Therese Metzger:
"Ein altes zum Teil adeliges Geschlecht, welches im Jahr 1400 das Burgerrecht zu Avenches genoss, auch ansehnliche Besitzungen im benachbarten Wisselach [variant of the German name for Vully, Wistenlach], besonders zu Villar und Konstantier hatte. Von diesem Geschlecht hat sich ein Stamm nach Payerne begeben, daselbst eine Kappelle gestiftet, ist aber dort im 18. Jh ausgestorben, nachdem es [das Geschlecht] mehrere Jahrhunderte die ersten Magistraturen dieser Stadt bekleidete.
"Eine Linie dieses Stamms begab sich aber bald nach der Einnahme der Waadt durch die Berner, nach Bern und hat im Laufe drithalber Jahrhunderte diesem Freistaat viele verdiente Magistrat... gegeben.
"Diese Familie hat auch ihren Roman. Sie soll aus Savoyen ursprünglich sein, nachher zu Gachet bei Nyon ein festes Schloss ihres Namens erbaut haben, woselbst noch ein Dörfchen diesen Namen trägt.
"Gewiss ist, dass zu Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts und am Anfang des folgenden Jh. eine Familie Gachet bei Nyon lebte, freier Geburt, aber der Abtei Bonmont mit Dienst und Lehens Pflicht zugethan war.
"Ob aber die Gachet zu Avenches von diesen abstammten, wird schwerlich zu erweisen sein, ist aber gut möglich.
"Von der in Wisselach gebliebenen Linie hat sich eine Nebenlinie nach Ins begeben. Von dieser hat ... ein Arzt das Bürgerrecht zu Erlach erworben und ist daselbst 179? Schultheiss geworden.
"Es hat genügend Urkunden, die Stammlinie der Edlen Gachet zu Bern höher hinauf als Peter, den Vater des General Commissairs Niklaus auf eine gewisse weise hinaufzuführen, es sei dann das dieser Peter eben der Peter ist der 1464 Güter zu Villar, besass, in welchem Falle Niklaus der 1416 lebte, der erste urkundlich gewisse Stammvater des Geschlechts ist. "
Von Mülinen (this would have to be Niklaus Friedrich, 1760-1833) also reports seeing a family tree painted by the Landvogt Niklaus Gatschet, and Niklaus also showed him a paper from the Avoyer de Payerne attesting in 1557 to the parentage of Niklaus Gatschet, resident of Bern. This is probably the most authoritative account of the research of the Landvogt that we are likely to get, unless his papers, last known in the possession of Adèle Peyron-Gatschet, eventually come to light. The family tree or "Stammbaum" has, in fact, been located, in private hands. The line of descent given in the von Mülinen dossier, starting from a Humbert Gachet of Payerne, is as follows:
- Humbert 1336
- Humbert d 1468 m Johanna von Combremont, Anton's zu Comberemont and also Johanna v. Francigny. [Presumably the name should be Faucigny, and it is clear that there are many generations missing]
- Niklaus d 1468 m Anna von Villarzel, daughter of Humbert and Agnes Montservant.
- Johann m Deonisca Reynand [this generation obviously misplaced, "Deonisca Reynand" is Denise Regnauld, and Johann is the second son of Pierre Gachet and Jaquaz Dutruict!]
- Peter m Jacobea Torculari
- Niklaus G. Commissair von Luternau
Unless von Mülinen was too rushed to take complete and accurate notes, it would appear the Landvogt had missed the parentage of Pierre Gachet. We might wonder, too, that Humbert and his son Niklaus both died in 1468. Besides, it appears that this is not the correct parentage for the Niklaus who died in 1468. In spite of these problems, we think von Mülinen may be correct in making Gachet who are mentioned at Vully the precursors of the family at Payerne. This is certainly consistent with what we have found so far in the records of the notaries.
One piece of documentary evidence may be a fragment of the history of the Gachet family supposed originally to have lived at Coppet. A donation by Hugo Gachet of Orbe to the convent of Romainmôtier, the Thursday before the feast of St. Laurence 1287 (ACV, Registre-copies, Romainmôtier, Supplément, Tome I no. 5), reads as follows: "Ego Hugo dictus Gachet de Orba miles... Consideratis beneficiis que mihi fecerunt et impedunt prior et conventus Romani Monasterii concedo laude Nycholai filii mei eisdem, donatione inter vivos imperpetuum valitura, et pro remedio anime mee, quatuordecim cupas frumenti annui redditus, videlicet decem cupas super decimam de Hyens (=dîme d'Yens) et quatuor super decimam de Montagnie versus Yverdunum (=dîme de Montagny-le-Corbe)... In cujus rei testimonium, sigillum curie Lausann. apponi rogavimus et fecimus. Die Jovis ante festum beati Laurencii anno domini MCCLXXXVII." It is still a long way from this Hugo and his son Nicolas at Orbe in 1287 to the Gachet family at Villars-le-Grand and Payerne a century or more later.
The somewhat mythical Humbert Gachet has also been claimed as the ancestor of the Gachet family of Gruyère (J.-H. Thorin, Notice historique sur Gruyère, Fribourg: 1881, p. 197, citing "un arbre généalogique que nous avons sous les yeux", and noting also that, according to the chronicler Comba, "la famille Gachet [of Gruyère] possèdaient le patronage de la chapelle de Saint-Denis de la Tour, droit qui lui fut disputé en 1634 par la paroisse dudit lieu et maintenu par décision supérieure" — perhaps a clue that would lead to some earlier information about the family at Gruyère).
__
|
__|
| |
| |__
|
_Perrodus GACHET ____|
| (1320 - ....) |
| | __
| | |
| |__|
| |
| |__
|
|
|--Johannes GACHET
| (1350 - 1425)
| __
| |
| __|
| | |
| | |__
| |
|_____________________|
|
| __
| |
|__|
|
|__
Return to Index
Johannes GACHET (ID #I26195)
(male)
- BIRTH: bef 1420
- DEATH: bef 1447
Father: Roletus GACHET (b. BEF 1391, d. abt 13 MAY 1447)
Mother: Katherina _____ (dates unknown)
Family 1
:
Anthonia _____ (d. aft 1447)
- +Bartholomeus GACHET (d. aft 1494)
Roletus Gachet had two sons named Johannes, as noted in the terrier FL 395 (20 may 1458). This is the one who had died before 1458, leaving a son Bartholomeus, apparently acting as an adult, but most frequently named with his uncles Johannes, Bartholomeus, and Petrus in that terrier. (At the top of folio 15, in the terrier FL 395, we read: Johannes, Bartholomeus, et Petrus Gacheti fratres filii quondam Roleti Gacheti de Villar en Vuilliez tam suis propriis nominibus quam etiam Bartholomei filii quondam Johannis filius quondam prenomminati Roleti Gacheti. Thus, one of the sons Johannes is still living, and the other has died, leaving a son Bartholomeus. This circumstance, more than one son or daughter having the same name, is encountered frequently enough right up to the end of the 16th Century to be a major source of confusion in many genealogies.)
The collection of genealogies of the old families of Fribourg by Hubert de Vevey includes a genealogy of the de Delley family. This includes the following citation: from AEF Grosse de St.-Aubin 22, fol. 146v, dated 29 nov 1517, involves a "reconnaissance" by Perrissone Cuanillon, daughter of Otthonin, of Vallamand, and wife of Claude de Delley, for various properties at Vallamand subject to the heirs of the late Johannes and Bartholomeus Gachet of Villars-en-Vully, sons of Roletus. This citation suggested that we should examine the old terriers for St.-Aubin, especially those involving Vallamand, both at the AEF and the ACV. In fact, the Grosse de St. Aubin 22 turns out to be a terrier for property subject to the heirs of Johannes and Bartholomeus, sons of the late Roletus Gachet, in 1516. It is evident that the brother Petrus died no later than 1486 and left no heirs.
A reconnaissance in the terrier ACV FL 394 (14 may 1448, fol. 352v) concerns Johannes Gaschet antenatus, son of the late Roletus, for property that this Johannes had purchased from Franciscus Clerc of Constantine on 02 jun 1445. This reconnaissance establishes that Roletus had died prior to 14 may 1448, and that the elder Johannes had reached the age of majority prior to 1445, and was thus born before 1420.
The terrier FL 81 is even clearer. It contains a reconnaissance for Anthonia, widow of the late Johannes son of the late Roletus Gachet, on behalf of her son Bartholomeus Gachet (thus still under the age of majority), dated 20 jun 1447 (fol. 551). This reconnaissance is immediately followed (fol. 552v, also dated 20 jun 1447) by a reconnaissance for Johannes and Bartholomeus, sons of the late Roletus Gachet, proving that Roletus had two sons named Johannes, and that there were two men called Bartholomeus Gachet, uncle and nephew. However, the dates involved tell us that the Johannes who survived to 1448 was Johannes the elder, not, as we first assumed, Johannes the younger.
_Perrodus GACHET ____
| (1320 - ....)
_Nicoletus GACHET ___|
| (1371 - 1416) |
| |_____________________
|
_Roletus GACHET _____|
| (1391 - 1447) |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_Marguereta _____ ___|
| |
| |_____________________
|
|
|--Johannes GACHET
| (1420 - 1447)
| _____________________
| |
| _____________________|
| | |
| | |_____________________
| |
|_Katherina _____ ____|
|
| _____________________
| |
|_____________________|
|
|_____________________
Return to Index
Johannes GACHET (ID #I25401)
(male)
- TITLES/'DIT' NAMES/OCCUPATIONS: settled at Le Landeron, Neuchâtel
- DEATH: aft 1485
Father: Bartholomeus GACHET (d. aft 1494)
Family 1
:
- Francesia GACHET (d. bef 1526)
The terriers give conflicting parentage for the Johannes Gachet who settled at Le Landeron. In a long reconnaissance by the heirs of Bartholomeus Gachet, he is said to be a son of Bartholomeus (ACV Fl 460, fol. 23, 1526). However, in the next reconnaissance (fol. 44), made by his children Johannes and Johanneta Gachet, he is said to be instead the son of Johannes son of Roletus Gachet. In spite of the change in parentage, the property in which Johannes and Johanneta have a 1/8 interest, by legitimate paternal succession, was previously recognized by Bartholomeus Gachet (though perhaps that really means by Bartholomeus acting for himself and his brother Johannes, both sons of Roletus).
When more of the terriers have been examined, it may be possible to supply enough dates to decide which parentage is the correct one.
This is probably the Johannes Gachet of Le Landeron who appears with Bartholomeus Gachet (apparently not from Le Landeron?) among the "censiers" of property of the commune of Villars-les-Friques subject to Noble Anthonius de Anglisi in a reconnaissance dated 04 dec 1484, and approved by these two on 21 aug 1485 (AEF Grosses St. Aubin 23, fol. 85v). If this conclusion is correct, then which Bartholomeus is this? Probably the elder Bartholomeus, son of Roletus, on the grounds that father (the younger Bartholomeus) and son (the present Johannes) would not normally both be mentioned as separate "censiers" for the same property, since that obligation was normally passed to the next generation by inheritance, and also because such a relationship would almost certainly have been stated. Rather, the present Johannes and the elder Bartholomeus were the legal representatives of the original holder of the obligation, likely Roletus himself, and the property must have been held jointly after the death of Roletus by the first Johannes or his heirs, and by Bartholomeus, son of Roletus.
_Roletus GACHET _____+
| (1391 - 1447)
_Johannes GACHET ____|
| (1420 - 1447) |
| |_Katherina _____ ____
|
_Bartholomeus GACHET _|
| (.... - 1494) |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_Anthonia _____ _____|
| (.... - 1447) |
| |_____________________
|
|
|--Johannes GACHET
| (.... - 1485)
| _____________________
| |
| _____________________|
| | |
| | |_____________________
| |
|______________________|
|
| _____________________
| |
|_____________________|
|
|_____________________
Return to Index
Johannes GACHET (ID #I18202)
(male)
- TITLES/'DIT' NAMES/OCCUPATIONS: bourgeois de Grandcour as well as Villars-en-Vully
- DEATH: bef 1486
Father: Roletus GACHET (b. BEF 1391, d. abt 13 MAY 1447)
Mother: Katherina _____ (dates unknown)
Family 1
:
Antonia DE VILLAR (dates unknown)
- +Aymon GACHET (dates unknown)
- +Nycoletus GACHET (dates unknown)
- +Roletus GACHET (dates unknown)
- +Johannes GACHET (dates unknown)
He is mentioned in a series of transactions recorded by the notaries of Payerne regarding property at Villars-en-Vully in the first half of the 15th Century. He may be the same Johannes son of Roletus Gachet who is cited as a deceased citizen of Grandcour in the terrier ACV Fl 460 (1526, see fols. 24v and 44, where Stephanus Mathey of Grandcour is the husband of Johannete, daughter of Johannes Gachet bourgeois de Grandcour who was a son of Rolet Gachet of Villars-en-Vully). While it is certainly possible that other members of the Gachet family preceded him in Grandcour, this terrier seems to prove that the Gachet of Grandcour originated in Villars, as did the Gachet of Payerne.
Not only does the terrier Fl 460 list a number of relationships within the Gachet family of Villars, it also notes another branch: On fol. 26v, we find a Francesia Gachet daughter of the late Johannes Gachet of Le Landeron, son of the late Bartholomeus Gachet, son of the late Johannes Gachet, son of the late Rolet Gachet. (Other records, however, appear unanimous in making Bartholomeus the son of Rolet. At first, we supposed that Fl 460 had inserted an extra, erroneous generation at this point. However, the terrier Fl 395, dating from 1458, revealed that Roletus had two sons named Johannes. One had died before 1458, leaving a son Bartholomeus; the other was still alive in 1458, holding property jointly with his brothers Petrus and Bartholomeus—thus there were two men named Bartholomeus Gachet, uncle and nephew. From the citations in Fl 460, we suppose that the younger Bartholomeus went to Le Landeron, and that the elder Bartholomeus, uncle of the younger Bartholomeus, is the one who remained at Villars.)
(The passage from Fl 460, fol. 26v, is as follows: ...et etiam tam nostris nominibus quam etiam devanterio nomine nobilis Margarete uxoris spectabilis militis Guilliermi de Tretorens de Cudriffino filieque honesti viri Girardi Ramuz de Landerono causam et titulum habentis a quondam Francesia filia quondam Johannis Gachet de Landerono filii quondam Bartholomei filii defuncti Johannis filii vita functi Roleti Gachet, videlicet medietatem ex hereditate testamentaria facta Anthonie uxori dicti Girardi Ramuz matri dicte nobilis Margarete, et aliam medietatum ex acquisito titulo excambii vel alias quomodolibet ab heredibus dicti quondam Johannis Gachet de Landerono facto... — Devanterius is an agent who collects the dîme, and likely, by extention, someone who has become its possessor by inheritance, succession, purchase, or any other transfer.)
By 1526, the holdings (of which Bartholomeus?) had been divided, exchanged, or sold, and so were "recognized" for the purposes of the terrier Fl 460 by several different groups of people.
Johannes (not the one who had died before 1458) son of Roletus Gachet made a reconnaissance for the terrier Fl 398, property belonging to the church of St. Veran of Bellerive, in 1471. The next terrier for the church of St. Veran, Fl 399, dating from 1486, shows apparently the same property in the hands of Bartholomeus Gachet following the deaths of his brothers Johannes and Petrus. We are thus alerted to the possibility that at least some property in this area was "recognized" by, or assessed to, only the eldest of the joint heirs, who were not mentioned in the text of the reconnaissance.
The terrier Fl 402 contains a reconnaissance (fol. 588) for Bartholomeus Gachet, 12 jan 1496, noting that the property in question had been purchased by Johannes and Bartholomeus Gachet, brothers, from Jaques de Romont 17 dec 1457 (Jaques de Savoie, Comte de Romont, who died in 1486, the transaction of 1457 having been recorded by the notary Aymonet Pictet of Payerne, whose registers seem not to have survived either in Vaud or in Fribourg).
The terrier AEF Grosse St. Aubin 22, dating from 1516, concerns property subject to the heirs of Johannes and Bartholomeus, sons of Roletus Gachet. The heirs of Bartholomeus have a half interest, and the remaining half is split among four parties who must be the descendants of this Johannes, but which one? The list does not mention anyone in Le Landeron, but it does mention the Gachet in Grandcour, Constantine, Villars, and "Agnes" (Agnens, also known as Asnens, a village formerly situated between Delley and St. Aubin, last mentioned in 1759). For the moment, we assume that it was the elder Johannes, son of Roletus, who left a son the younger Bartholomeus whose descendants went to Le Landeron, and that the younger Johannes, also son of Roletus, is the one whose descendants held property in common with the heirs of his brother the elder Bartholomeus. As for the elder Johannes, we suppose that he took his share of his father's estate early, while his brothers retained joint ownership of their shares for a much longer period. The elder Johannes may have been a son by a different mother, as is commonly found when more than one child has the same name.
The half of the property held jointly by the heirs of Johannes and Bartholomeus, sons of Roletus, that pertains to the descendants of Johannes, is split into four equal shares:
- Nycolleti filii quondam Aymonis filii quondam vita functi Johannis filii defunct Roleti Gachet de Villard en Vuilliez et fratrum suorum pro quarte parte alteris medietate dictorum bonorum;
- Honesti viri Glaudii filii Nycoleti Gachet morantis in Constantina pro una quarta parte alternis medietatis;
- Johannis filii quondam Roleti Gachet residens apud Agnens pro una alia quarta parte dicte medietatis;
- Johannis Gachet et Johannete eius sororis uxoris Stephani Mathey burgensis de Grandcord liberorum quondam Johannis Gachet de Grandcord pro reliqua quarta parte dicte ultime medietatis eorumdem bonorum.
In this division, the living descendants have four different fathers, each deceased. These four men are apparently all the sons of the Johannes son of Roletus who remained at Villars-en-Vully: Aymo, who remained at Villars; Nycoletus, who settled in Constantine; Roletus, who lived at Agnens; and Johannes, who went to Grandcour. Is this the correct interpretation? There are still some problems. For one, the siblings Johannes and Johanneta seem to be described in at least one place as children of a Johannes who was the son of Roletus, rather than a grandson of Roletus.
This is evidently the same Johannes Gachet who is mentioned, along with his brother Bartholomeus and others, in a document from the "Inventaire Blanc", a collection of titles and charters held by Their Excellencies of Bern and then repatriated to the new Canton of Vaud after the revolution of 1798. The document now known as ACV IB 1: 29 concerns a donation to the church. Anthonius de Adventhica, domicellus, recounts that his father the late Anthonius de Adventhica, reserving the right of repurchase, had sold certain assets to Johannes filius Roletus Gaschet de Villard en Vuillie on which Bartholomeus Gaschet, brother of the said Johannes, owed certain censes. These assets (or some of them) had formerly been held by Johannes Ancelles, and then by Margareta his daughter, wife of the said Bartholomeus. The sale in question was recorded 25 apr 1466 by Girardus Hugoneti, notary of Estavayer. Another sale to the late Anthonius de Adventhica is then recounted, to Dompnus Uldricus Perryn, acting for the venerable clergy of Avenches, recorded 11 may 1453 by Petrus Sapientis (=Sage). Also, Uldricus de Adventhica, grandfather of the younger Anthonius, made a donation to the clergy of Avenches dated 20 apr 1430, recorded or ratified by Petrus Octhonens, notary, and there were further donations by their wives. Now, 12 jan 1489, the youger Anthonius donates these assets to the clergy of Avenches. The full text follows:
Ego Anthonius de Adventhica domicellus filius quondam Nobilis viri Anthonii de Adventhica eiusdem loci, Notum facio universis presentibus et futuris harum memoriam optaturis quibus expedit, quod cum prefatus quondam Nobilis Anthonius de Adventhica dilectus pater meus scienter et sponte valide et efficanter vendiderit dimiserit et transtulerit perpetue et irrevocabiliter pro se et suis heredibus coheredibus et successoribus quibuscunque Johanni Gaschet filio quondam Roleti Gaschet de Villard en Vuillie tunc stipulanti pro se et suis heredibus coheredibus et successoribus quibuscunque census et redditus infrascriptos cum omni jure dominio directo et represia eorumdem quos sibi pro tempore debebat et solvere consueverat singulis annis in singulo festo Sancti Andree Apostoli secundum consuetudines Adventhice Bartholomeus Gaschet dicti loci de Villard frater dicti Johannis Gaschet emptoris ratione rerum et possessionum inferius limitatarum fondorum que et jurium suorum quorumconque quas res et possessiones pridem tenere solebat quondam Johannes Ancelles et successive Margareta eiusdem quondam Johannis filia quondam uxor dicti Bartholomei necnon vendiderit omnia et singula jura actionesque et rationes quascumque memorato quondam nobili Anthonio de Adventhica patri meo dilecto in et super rebus et possessionibus inferius limitatis pro quibus dicti census infrascripti debentur competentes quomodolibet vel suis predictis competituros (?), Et primo viginti quinque solidos lansann. bonorum census cum omni jure dominio directo secundum consuetudines Adventhice pro rebus inferius limitatis, Primo pro uno morsello prati continente circa tres seytoratas prati loco dicto eis Esterpy juxta pratum capelle beate Marie Virginis fondate in ecclesia parrochialis Adventhica a parte venti pratum Petri Blancho a parte boree et affrontat pascue publice a parte jorani. Item pro duabus posis terre sitis in territorio Adventhice loco dicto in Fontannynaz Chiezo juxta terram Petri Bastar a parte jorani terram Johannis Morier et Nicodi Cuanet clerici a parte auberrerie et affrontat carrerie publice a parte venti et terre Petri Vysyn a parte boree. Item pro duabus posis terre sitis in dicto territorio Adventhie loco dicto in Combes juxta terram Johannis Haubert a parte jorani terram Petri de Dompnopetro a parte auberrerie affrontat carrerie publice a parte venti. Item pro tribus posis terre sitis in dicto territorio loco dicto eis Pereys Jaquemoz juxta terram predicti Johannis Morier et Henrici Bonjour a parte jorani terram Nycodi ...arrilliat et plures confines a parte auberrerie et affrontat carrerie publice a parte boree. Item sex solidos et sex denarios Lausannenses bonorum et unum caponem census pro una posa terre sita in eodem territorio loco dicto in laz Rochetaz juxta carreriam publicam a parte jorani terram Perronete filie quondam Petri Foudrod a parte auberrerie affrontante carrerie publice a parte venti et terre Petri Sapientis clerici a parte boree. Item pro una posa terre site in eodem territorio loco dicto ou bas deis Combes juxta terram Dompni Girardi Mureti capellani a parte jorani terram Henrici Bonjor a parte auberrerie et affrontat terre Nycodi Bonjour notarii a parte venti et terre heredum quondam Petri de Dompnopetro de Dompnathecla a parte boree. Item pro uno morsello terre sito desoubs loz Groz Tierdoz in dicto territorio juxta terram Marmeti de Montet a parte venti terram Nycodi Moeynat a parte boree affrontante carrerie publice a parte jorani et terre dicti Bartholomei a parte auberrerie. Item pro una setorata prati sita loco dicto eis Fons de Meroles in fenagio Adventhice juxta pratum quondam Dompni Octhonis Masalleir a parte auberrerie pascuam publicam a parte jorani et affrontat pascuis publicis ville Adventhice a partibus venti et boree. Item quatuor solidos et sex denarios Lausannenses bonorum census pro uno morsello casalis sito ante villam Adventhice loco dicto in laz P...az juxta terram dicti Bartholomei a parte jorani casale Dompni Girardi Trinchent et Roleti Blam a parte auberrerie affrontat carrerie publice a parte boree et casali Johannis de Dompnopetro et Nycodi Perryn a parte venti. Item pro uno alio parvo casali sito subtus villam Adventhice loco dicto in laz Vy Destraz juxta casale Petri Guynchet a parte boree vigultum _____ relicte quondam Johannis Joly a parte venti et affrontat casali Johannis Mestraulx a parte jorani et carrerie publice a parte auberrerie, Vendiderit inquam pro vero precio triginta septem librarum Lausannensium bonorum per prefatum quondam nobilem Anthonium patrem meum inde realiter haberi confessatarum inde que prefatus Johannes Gaschet emptor sciens et spontaneus volens memorato quondam nobili Anthonio patri meo facere graciam specialem volverit et concesserit perpetue quod memoratus quondam nobilis Anthonius pater meus et sui heredes posse...t eis liceret census predictos unacum ombnibus et singulis ut prefertur venditis ab eodem Johanne Gaschet et suis predictis prepetue reddimere et rehabeere quociencunque et in omni parte anni pro et medianis (?) predictis triginta septem libras Lausanne bonorum missionibus que facture dicte vendicionis prefatus (?) preceptis sortem (?) non actenuentibus clausulis opportunis internementibus ut lacius premissa in reacheti super premissis confecti littera per Girardum Hugoneti clericum Staviaci sub data die vigesime quinte mensis aprillis anni domini millesimi quadrigentesimi sexagesimi sexti recepta et signata contineri videntur, vendiderit in super et ultra premissa prefatus quondam nobilis Anthonius de Adventhica pater meus dimiserit et transtulerit perpetue pro se et suis heredibus honorabili viro Dompno Uldrico Perryn capellano Adventhice procuratori et eo procuratorio nomine venerabilis cleri Adventhice tunc recipienti et stipulanti pro se et suis in dicto officio successoribus quibuscunque ad opus dicti cleri census sub scriptos cum omni jure et dominio eorumdem necnon quitquid juris dominium et tituli prefato quondam nobili Anthonio patri meo in et super rebus et possessionibus pro quibus deberi potest dictus census competebat et competere poterat vel debebat quomodolibet, Et primo undecim solidos et quatuor denarios Lausannenses bonorum census quos prefatus quondam nobilis Anthonius pater meus sibi deberi asserebat annuatim in singulo festo sancti Andree Apostoli per quondam Perrissonam relictam quondam Roleti de Dompnopetro clerici pro certis rebus et possessionibus quas tenebat. Item tres solidos Lausannenses bonorum census quos eidem quondam nobili Anthonio patri meo debere dicebantur Petrus et Anthonius de Dompnopetro fratres clerici Adventhice pro certis possessionibus quas tenebant. Item quatuor solidos Lausannenses bonorum census quos debebant et solvere consueverant pridem Petrus de Dompnopetro et Dompnus Vuilliermus de Dompnopetro fratres filii quondam Anthonii de Dompnopetro ratione certarum rerum et possessionum quas inde tenebant. Item viginti denarios Lausannenses bonorum census quos prefato quondam nobili Anthonio de Adventhica parti meo debebat et solvere consueverat temino predicto prefatus Petrus filius quondam Anthonii de Dompnopetro ratione certarum rerum et possessionum quas inde tenebat suorumque fondorum jurium quorumcunque vendiderit videlicet pro vero precio viginti librarum Lausannensium bonorum inde per prefatum quondam nobilem Anthonium de Adventhica patrem meum haberi confessatarum et hec vendiderit sub ea graciam (?) eo (?) quod prefatus Dompnus Uldricus Perryn capellanus procuratori nomine predicto de gracia speciali et seorsum concesserit et volverit quod prefatus quondam nobilis Anthonius pater meus et sui heredes possent et eius liceret census superius designatos cum premissis omnibus inde venditis ab eodem procuratore ipso nomine emptore et suis predictis redimere (?) et prepetue rehabere pro consimili precio viginti librarum Lausannensium bonorum juramentis et promissionibus opportunis internementibus prout premissa et plura alia in reacheti seu gracie reempcionis litteris pro et super premissis confectis per quondam Petrus Sapientis clericum sub data diei undecime mensis maii anni domini millesimi quadrigentesimi quinquagesimi tercii receptis constare dicuntur, Cum que autem ego prefatus Anthonius filius quondam nobilis Anthonii de Adventhica ex successione meorum predecessorum infra nominatorum tenerer et essem valide asstrictus (?) et efficatiter obligatus venerabili clero sacerdotali Adventhice seu eius legitimo procuratori singulis annis in singulo festo sancti Andree Apostoli in pecunie ac argenti summis quantitatibus inferius designatis eidem venerabili clero per predecessores meos infranominatos ut amplius infra deducetur pro suis anniversariis singulis annis per dictum clerum fiendis eidem venerabili clero donatis et perpetuo legatis, Et primo in vigniti solidis Lausannensibus census memorato venerabili clero sacerdotali legatis per quondam nobilem Uldricum de Adventhica avum meum primum pro anniversario suo et vigilus (sic) nomine lectionum et totidem prosalviorum (?) per dictum venerabilem clerum die sui anniversarii annuatim fiendi dicendis et cantandis qui viginti solidi annuales poterant reddimi perpetuo pro viginti libris Lausannensibus bonorum constante super premissis legati instrumento per prefatum quondam nobilem Uldricum de Adventhica facto et laudato per Petrum Octhonens (?) notarium sub data diei vigesime mensis aprillis anno domini millessimo quatercentesimo trigesimo recepto levato et signato. Item in septem solidis Lausannensibus bonorum annualis pensionis seu elemosie (?) eidem venerabili clero datis et legatis per quondam nobilem Johannem de Adventhica patrem dicti nobilis Uldrici avi mei paterni pro suo anniversario per dictum clerum fiendo qui septem solidi possunt reddimi per heredeo dicti quondam nobilis Johannis avam mei pro septem libris Lausannensibus bonorum prout sui debite informatus. Item in aliis viginti solidis Lausannensibus bonorum annualibus eidem venerabili clero perpetuo donatis et legatis per quondam nobilis Catherinam Champynaz relictam dicti quondam nobilis Uldrici aviam meam paternam pro suo anniversario per dictum clerum fiendo qui viginti solidi Lausannenses annualis perpetuo possunt reddimi pro viginti libris Lausannensibus bonorum semel prout de huiusmodi legato sui (?) et suus (?) legitime informatus litteris per quondam Petrum Sapientis notarium receptis et signatis datis die prima mensis aprillis anno domini millesimo quatercentesimo quinquagesimo tercio. Item et postremo in quinque solidis Lausannensibus bonorum pro quinta parte in qua successi viginti solidis Lausannensibus bonorum annualium eidem venerabili clero legatorum per quondam nobilem Annam de Chastonaye primam uxorem prefati quondam nobilis Anthonii de Adventhica patris mei pro suo anniversario singulis annis et perpetue fiendo cuius nobilis Anne de Chastonaye sum heres et teneobona pro quinta parte de cuius nobilis Anne legato sum debite informatus litteris per quondam dominum Girardum Mureti capellanum receptis datis die nona mensis _____ anno domini millesimo quatercentesimo quinquagesimo primo tenear que in super prefato venerabili clero in retentis seu arreragus omni et singulorum provenientium et annualium tributorum ut prefetur dicto venerabili clero legatorum pro _____ annis nuper de cursis et eorundem terminis ilec habeam ad presens unde quomodius dicto venerabili clero super premissis satisfacere pensiones que annuales predictas reddimere et ab illis nil (?) penitus liberare pro me et meis heredes quam per presentem venditionem possim (?), Hinc est, quod ego prefatus Anthonium de Adventhia filius prefati quondam nobilis Anthonii de Adventhica non vi non dolo non metu ductus non seductus non cohactus nec alio quonis doli mali ingenio seu fraudis circonventione incitatus vel persuasus (?) sed sciens prudens gracio et spontaneus de juribus meis super infrascriptis plenissime informatus et inbutus considerata equidem utilitate mea et heredum meorum in hoc plenius evidenter deliberatione et consillio mature prehabitis imperpetuum et irrevocabiliter pro me et meis heredibus coheredes successoribus causam que a me habentibus et in futurum habituris quibuscunque dedi do vendidi vendo tradidi trado dimisi dimitto concessi concedo reliqui relinquo transtuli penitus et per presentes transfero pure et libere ac per purum et francum allodium me que pro me et meis quibus supra dedisse vendidisse tradidisse dimisisse concessisse reliquisse perpetuo que et irrevocabiliter transtulisse prout melius tutius firmius et efficatius fieri potest presens transactio consillio et dicta nomine cuiuslibet sapientis et periti per presentes legitime confiteor honorabili viro dompno Girardo de Dompnopetro capellano Adventhice procuratori et procuratorio nomine venerabilis cleri sacerdotalis Adventhice presenti ementi et sollemniter stipulanti pro se et suis in dicto suo procuratore officio quibuscunque successoribus ac ad opus dicti cleri videlicet superius designatas litteras duas (?) reachetorum seu garancie (?) reemptionis litteras tam per prefatum Johannem Gaschet de Villard in Vuillie quam memoratum Dompnum Uldricum Perryn capellanum procuratorem et eo nomine dicti venerabilis cleri Adventhice memorata quondam nobili Anthonio patri meo de censibus et premissis omnibus eisdem Johanni Gaschet et Dompno Uldrico procuratorio predicto nomine ut suprascribitur (?) venditis factas pro ut supra narratum est se laudatas sanas et integras cum totis suis tenoribus et effectibus necnon omnes et singulos census in pretactis duabus reachetis contentos et superius designatos cum omni jure dominio directo et represia eorundem ac quicquid juris dominii actionis et rationis michi dicto Anthonio venditore in censibus predesignatis ut prefertur in duabus partibus per prefatum quondam nobilem Anthonium patrum meum sub graciam seu graciis reemptionem venditis rebus que et possessionibus pro quibus debentur dicti census competit quomodolibet et competere poterit in futurum. Item vendidi et transtuli vendo que et transfero prepetue per presentes, ego prefatus Anthonius venditor prefato domino Girardo procuratorio quo supra nomine et ad opus predictum census et redditus infrascriptos cum omni jure dominio directo et represia eorundem, quos michi dicto venditori debent et solvere consueverunt singulis annis in singulo festo Sancti Andree Apostoli persone subscripte ratione rerum et possessionum inferius limitatarum quas inde a me tenet necnon ipsas res et possessiones et quitquid juris actionis rationis et dominium michi in eisdem competit, Et primo septem solidos Lausannenses bonorum census quos michi dicto venditori debent et solvere consueverunt singulis annis in singulo festo Sancti Andree Apostoli Guilliermus et Octho Tacholla filii quondam Petri Tacholla et Johannes filius quondam Nycodi Tacholla ratione unius bone pose terre site in territorio Adventhice loco dicto eis Couches dou Saudier (?) juxta les contors camporum a parte auberrerie terras Anthonii Uldrigon et Girardi Montet a parte jorani affrontantis terre Petri et Girardi Gignilliat fratrum a parte venti terre Glaudii Cuanet a parte boree. Item quinque solidos Lausannenses bonorum quos michi debent predicti Guilliermus Octho et Johannes Tacholla pro duabus posis terre sitis in dominio et territorio predicti loco dicto in Rueyryz juxta terram dictorum Guilliermi Octhonis et Johannis a parte jorani terram Anthonii Bocterel a parte auberrerie affrontante supra les contors a partibus venti et boree. Item octo solidos Lausannenses bonorum census quos michi debet de solvere consuevit singulis annis termino predicto Nycodus Pontoux de Adventhica ratione unius pose terre site in territorio et loco predictis juxta terram Johannis Blanchod a parte auberrerie terram Anthonii et Girardi Rosset a parte jorani affrontat terre dicti Johannis Blanchod a parti venti et carrerie publice a parte boree ratione que fondorum jurium et pertinenciarum suarum quarumcunque facta est vero presens transactio et omni premissorum expeditio perpetua primo in reempcionem nomine que reemptionis animalium pecunie summarum et premissum est per me pridem dicto clero annuatum (?) debitarum per predecessores meos superius nominatos ut premissum est pro suis anniversariis suarum que animarum remediis dicto venerabili clero perpetue donatarum et legatarum hodie media huiusmodi transactione per me a dicto domino procuratore dicto que clero venerabili reemptarum et michi perpetue pro me et meis predictis ratione premissorum remissarum et quittatarum ac que insolutum et pro complemento solutionis omni et singuolorum arreragiorum et retentarum predictorum annualium provenientium (?) et legatorum pre me dictum venditorem prefato venerabili clero et suis quibuscunque procuratoribus debitarum pro toto tempore datam presentum precedente de quibus eciam retentis ego dictus venditor et mei heredes perpetuo manutenere debemus quitti et absoluti necnon pro precio viginti sex librarum Lausannensium bonarum per me dictum Anthonium venditorem a memorato domino procuratore ipso nomine emptore ultra premissa habitarum realiter et integre receptarum in bona pecunia legitime numerata in utilitatem nostram implicita et penitus conversa pro residuo justi precii huiusmodi perpetue venditionis. Devestiens me propterea ego prefatus Anthonius de Adventhica venditor pro me et meis quibus supra de premissis omnibus et singulis ut promissum est per me venditis et translatis memoratum dominum Girardum de Dompnopetro emptorem procuratorio nomine predicto stipulatione sollemni internemente et acceptatione subsecuta pro se et suis quibus supra ac ad opus preductum corporaliter (?) civiliter et perpetue investiendo de eisdem per presentis instrumenti traditionem nichil juris actionis rationis reclamationis proprietatis partis divi possessionem (?) vel quasi in eisdem premissis venditis de cetero retinendo, sed in ipsum emptorem pro se et suis quibus supra ac ad opus predictum totaliter transferendo dominio (?) et intencione ipsum emptorem quo supra ... nomine (?) pro se et suis quibus supra in realem actualem undam pacifficam et vacuam possessionem premissorum omni venditorum ponendi et inducendi mandans itaque ego prefatus Anthonius de Adventhica venditor pro me et meis quibus supra prefato Johanni et Bartholomeo Gaschet et suis heredibus necnon universis censeris (?) meis prenominatis ac aliis personis quibuscunque quas presens tangit aut in futurum tangere poterit negocium quibus eciam mando et precipio per presentes quod ipsi et ipsorum quibus quoad ipsum tangit presens negocium omnes et singulos census et redditus superius expressos per prefatum quondam nobilem Anthonium patrem meum sub gracia reemptionis sibi largita venditos memorato domino procuratori emptori et suis successoribus antedictis ad opus predictum mediante restitutione suorum jurium relaxent expediant premissa que omnia et singula per me vendita respondeant solvant redicant recognoscant ac in et super eisdem venditis quibuscunque premissi obediant et intendant prout michi et meis heredibus fecissent facere que et fecisse debuissent vel deberent si presentem transactionem non laudassem nullo alio a me vel meis predictis super premissis expectato vel expectando mandato, promittens in super ego prefatus Anthonius de Adventhica venditor pro me et meis quibus supra juramento meo ad sancta dei evvangelia corporaliter prestito et sub expressa obligatione omni et singulorum bonorum meorum mobilium et immobilium presencium et futurorum quorumcunque premissa omnia et singula per me ut premissum est vendita prefato domino procuratori emptori et suis quibus supra ad opus predictum perpetue manutenere defendere guerentire et debrigare pure et libere paciffice et quiete ab omnibus et contra omnes ac in omni parte litis molestationis et controversie facere que et prestare omne sed et quitquid in casu evictionis fiere debet et prestari meis et meorum quorum supra propriis missionibus et expensis sine fiunt (?) per dictum dominum procuratorem emptorem vel suos quos supra huiusmodi guerencie ferende expresse renunciatum aut in futurum contingat renunciare necnon teneor et premicto juramento et obligatione meis prefixis omnes et singulos census per me ut prefertur venditos dicto venerabili clero facere valere singulis annis perpetue et in quolibet festo Sancti Andree Apostoli omni remota exceptione, Nos vero prefati Guilliermus Tacholla meo et Octhonis fratris mei nominibus eciam tanquam natu major dicti Octhonis fratris mei Johannes Tacholla filius quondam Nycodi Tacholla et Nycodus Pontoux de Adventhica censerii predicti scientes et spontanei de juribus nostris ad plenum certificate premissa omnia confitemur esse vera redicimus que et respondimus prefato domino procuratori presenti pro se et suis predictis tenore que presentium respondemus census pre nos prout supra scriptum est debitos per prefatum nobilem Anthonium venditos cum omni jure dominio directo et represia eorundem secundum consuetudines Adventhice pro censeriis et possessionibus nostris prelimitatis quas inde nos tenere confitemur per presentes et promittimus nos dicti censerii pro nobis et nostris heredibus juramentis nostris ad sancta dei evvangeliis presentis et sub expressa obligatione censeriarum nostarum prelimitatarum fondorum que et jurium suorum predictorum videlicet cuiuslibet censerie pro censu suo predsignato dare et solvere prefato domino procuratori et suis predictis predictos septem solidos ac alios quinque solidos necnon reliquos octo solidos Lausannenses postremo superius venditos per nos ut prefertur responsos singulis annis perpetue in quolibet festo sancto Andree Apostoli cum omni jure dominio directo et represia secundum consuetudines predictas et omni remota et cessante exceptione et ne omnius (?) tenemur et promittimus nos prefati Anthonius de Adventhica venditor Guilliermus Tacholla nominibus predictis Johannes T
acholla et Nycodus Pontoux censerii predicti pro nobis et nostris quibus supra quilibet nostrum prout sibi melius competit et ipsum tangit presens negocium juramentis et obligationibus nostris prefixis reddere et integre restituere memorato domino procuratori et suis quibus supra omnia et singula dampna costamenta gravamencia (?) omnesque et singulas missiones et expensas que et quas ipse dominus procurator ipso nomine emptor dicet vel sui qui supra dicent suo vel suis simplicibus (?) jurementibus (?) tantium absque alias qualicunque probatione aut dampnorum declaratione vel monstra se fecisse sustinuisse aut sibi evenuisse pretextu vel occasione predicte guerencie ferende et non late dictorum que censuum singulis annis suo prestatuto termino ac aliorum premissorum venditorum vel confessatorum non solutorum premissorum itaque superius per nos comuniter vel divisum (?) promissorum non completorum non actentorum vel non observatorum, renunciantes si quidem expresse in hoc facto nos omnes supra nominati venditor et censerii confitentes pro nobis et nostris predictis ex nostris certis scientus vi que et vinculo nostrorum supra prestitorum juramentorum omni exceptioni doli mali vis metus actioni in factum omni erronee confessioni et in debite promissioni exceptioni omni et singulorum premissorum non sic ut premissum est vel minus legitime aut sine causa vel ex invista et non vera causa factorum rei aliter scripte quam acte et e contra minoris ... subsidio (?) beneficis (?) restitutionis in integrum exceptioni dictarum vigniti sex librarum Lausannensium bonorum pro resta et conclusione precii predicti non numeratarum et non habitarum spei que habitionis et memorationis futurarum earundem omni juri legis quolibet et deceptis in suis contractibus subvenienti ac aliis omnibus et singuilis juribus exceptionibus allegationibus et defensionibus quibus contra premissa posset dici excipi vel opponi juri que generalem renunciationem reprobanti speciali non precedente et ego prefatus Girardus de de Dompnopetro capellanus procurator et eo nomine dicti venerabilis cleri sciens et spontaneus de juribus meis et dicti venerabili cleri super infrascriptis plenissime informatus participanto promitus consillio dicti venerabilis cleri ac dominorum capellanorum eiusdem premissa omnia et singula confiteor perpetuo pro me et meis successoribus in officio meo predicto nomine que dicti cleri esse vera ipsa que laudo ratiffico confirmo pariter et approbe per presentes et juramus dein que nos sepedicti (=sæpe dicti) omnes contrahentes Anthonius de Adventhica venditor Girardus de Dompnopetro quo supra procuratorio nomine emptor Guilliermus Tacholla meo et Octhonis fratris mei indivisi nominibus et Nycodus Pontoux censerii confitentes quilibet nostram prout ipsum tangit et concernit presens negotium pro nobis et nostris predictis juramentis nostris ad sancta dei evvangelia corporaliter prestitis premissa omnia et singula prout superius sunt expressa singulis singula referendo respective perpetuo rata grata firma et valida habere tenere complere solvere et inviolabiliter observare nec contra facere dicere et venire per nos vel alium seu alios quomodolibet in futurum in quorum omni viri robur fidem et testimonium premissorum, nos decanus Adventhice ad preces omni prenominatorum contrahencium nobis oblatas fideliter et relatas per Petrum de Dompnopetro dicti loci Adventhice clericum curie nostre juratum subscriptum cui superius vices nostras commisimus et fidem adhibemus plenissimam presentes litteras duximus sigilli curie nostri decanatus appensione roborandas ... in capella sancte Marie Magdalenes sub campanili eiusdem ecclesie die martis duodecima mensis Januarii Anno ab annunciatione dominica secundum stillum curie nostri decanatus sumpto millesimo quadrigentesimo octuagesimo nono. [Signature with paraphe : ] P. de Dompnopetro.
_Perrodus GACHET ____
| (1320 - ....)
_Nicoletus GACHET ___|
| (1371 - 1416) |
| |_____________________
|
_Roletus GACHET _____|
| (1391 - 1447) |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_Marguereta _____ ___|
| |
| |_____________________
|
|
|--Johannes GACHET
| (.... - 1486)
| _____________________
| |
| _____________________|
| | |
| | |_____________________
| |
|_Katherina _____ ____|
|
| _____________________
| |
|_____________________|
|
|_____________________
Return to Index
Johanneta GACHET (ID #I25610)
(female)
Father: Johannes GACHET (dates unknown)
Mother: Johanneta RUCHAT (dates unknown)
Family 1
:
Stephanus (Estievent) MATHEY (dates unknown)
- Nicolas (Colard) MATHEY (dates unknown)
A reconnaissance for Claude Dudamp notaire et bourgeois de Grancourt (Benoît Nible, notary at Payerne, ACV Dp 73/1, fol. 13, 10 feb 1549), for property subject to Egrège Jean Marcuard notaire et bourgeois de Payerne, includes a property on which the following parties owes a cense: "Jehannette fille de feu Jehan Gachet coheritiere de feu Estivent Ruchat et Nicolas filz d'Estivent Mathey son filz le moitié de bize, et Collette femme de Michiel filz de Pierre Ruchat fille de feu Jehan Gachet filz dudict Jehan Gachet et de feue Jehannette fille dudict feu Estievent l'aultre moitié". The first party is the present Johanneta Gachet with her son Nicolas Mathey. The second party is Colleta, niece of the present Johanneta, who married Michel Ruchat. Colleta's grandmother, wife of Johannes Gachet, was Jehannette or Johanneta Ruchat, daughter of Stephanus or Estivent Ruchat, and thus Jehannete and Collete were apparently co-heirs of Estivent Ruchat, grandfather of Jehannete, and great-grandfather of Collete.
_Roletus GACHET _____+
| (1391 - 1447)
_Johannes GACHET ____|
| (.... - 1486) m 1434|
| |_Katherina _____ ____
|
_Johannes GACHET ____|
| |
| | _Petrus DE VILLAR ___
| | | (.... - 1434)
| |_Antonia DE VILLAR __|
| m 1434 |
| |_____________________
|
|
|--Johanneta GACHET
|
| _____________________
| |
| _Stephanus RUCHAT ___|
| | |
| | |_____________________
| |
|_Johanneta RUCHAT ___|
|
| _____________________
| |
|_Ysabella _____ _____|
|
|_____________________
Return to Index
Josué GACHET (ID #I7521)
(male)
- TITLES/'DIT' NAMES/OCCUPATIONS: Avoyer de Payerne
- BIRTH: ABT 1558
- DEATH: 1621
[2494]
Father: Jean GACHET (b. ABT 1509, d. 10 DEC 1591)
Mother: Denise REGNAULD (b. BEF 1520, d. BEF 1579)
Family 1
:
Elizabeth DE FAUCIGNY (dates unknown)
- MARRIAGE: 24 APR 1586, Payerne, Vaud, Switzerland
[14567]
- Jean GACHET (bp. 21 APR 1587)
- Jean François GACHET (bp. 10 SEP 1589)
- Jonas GACHET (bp. 3 AUG 1591)
Family 2
:
Jeanne MORATEL (bp. 25 SEP 1580, d. AFT 1628)
- MARRIAGE: 23 JAN 1597, Payerne, Vaud, Switzerland
- Marie GACHET (bp. 6 MAR 1596)
- +Marguerite GACHET (bp. 15 JAN 1598)
- Ursule GACHET (bp. 22 JUL 1599)
- Daniel GACHET (bp. 1 FEB 1601)
- Susanne GACHET (bp. 29 AUG 1602)
- Ursule GACHET (bp. 24 NOV 1605)
- +Isaac GACHET (b. BEF 1606, d. BEF 1640)
- +Marie (Magdelaine) GACHET (bp. 20 MAR 1608, d. BEF 1652)
- Magdelaine GACHET (bp. 29 JUL 1610)
- Wolfgang GACHET (bp. 20 MAR 1612)
A document of Jean Ballif, notary at Payerne, dated 30 aug 1583 identifies Josué as the son of Noble Jean Gachet and Denise Regnault. From the wording, we see that Josué was the residual heir of his mother's estate, and since his interest in a particular bequest was still under the authority of his father at that date, we can infer that he was then under the age of 25. His first appearance in the church records at Payerne is as a witness at a baptism in 1580, signifying that he was at least past the age of first communion, normally about 17 in those days. He appears in his own right as early as 1591 (once cited as "Juncker" Josué Gachet), and a letter from him to his "intimate and special friend", the notary Claude de Place, is found in one of the registers of that notary (ACV DI 48/28, fol. 37, 01 apr 1593):
Au Signeur Claude de Place mon Intime et special amis, en Chastagny.
Signeur Claude au retour de Monsieur le General Morattel dempuis Lausanne à Payerne luy demandis comme aviez arrester touchant ma part de la maison de la Crausaz encontre sa grange de Grandvauz. Lequel me fist response qu'il n'en avoit encor point de resolution faite ains qu'il avoit le tout remis à la discretion de vous et des autres signeurs qui avoyent fait le premier partage des vignes, auquel fis entendre que'y m'en estois soumis de mesmes et qu'entendois la declaration en estre desja faite. Parquoy veu qu'elle est demeurée jusqu'à presente vous prie qu'à la premiere commodité que se presentera vuidies ce fait et m'en advertir aussieys le communiquer audit sieur General au premier voyage qu'il fera par nos quatiers que sera aydant Dieu en brief. Dont en attendant tant laditte declayration que de vos nouvelles finiray la presente par mes plus affectionnées reccommandations à vos graces, en priant que le tout puissant, Signeur Claude, doint santé longue et heure[ux] vie. De Payerne ce 1 en Apvril 1593. Le vostre affectionné amis, Josue Gachet.
Banneret 1588-1592 and avoyer 1601-1610, according to the "official" published lists (in the Dictionnaire historique, geographique & statistique du Canton de Vaud, 1914-1921, edited by Eugène Mottaz, see the article on Payerne by A. Burmeister and F. Tavel), but it appears he was actually avoyer until 1612. The church registers mention both Josué and Petermann Gachet many times between 1610 and 1612. The published lists say Petermann was the avoyer during this period. However, Petermann is called "Noble" but never Avoyer, while Josué is almost always called "Sr. Advoyer", and never "ancien Advoyer", as might have been expected if he were no longer in office. The documentary source supporting the statement that Petermann was Avoyer 1610-1612 has not been found.
In 1612, according to a number of secondary sources, he was cited before a "Conseil de Réforme" at Bern and sentenced to exile and a large fine for abuses of his office. Most of the citations relating to this episode seem to trace back to Louis Vulliemin's Histoire de la Confédération Suisse (1841-42, vol. 2), which in turn cites Anton von Tillier's Geschichte des eidgnössischen Freistaates Bern (1838-1840, vol. 4), but we are beginning to suspect that events in Bern might have been misinterpreted. The often-quoted story that there was a Conseil de Réforme (von Tillier gives the name in German as Reformationsrat) specially constituted to examine complaints about the behavior of the Baillifs and other officers, that this commission invited notables from throughout the Pays de Vaud to present their grievances, and that the commission issued findings against David Tscharner, Josué Gachet, and several others, has so far not been directly confirmed. David Tscharner was indeed brought to Bern and executed for treason (June, 1612—the statement in the genealogy by von Mülinen that he was accused of conspiring to allow Morges to be occupied by Savoie, though not implausible for the period, seems to be in error), but the information reported from the Manuaux de Conseil de Payerne by Jean-Maurice Béranek and Edmond Ischi shows that the council of Payerne did not discuss sending representatives to Bern to discuss their complaints against Josué Gachet until 11 oct 1612, with the appointment of one of these delegates, Jean Chuard, as the new Avoyer on November 24th (according to the Chuard genealogy, where Jean Chuard is no. 63). It is possible that there was not a formally constituted commission, but only a number of matters arising that were handled more or less independently at about the same time. Whether Bern should be congratulated for its courage in facing up to the misdeeds of some of its appointed officials of that time, as Vulliemin suggested, is not clear.
Von Tillier says that Josué was accused of appropriating timber from a forest (apparently belonging to Their Excellencies) and other "extortions", that he was brought to the prison (Insel) of Bern where he was kept in leg irons until he paid a fine of 1000 livres, and that he was then exiled from Bernese territories.
Josué himself has not appeared personally in any record we have found so far after 1612, but his wife appeared in the church records of Payerne until at least 1624, and was present at the signing of the marriage contract of her daughter in November, 1628 at Granges-près-Marnand. There are several records prior to his dismissal relating to disagreements between Josué and the other councillors, but in almost every case the Avoyer's position was vindicated on appeal to Bern. The disagreements seem to center around the mills on the Broye. It may be that Josué was building his own mill and intended to operate it independently of the mills owned by the city of Payerne, but the excerpts we have seen so far are worded with such circumspection that we cannot be certain. Another interpretation might be that he had been granted city funds to build a mill, but had not satisfied the terms of the contract. Or, if the mills were actually sawmills, and following the implications of von Tillier's account, that he was selling lumber obtained from trees that he had harvested illegally.
Ischi reports an "arrêt souverain" dated 09 dec 1604 that gives some idea of the frosty relations between the Avoyer and the council. The terms of the settlement dictated by Their Excellencies of Bern support the Avoyer (their representative in the government of Payerne) in almost all points. Among other matters, the council was forbidden to appropriate for itself any part of damages assessed against individuals for various crimes, because these damages were the property of Their Excellencies and their officers (notably, Josué). The seal of the Avoyer was required for a number of situations, so that the council could not proceed without approval from the Avoyer. The council could not muster the local militia for reviews or exercises without the approval of the Avoyer. On the other hand, limitations were placed on the fees that the Avoyer could collect for placing new lawsuits on the docket, awarding damages to litigants, and so forth. It is clear that the council felt their historic and hard-won "privileges and franchises" for the governance of their city were being usurped by the Avoyer, and thus by Their Excellencies of Bern. The same conflict between local autonomy and the authorities in Bern played out across the Pays de Vaud, from the first days of the Bernese occupation in 1536, until the inevitable revolution of 1798.
The most explicit statement concerning the dispute that seems to have led to Josué's dismissal was published by Béranek and repeated by Ischi, from the Manual de Conseil (Archives de Payerne, A7/68), 11 oct 1612:
"Sur les prolixes réponses et invectives accusations par Monsieur l'Avoyer donné sur la verbale requête à lui faite, touchant le Moulin ou gruaire par celui-ci bâtit contre ses promesses contenues en la concession de la place de ses nouveaux bâtiments, il a été à présent convenu et ordonné qu'une verbale réponse sera faite audit Seigneur Avoyer, que l'on entend rien déchoir de ladite concession et ne lui rien donner de réponse par écrit et accusation en temps lieu requis, et demander à l'Excellence, nos Souverains Seigneurs que leur plaisir soit, pour nous mettre en paix, nous déléguer 2 Seigneurs pour faire l'examen de sa vie et de la notre. Toutefois, si ledit Seigneur Avoyer veut bâtir et se conformer à ses promesses de ne rien bouger.
"Et pour accourir à l'excellence de nos Souverains Seigneurs, sont élus Monsieur le Banneret [Jean] Chuard, Noble Pierre Fivaz et le Secrétaire."
The complaint of the council must have been expedited in Bern, for Jean Chuard was appointed Avoyer before the end of November, 1612. The allusion to a "concession" may refer to a document still in the archives of Payerne (EB 1, 06 mar 1606, notary De Trey, likely Salomon de Trey, then secrétaire de Payerne) whereby Josué Gachet, avoyer, cedes to the city a lot near the mills on the Broye, for 450 florins.
The extracts published by Béranek include a report of Josué visiting, or perhaps merely planning to visit, his properties by night to escape detection, in 1615:
19 may 1615: "Pour la cause que Josué Gachet, comme l'on en a été averti, qu'il visite de nuit les Moulins et qu'il prétend des choses. Il a été avisé que l'on attendra ce qu'il veut demander et de se tenir fermement à notre passement judiciaire obtenu, à nos lettres et sceaux à nous concédés par LL. EE." (In the matter of Josué Gachet, who, as we have been alerted, may visit the Mills by night and make various claims. It has been advised that we wait to see what he may ask and hold firmly to the judgement obtained, and to our letters and seals conceded to us by Their Excellencies.)
Perhaps he was living at Cugy or Fétigny, adjacent to Payerne but under the jurisdiction of Fribourg, or he may have lived at Estavayer and traveled to Payerne by way of Cugy. If so, we will probably find some record of his presence in the cantonal archives of Fribourg.
At a later date, Béranek reports, 15 sep 1619: "Noble Josué Gachet requérant les Honorés Seigneurs de vouloir permettre qu'il put créer un procureur pour négocier ses affaires et assister à sa femme, désirant se retirer en France. A quoi il a été accepté."
The full text of von Tillier's account is given here:
Anton von Tillier, Geschichte des eidgenôssischen freistaates Bern von seinem Ursprung bis zu seinem Untergange im Jahre 1798, 4:36-38 (1838).
"Weit ernster und bedenklicher als die äußere Lage des bernischen Gemeinwesens drohte die innere zu werden, da bei der ausgedehnten Macht de Regierung eine Menge de allergefährlichsten Mißbräuche sich eingeschlichen hatten, über welche theils bestimmtere, theils unbestimmtere Beschwerden der Unterthanen bis zu den Ohren des Obrigkeit drangen. So weit war indessen das Uebel nicht gekommen, daß es der letztern an dem Muth und dem festen Willen gefehlt hätte, dem Uebel, und waren noch so ernste, noch so schonungslose Mittel dazu nothwendig, zu steuern. Also setzten Räthe und Bürger, nachdem sie sich von den Gefahren und der Dringlichkeit der Abhülfe jener Unordnungen hinlänglich überzeugt, einen Untersuchungsausschuß ein, der den Namen Refomationsrath trug. Dieser beschied dann im Mai 1612 aus jeder Gemeinde des deutschen und welschen Landes einen Kirchendiener sammt einigen des achtbarsten bürgerlichen Beamten, von denen er sich, nach genommener Rücksprache mit ihren Räthen und Gemeinden, über alle bei ihnen herrschenden Mängel Bericht erstatten ließ, und sie über die Art und Weise anhörte, wie dieselben nach ihrer Ansicht am besten abgestellt werden könnten. Hier erhoben sich nicht wenig Beschwerden wider die Landvögte, die städtischen Räthe, untergeordnete Beamten und andere einzelne Personen, wegen Gelderpressungen, Wucher und unerlaubter Vortheile von Seite de Reichen gegen die ärmere Klasse, so daß die Obrigkeit bald einsah, daß es ohne langen Verzug zum Aeußersten kommen würde, wenn man der eingerissenen Verderbniss nicht die allerkräftigsten Dämme entgegensetze. Gegen niemand erhoben sich jedoch heftigere Klagen von allen Seiten als gegen David Tscharner, Landvogt zu Morges. Also wurde er unter dem Vorwande wichtiger Eröffnungen nach Bern beschieden. Allein als er sich, daselbst angekommen, eiligst auf das Rathhaus begab und durch Anklopfen an das Rathszimmer bei dem Schultheißen meldete, ließ ihn dieser letztere sofort durch den Ammann in die Insel begleiten und in Verhaft setzen. Als nun Tscharner von dem Scharfrichter über die gegen ihn gerichteten Anklagepunkte peinlich befragt werden sollte und sich ohnedem überwiesen sah, erbot er sich, ohne Folter freiwillig die Begründtheit jener Vorwürfe einzugestehen und darauf zu leben und zu sterben. Demüthig setzte er unter jenes Geständniß mit seinem Namen die Bezeichnung eines armen Sünders bei und bat dringend um Schonung. Durch dieses reuevolle Geständniß wurde der Unglückliche zwar von der Marter befreit, nicht aber von der Strafe. Es wurde ein Todesurtheil über ihn ausgesprochen. Vier Mitglieder des großen Raths, welche sich täglich ablösten, hüteten ihn nebst einigen Weibeln. Am 24. Juni nahm ihm der Großweibel, aus Auftrag des Raths, das Barret und die Baarschaft und Kleinodien ab. Auf die dringende Fürbitte der Verwandten vergönnte man ihm, das letzte Mahl in seiner Gefangenschaft, und nicht, wie es bei gemeinen Verbrechern üblich war, im St. Johannserhause zu genießen. Als er am 29. von der Insel zu der Münze neben dem Rathhause geführt wurde, wo er das Vorlesen seines Prozesses abwarten sollte, zeigte Tscharner eben soviel Reue als christliche Geduld. Der Anblick des schönen, trefflich gestalteten Mannes, dessen Beredtsamkeit und Liebenswürdigkeit sonst als Muster gegolten, und dessen Vater dem bernischen Gemeinwesen in einer langen Reihe von Jahren die ausgezeichnetsten Dienste geleistet hatte, machte in dem Herzen manches Zuschauers, der ihn jetzt einem so schmählichen Tode mit Ergebung entgegen gehen sah, einen tiefen Eindruck. Selbst dem Seckelmeister Zehender, seinem Richter, gingen, als er ihm in dem Gange der Münze sein Beileid klagte und eine rührende Antwort erhielt, die Augen über. Auf dem Richtplatze an der Kreuzgasse angekommen, hielt Tscharner noch eine sehr ergreifende Rede an das Volk. Dann legte er seinen Mantel ab und überließ sich dem Scharfrichter, den er zur Erfüllung seiner Pflicht ermahnte. Ruhig und ungebunden empfing er, auf einem hölzernen Stuhle sitzend, unter andächtigen Gebeten den Todesstreich (Stettler's Chronik, Mss. ad 1612, Rathsmanual, Nr. 23).
"In die nämliche Gefangenschaft, in welcher David Tscharner gesessen hatte, kam bald darauf der Gubernator von Aigle, Peter von Werdt, früherhin Mitglied des kleinen Raths. Aber von Werdt, auf seine angesehene Verwandtschaft bauend, stellte sich fröhlich und wies die Zumuthung zu Geständnissen zurück. Demungeachtet wurde er, nach einer Gefangenschaft von mehreren Wochen, nachdem einige Stimmen zum Tode gefallen, von Räthen und Bürgern auf ein Meile weit von Bern verwiesen und überdieß um 2000 Pfunde bestraft, die er vor seiner Erledigung verbürgen mußte. Josua Gachet aber, den Schultheiß von Petterlingen, legte man, wegen gefährdevollen Verwüstungen des obrigkeitlichen Hochwalds daselbst und allerlei Erpressungen, in Fußeisen in die Insel, bis er zur Abtragung der bedeutenden Kosten eines Strafgeldes von 1000 Kronen und der Verweisung aus dem bernischen Gebiete verurtheilt ward. Endlich mußte Petermann von Wattenwyl, seiner Mitbürger, Daniel Moratel, welche diesen letztern in große Gefahr stürzten, dem Beschädigten alle Kosten vergüten und 10,000 Kronen Strafe bezahlen, vor deren Erlegung er das Land nicht wieder betreten durste (Stettler's Chronik, Mss. ad 1612, Rathsmanual Nr. 24). Durch solche entschiedene und schonungslose Maßregeln hoffte man, den am öffentlichen Wesen nagenden Krebs mit der Wurzel auszurotten."
The Chronicle of Michael Stettler, one of the wonders of the Burgerbibliothek in Bern, remains in manuscript. Will the DigiBern project eventually make it available in digital format? We are indebted to Therese Metzger for the following transcript of the section referred to by von Tillier:
(Stettler Chronik, BBB DQ 11 Band L, 1623)
"[page 35] Wan Jr, sid dem von vilen schweren unrüwen her Jnn der Eidtgnoschafft vernampten 1513. Jar ein Denkwürdige sach, mit abstraffung fürnemmer Regements personen Jnn Bern fürgefallen, Jst billich diss gegenwärtige Jar von gutter Justition, unansechung der person und runder vuffrichtikeit wegen, gegen den gmeinen nutz für vil andre zu erheben. Dann alls im Meÿen von Jeder gmeind Tütsch und Welscher Landschafft, ein Kilchendiender sampt ettlichen der achtbaresten von Politischen personen beschriben, und denselbigen über die Jetzigen missbruch unordnungen und mängel, (nach zuvor gethaner consultation, bÿ Jren Rhäten und Gmeinden), vor dem desswegen Jn der Statt Bern geordneten Reformation Rhat, darzu von Rhat und .... von den Burgern erwellt, Jn meinung und befindensampt den mittlen darwider, rund zu endtecken, anbevolchen worden, koment wider die Landvögt, Rhät, Amptlüt und sunderbare personen nit wenig klegten herfür, und wurdent Jnsunderheit, die gro- [page 36, 1612] ben finantzen, miet und gaben Jnn usslÿchung dass gellts, Jtem des strengen truck und schaden wolhabender und vermüglicher lütten dermassen herfür gezogen, dass ein wÿse Oberkeit wolvermerken möchte, dass alle sachen ohne Zwÿfel uff das ergste und usserste kommen und nun einer soschweren gefarlichen Ja tötlichen krankheit, keiner andren gstallt dann mit starker trÿbender und gächen entzweÿ zu helffen were, und bedunkete sÿ sich von allen Dingen die fehlbaresten zustraffen und das gifftige Unkrut uss zu Jätten, zum nottwendigsten. Wÿl nun ettliche fürnemme personen böser stüken Jm verdacht gezogen, ward erstlich uff David Tscharner Landvogt zu Morsee alls ab dem sich der gmeine man siner ampts verwaltung zum meisten erklagt; mit ernst gestellt und Inne vor der Oberkeit umb sachen die man an Inne zu bringen zu erschÿnen geschrÿben. Alls er nun den ............ in aller ÿll Jm Rhathus sich erzeiget und den Schultheissen an der Rhatstuben anklopfen liesse ward er von dem Amann Jm Rhathuss uss wolbemellts Schultheissen bevelch Jnn die Jnsel beleÿtet, daselbst Jnn verwarung enthalten, und alls er, da Jnne der Nachrichter über Jme fürgehaltene artikel erfeken söllen, nebend dem dass er uberzüget, und alles was Jme fürgehallten gnügsam erwisen, aller sachen ohne marter bekenntlich worden daruff zu läben und sterben sich erpotten, sin vergicht ser demüttig mit dem namen eines armen sünders under schreiben und der gnaden trungenlich begert, ward er der tor tur überlept und hernach Montags 29. Junÿ uff dem platz zu nechst von dem Rhathus uff einer Scabellen enthouptet.
"Ein treffenlicher, ansehenlich, zierlicher man, auch wolberedt und früntlich, und der allein uss Gÿtz und begird dess zÿtlichen guts sich mit vilen schwären sünden, so mehrentheils von Exactionen, Extorsionen [page 37] und usmärchlung der armen Underthanen geflossen vertieffet Jnn siner gfangeschafft, ward er täglich von 4 Bürgren des grossen Rhats nebet etlichen Wÿblen verwaret. Er sünfftzet und bättet offt, hiellte rüw und leÿd über sine stund, erzeigete Jm hinab füren von der Jnsel biss Jnn die Münz, da er, biss dass sin vergicht an der Crützgassen verläsen, verharret grosse gedult treÿbe dem Richter selb, Seckelmr. Zeender so Jmme Jm gang vor der Müntz leid geklagt, mit siner dapfren antwort, ouch vilen andren die augen über. Uff der Richtstatt thatte er ein schöne vermanung zum Volk, bekennete sine fheler und stellete sich seer Christenlich und mänlich, alls er sinen mantel von sich gelegt, und er nun zum streÿch bereitet ward, vermanete er den Nachrichter das Jenige so Jme anbefolchen were zu erstatten, erpot sich, ob er schon nit gebunden stÿff und unerschroken zuhallten, bättet mit ............. erwartet dess streÿchs, und gab hiemit seinen geist uff allso dass zu unerhoffen Got der allmächtige Jme sine sünd verzichen und Jnn zu gnaden Jnn die ewige ruh und seligkeit empfangen werde haben.
"Bald nach der hinrichtung disers ansehenlichen und verampten mans kame ouch Bernhart von Werdt, Gubernator zu Aelen der glÿchfals von vieler Extorsionen und Concusionen wegen merklich berüchtiget, an glÿchen ort wie Tscharner Jn gefangenschafft, der hiellte sich umb etwas hochmüttiger dan der vorige machetet sich frölich und vermeint dass man sine sachen nit so gnauw alls villicht andren nachschlachen würde, büwete vil uff sin fürneme fründschafft, ouch dass er etwan hievor Jm Rhat gewesen, und verhoffete durch gutten fründen gunst, sich diser gfar lÿchtlich zu befrÿen. Alss er nun bÿ Wuchen lang Jngelegen und sinethalb grosser costen uffgeluffen was, kame sin handlung für Rhat und burger, da ettliche der Oberkeit Jnne, umb sine fheler, die dann seer schwär und wichtig, am leben zu straffen vermeintent, wÿl aber etwas under- [page 38 1612] scheids zwüschent dess obbemelten Tscharners seligen und sinen misshandlungen, ward er eerloss erkennt Jmme der eÿd ein mÿlwegs von der Statt Bern und Jmme das Land gegeben ouch er hi erkent umb zweÿ tusend pfund pfn: zu handen des Stattsekel gestraft, welches straffgeldt er dann ouch vor siner erledigung mit bürgschafft versichert.
"Glÿchergstallt kame ouch Jnn banden und langwirige gefangenschafft Josue Gatschet Schultheiss zu Päterlingen, wegen merklich verwüstung der Oberkeit Hochwalds daselbst und verübter concussionen, ward Jnn der Insel wie ouch die vorigen beÿd an Fussÿsen enthalten und volgends den 9. August von Rhaten und burgern über Jnne geurtheilet, dass er allen sinethalb uffgelüffnen costen abtragen, zu wol verdienter straff ein tusend müntz Kronen erlegen, und dann sich uss der Statt Bern gebiet, nit zu entsetzen einen Eyd thun söllte.
"Und alls ouch diser Zÿtten sich erfunden dass Petermann von Wattenwÿl her zu Wÿl, einem andren bürger der Statt Bern, Daniel Moratel, zu nachtheil ein Missiff schryben, und dieselbige und erwegen fallen lassen, Jnn gstallten als ob söllicher von houptman Schwaller von Solothurn, Bartlome Knecht, burger zu Bern zugeschriben, und einen falschen Eid gethan habe, mit dem Französischen Ambassadoren under der teke ligen und Jm alle Jm bewüsste gheimnussen, Rhatschleg und Regements sachen offenbaren söllte, darüber denn nit allem bemelllter Moratel Jnn usserste gfar gestürtz, sunders ouch die Jenigen so söllichen brieff uffgehept, darunder Jnn etwas wÿtleüffigen geschäffts wider Jnne Moratel geratten, ward ultima Decimbris von Rhäten und burgern erkennt: Es sollt erstlich Jm burgerrodel durchgethan sin, und der ehren erwäre verblÿben demnach zu gnädigen Jedoch wolver- [page 39] dienter straff zechen tusent Kronen zu 25 bz Jnn gelt oder Brieffen entrichten, dem beleidigten Moratel allen costen abtragen und den Jenigen deren namen er Jnn obbemelten sinem schrÿben supposiert, wann sÿ Jnn darumb anlagetet, red und Antwort geben."
More recently, the Burgerbibliothek Bern has published a more detailed catalogue of their holdings on the internet (http://katalog.burgerbib.ch), revealing the existence of a document from 1614 containing "testimony" by Josué Gachet, in the de Diesbach de Torny family archives (FA de Diesbach-Torny 95 (27)). This document, not yet examined, so the only one so far discovered that may shed some light on the exact nature of the charges against Josué.
[2494]
Still alive 02 feb 1621, when he requested and received permission to build on his property on Rue des Rammes against city-owned walls; dead by 06 jun 1621 when his widow made requests relating to another construction site.
[14567]
However, the name of the bride looks more like "de Jossigny" in the register at Payerne. We follow the notarial records.
_François GACHET _______________+
| (1450 - 1487) m 1474
_Pierre GACHET _______|
| (1475 - 1528) m 1503 |
| |_Jaqueta CHALON ________________+
| m 1474
_Jean GACHET ________|
| (1509 - 1591) m 1540|
| | _Aimé (Aymo, Aymonet) DUTRUICT _+
| | | (1460 - 1513) m 1480
| |_Jaquaz DUTRUICT _____|
| (.... - 1553) m 1503 |
| |_Perronete BONNET (OR BOVET?) __+
| (.... - 1513) m 1480
|
|--Josué GACHET
| (1558 - 1621)
| _Guillaume REGNAULD ____________
| | (1500 - 1556)
| _Guillaume REGNAULD __|
| | (.... - 1559) |
| | |_Jeanne DE BELLEVAUX ___________+
| |
|_Denise REGNAULD ____|
(1520 - 1579) m 1540|
| _François DE GOUMOENS __________
| |
|_Anteyne DE GOUMOENS _|
|
|________________________________
Return to Index
Magdelaine GACHET (ID #I16646)
(female)
Father: François GACHET (d. 31 OCT 1575)
Mother: Jeanne DE PREZ (dates unknown)
Family 1
:
Samuel VON ERLACH (b. 14 SEP 1565, d. 1623)
- MARRIAGE: 1 FEB 1585, Bern, Bern, Switzerland
[14802]
- +Barbara VON ERLACH (bp. 1 DEC 1586)
- Magdalena VON ERLACH (bp. 5 AUG 1588)
- Diebold (Theobald) VON ERLACH (bp. 23 AUG 1590, d. 1617)
- Johanna VON ERLACH (bp. 25 SEP 1593)
- Albrecht VON ERLACH (b. ABT 1596, d. 1623)
- Margaretha VON ERLACH (bp. 16 FEB 1598)
- Rudolf VON ERLACH (bp. 6 MAR 1600)
- Franz VON ERLACH (bp. 31 JAN 1602)
- Rudolf VON ERLACH (bp. 5 FEB 1604)
- Anthonius VON ERLACH (bp. 2 JAN 1606)
- Johanna VON ERLACH (b. 9 NOV 1607)
- Samuel VON ERLACH (bp. 30 MAR 1609)
- Margreth VON ERLACH (bp. 23 FEB 1612)
- Marie VON ERLACH (bp. 6 DEC 1613)
- Hieronimus VON ERLACH (bp. 15 SEP 1616)
Mentioned, apparently, in a very messy record in the minutaires of Jean Marcuard, 29 sep 1582, in connection with a transaction between Claude Tholley (?) and Eg. Benoit Nible, regarding the late Benoitte de Moulin, wife of Nible, Marguerite his (Tholley's?) sister-in-law, and in the name of Noble "Marguerite" daughter of the late Noble François Gachet. A document in the archives of Payerne (Nible, 05 nov 1575) calls her Magdeleine, "fille unique de feu N. Frs. Gachet". There are many other similar references that call her Magdelaine, daughter of the late François Gachet. She is cited this way as late as 1594.
Traditional genealogy says that the Magdelaine Gachet who married Samuel von Erlach was the daughter of Niklaus Gatschet, born in 1575. However, that Magdelaine died of the plague at age 2, according to her father's family book, so we must look elsewhere. Another possibility is that she was the only surviving child of François Gachet (d. 1575). From the birthdate of her last child, she could not have been born much before 1570. She must have inherited property at Payerne, as may be deduced from the fact that the de Trey family incurred management expenses there on her behalf in 1585 and 1586.
The logic of assigning her as the daughter of François is bolstered by the finding that François owned property at Mur, where some years later we find apparently the same property in the possession of Samuel von Erlach and "the Gachets". In addition, there seems to be no mention of any other Magdelaine Gachet (or Gatschet) at this period.
Proof that this Magdelaine was the wife of Samuel von Erlach is found in a terrier of the "noble fiefs" of the Evêché de Lausanne (ACV Ff 112, commissaire George Ansel, fol. 704-707). The reconnaissance is dated 16 feb 1586. It identifies her as the daughter of the late François Gachet. The property was a house in Lutry that had been purchased 23 oct 1573 by François Gachet from the notary Claude DuPlaict and his wife Jeanne Arbin. The house had previously belonged to Henry Arbin. (There are marginal notations that probably refer to other terriers: Gignilliat le Vieux—the last word apparently written over the word Jeune—fol. 275, and Bulet fol. 485. Are these earlier or later terriers?)
Transcript of the reconnaissance:
Recognoissance de noble Magdeleyne fille de feu noble Francoys Gaschet bourgeois de Payerne femme de noble Samuel d'Erlach bourgeois de Berne.
Honnorable & prudent Francoys Destrey bourgeois et banderet de la ville de Payerne comme charge expresse aiant en ceste partie de nobles Samuel D'erlach bourgeois de Berne et Magdelenne Gachet sa consorte icelle puissance ratiffiée par lesditz nobles jugaux es mains du commissaire soubzsigné dans la ville de Berne faict savoir à tous par ces presentes comme luy sachant et bien advisé et des droictz et tiltres de ladicte noble Magdeleyne Gachet bien à plain et suffisemment informée pour elle ses hoirs & successeurs quelzconques, à l'instance toutesfois que dessus, confesse et par icestes publiquement recognoist en qualité predicte de tenir vouloir tenir et posseder de nosdictz tresredoubtez et puissantz seigneurs de Berne à cause de leur Evesché de Lausanne, des biens et hommage de feu noble Francoys de Russyn seigneur de Boctens et de Corsier sus Lustrie par luy en generalité recognuz et par aprez par Henry Arbyn de Lustrie tiltre aiant dudict noble Francoys de Russyn en faveur de reverend seigneur Sebastian de Montfalcon pour alors seigneur Evesche de Lausanne es mains de feu egrege Jehan Gignilliat son commissaire constant dedicte recognoissance deuement signée en datte du dernier d'octobre mil cinq centz vingt sept et par tiltre d'acquisition faicte par feu noble Francoys Gachet père de ladicte Magdeleyne de Claude du Plex & Jeanne Arbyn sa femme dudict Lustrie constant de la Lettre dedicte acquisition receue et signée par feu egrege Olivier Benoict notaire et bourgeois de Lustrie en datte du vingt et troisiesme d'octobre mil cinq cens septante trois deuement laudée (margin : Gignilliat le Vieux fol. 275. Bulet fol. 485.), c'est assavoir certaine maison size dans la ville de Lustrie, jouxte la maison de noble Philibert de Praroman que fust des Croserens de Lustrie devers occident, la maison de Jehan filz de feu Pierre Borgey autrement Estevenyn dudict Lustrie que fut dudict noble Francoys de Russyn devers orient, la charriere publicque devant devers bize, et l'estable des hoirs de feu provide Pierre Croserens mouvante du present fiedz et fut dudict noble de Russyn dernier devers vent, avec ses fondz & appartenances universelles & singulieres, et cecy en et dessoubs le fiedz noble de nosdicts seigneurs et dessoubz l'hommage duquel supportent la charge les heretiers de feu noble Gabriel de Prez seigneur de Corsier sus Lustrie, et pourtant ledict seigneur Destrey en qualité predicte a promis par son serement et soubs l'obligation de predicte maison de renouveller sa presente recognoisance tantes et quantesfois que de la part de nosdictz seigneurs il en sera requis et interpellé, aussi d'avoir et tenir ceste presente recognoissance et tout son contenu pour aggreable stable et vallide sans aucune contravention, dessoubz restitution de tous despens à deffaut de l'accomplissement entier des choses sus escrites survenantes, renoncant & protestant le prenommé recognoissant en qualité predicte, tout ainsi et en la mesme sorte et manière que les autres cy devant nommez recognoissantz ont au long au commancement de ce present livre renoncé & protesté, faict et datté à Lausanne le seziesme de febvrier l'an prins à noel mil cinq centz octante six en presence de honnorables sages et prudentz Nicod Moratel, Petermand Planche, Francoys Rojoz bourgeois de Payerne, Francoys Diedey notaire & Abraham Vulliasmoz bourgeois de Lausanne tesmoings à ce requis et demandez. G. Ansel (paraphe)
Other probable citations need to be investigated (from ACV Zc 11, an index of abstracts from old notarial records): Jean Bergier, notary, registre of 1573-1574, fol. 71, registre of 1589, fol. 112, 135, and 137v; Jean Des Tallens, third minutaire, fol. 188v (1613?), third registre, fol. 100v (1619?); George Ansel, registre of 1569-1575, fol. 190v, registre of 1581-1590, fol. 110v, registre of 1586-1601, fol 11v; François Milliquet, third minutaire, fol. 20 (1588), minutaire of 1613, fol. 41v; Jaques Chedel, registre of 1595-1605, fol 362? (1600).
In addition, she is evidently the Magdelaine Gachet, wife of Samuel d'Erlach, who was a co-heiresse of property that had belonged to Noble Benoict du Moulin and traced back to a reconnaissance (?) by the same Noble Benoict du Moulin in 1557, recorded by Benoict de Miéville, notary of Payerne, noted in a transaction supporting a group of properties held by Noble Vincent Stürler as a result of a sale by Michel Buttin in 1657 (IB L 292, item 16). Buttin was involved because the properties had been purchased or otherwise acquired from Samuel d'Erlach and his wife by François Rouge, whose granddaughter Jeanne Rouge was Buttin's wife.
[14802]
The marriage record does not give the parentage of the bride.
_François GACHET _______________+
| (1450 - 1487) m 1474
_Pierre GACHET _____________|
| (1475 - 1528) m 1503 |
| |_Jaqueta CHALON ________________+
| m 1474
_François GACHET ____|
| (.... - 1575) m 1566|
| | _Aimé (Aymo, Aymonet) DUTRUICT _+
| | | (1460 - 1513) m 1480
| |_Jaquaz DUTRUICT ___________|
| (.... - 1553) m 1503 |
| |_Perronete BONNET (OR BOVET?) __+
| (.... - 1513) m 1480
|
|--Magdelaine GACHET
| (1571 - ....)
| _Bartholomeus DE PREZ __________+
| |
| _Aymé DE PREZ ______________|
| | (.... - 1575) m 1540 |
| | |________________________________
| |
|_Jeanne DE PREZ _____|
m 1566 |
| _Jean DE VILLARZEL _____________+
| | (.... - 1517)
|_Aimée (Emaz) DE VILLARZEL _|
m 1540 |
|_Clauda DE LA MOLIÈRE __________+
Return to Index
Marguerite GACHET (ID #I11937)
(female)
Father: Daniel GACHET (d. 19 OCT 1583)
Mother: Magdelaine MESTRAL (DE RUE) (dates unknown)
Family 1
:
Sébastien MAYOR (DES PLANCHES) (dates unknown)
- MARRIAGE: 12 JAN 1582, Payerne, Vaud, Switzerland
- Sébastien MAYOR (DES PLANCHES) (bp. 22 FEB 1590)
- Pierre MAYOR (DES PLANCHES) (bp. 16 MAR 1592)
- David MAYOR (DES PLANCHES) (bp. 16 JUL 1594)
- Marie [Mayor (des PLANCHES) (bp. 07 MAR 1596)
- Antheyne MAYOR (DES PLANCHES) (bp. 09 JAN 1598)
- Susanne MAYOR (DES PLANCHES) (bp. 29 MAR 1601)
- Nicolas MAYOR (DES PLANCHES) (bp. 06 MAR 1603)
Her verbal testament was recorded by André Delesmillières, notary of Montreux, on 01 apr 1607 (ACV DS 65/1). The testimony of her husband and of the minister Gabriel Page and his wife Esther Delaborne established that Marguerite had died 9 to 10 weeks before that date, thus in late January, 1607. The witnesses agreed that she had left her entire estate to her husband. As a result of this document, it is clear that all of the children of "Bastian" Mayor in the church books of Montreux from the earliest record in 1590 until 1607 are hers. There were likely several more children born at Montreux before 1590. Her husband remarried at least twice, but only the last of these marriages is recorded at Montreux.
_François GACHET _______________+
| (1450 - 1487) m 1474
_Pierre GACHET ___________|
| (1475 - 1528) m 1503 |
| |_Jaqueta CHALON ________________+
| m 1474
_Daniel GACHET _______________|
| (.... - 1583) m 1560 |
| | _Aimé (Aymo, Aymonet) DUTRUICT _+
| | | (1460 - 1513) m 1480
| |_Jaquaz DUTRUICT _________|
| (.... - 1553) m 1503 |
| |_Perronete BONNET (OR BOVET?) __+
| (.... - 1513) m 1480
|
|--Marguerite GACHET
|
| _Philibert MESTRAL (DE RUE) ____+
| |
| _Girard MESTRAL (DE RUE) _|
| | (1485 - 1557) m 1526 |
| | |_Jaqueta CORDEY ________________+
| |
|_Magdelaine MESTRAL (DE RUE) _|
m 1560 |
| _Pierre CROSTEL ________________
| | (.... - 1573)
|_Perissone CROSTEL _______|
m 1526 |
|_Guillauma SECHAULX ____________
(.... - 1573)
Return to Index
Marguerite GACHET (ID #I7537)
(female)
Father: Jean Amey GACHET (b. ABT 1504, d. 6 MAY 1573)
Mother: Marguerite VALLIER (b. ABT 1505, d. AFT 1560)
Family 1
:
Gérard GUISAN (d. BEF 1583)
- MARRIAGE: 19 JAN 1578, Avenches, Vaud, Switzerland
[14568]
- Pierre GUISAN (bp. 9 NOV 1578, d. BEF 1583)
- Daniel GUISAN (bp. 29 MAR 1580, d. 1599?)
- Nicolas GUISAN (bp. 27 JAN 1583)
Family 2
:
Benoît NIBLE (b. BEF 1522, d. 1589)
- MARRIAGE: 3 MAY 1583, Payerne, Vaud, Switzerland
- Pierre NIBLE (bp. 16 MAY 1585)
- Isaye NIBLE (bp. 8 AUG 1589)
Family 3
:
Pierre TRIBOLET (d. 1592)
Marguerite's marriage settlement with her second husband was recorded by Jaques Girod, notary at Payerne, 27 mar 1587. It mentions bequests to Marguerite that constitute her dowry of 1475 fl.: 475 fl. from her inheritance from N. Jaques Valliez, received from her uncle P. Valliez de Crissier au Landeron; 800 fl. in lieu of usufruct from the estate of her first husband in accordance with their marriage contract; and another 200 fl. evidently by way of repayment of a debt? The 800 fl. amount is accompanied by an odd phrase, "...ledit assignateur auroit retire pour hemende de l'hommiccide perpetré à Nyon de sondit feu mary declayré et ordonné par la souverain mettre oultre..." It is evident from this that her first husband Gérard Guissant was murdered at Nyon sometime before 1583 (date of the marriage record with Benoit Nible at Payerne). An accompanying document concerns the division of a woodlot apparently held jointly with the heirs of the late Claude Banquettaz. It is not explained how this property came to be jointly owned.
The Valliez name is certainly the modern family Vallier de Cressier (with an additional branch Wallier de Soleure), a branch of the house of d'Estavayer. In fact, both Reynold and Vallier are described in various sources as "de Cressier", so it is very possible that (a) there may be some of them identified under both names, or (b) that Marguerite's mother's mother was a Vallier. This last possiblity would play out as follows: N. Jaques Vallier would have been her great-grandfather or possibly her great-uncle, and a grandson or son of Jaques would thus have been the Pierre Vallier uncle to Marguerite. Such a relationship might be expected to be mentioned in Marguerite's first marriage contract to Gérard Guissant (modern surname is spelled Guisan, well known at Avenches). Hence, the parish registers and notarial records at Avenches need to be checked as well.
The Vallier family is generally listed as "Vallier de Cressier et Vallier du Landeron", and our document gives all three names, so we are certainly on the right track. There appears to material on this family 1307-1887 at the archives of Neuchatel, in addition of an account in the Genealogiste Suisse, vol. 10 (1943), pp. 88-98.
Accounts of Guisan of Avenches appear in the Schweitzerisches Geschlechterbuch, vol. 7 pp 205-216, and of de Reynold in volumes 1 pp 438-448 and 5 pp 519-521. De Chambrier appears also in the same volumes.
Marguerite's mother is clearly Marguerite Vallier, and the former would have been perhaps 16 to 18 years old at the time of her first marriage about 1578. Marguerite's sister Jacobe identified her sisters (including Marguerite) without any indication that one or more of them was of a different mother. If that can be taken at face value, then all of the sisters would have been born after about 1557, since Jean Amey Gachet's first wife Denise Regnaud was still alive in 1556.
There is a problem with the dates here. Marguerite's last child by Guisan (Nicolas) was baptised at Payerne 27 jan 1583, and there are court documents dated 31 jan 1583 mentioning Nicolaus and his brother Daniel as heirs of Gérard. (The matter was not Gérard's estate, but an inheritance from the Mayor de Lutry family, of which Gérard and his brothers Samuel and Jean Jaques would each have been entitled to one third.) One of these documents notes that Marguerite had already remarried to Nible, in spite of the apparently clear marriage date at Payerne recorded 4 months later. It is possible, perhaps, that the church marriage was not recorded until a suitable period of mourning had elapsed, even though the marriage contract had already been signed.
Emile Ritter says that she married third to Pierre Tribolet of Neuchâtel (he died 1592). This marriage is also reported by Pierre-Arnold and Jacqueline Borel, in their Miéville genealogy.
[14568]
Date from notes of Jacques Moreillon (FHL microfilm), no source given.
_François GACHET _______________+
| (1450 - 1487) m 1474
_Pierre GACHET ______|
| (1475 - 1528) m 1503|
| |_Jaqueta CHALON ________________+
| m 1474
_Jean Amey GACHET ___|
| (1504 - 1573) m 1540|
| | _Aimé (Aymo, Aymonet) DUTRUICT _+
| | | (1460 - 1513) m 1480
| |_Jaquaz DUTRUICT ____|
| (.... - 1553) m 1503|
| |_Perronete BONNET (OR BOVET?) __+
| (.... - 1513) m 1480
|
|--Marguerite GACHET
| (1550 - ....)
| _Jaques VALLIER ________________+
| | (.... - 1500)
| _Pierre VALLIER _____|
| | (1488 - 1552) m 1510|
| | |_Marguerite DE CRESSIER ________+
| |
|_Marguerite VALLIER _|
(1505 - 1560) m 1540|
| _Martin "le VERRIER" ___________
| |
|_Marie ODET _________|
(.... - 1546) m 1510|
|________________________________
Return to Index
Back to Main Page
Send E-mail to Author
HTML created by GED2HTML v3.6-WIN95 (Jan 18 2000) on 07/09/2023 10:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time.