Migratory flows (16th–19th century)

During the 18^th and especially the 19^th century, the French refugee on grounds of religion became an iconic figure. French historians pointed to him either as the instigator of the ‘disaster' that was the French Revolution or as the wellspring of the 1789 ‘liberation' : to one side, a mostly Catholic France sympathetic to the monarchy, to the other a republican, liberal, and secularist France favourable to democracy. For the historians and publicists in the former category, the Huguenot was first and foremost a traitor, a troublemaker whose purpose was to ‘choke France'. Taking their leaf out of writings going right back to the 16^th century, they deemed the Protestants ‘obdurate', ‘fanatical' and they questioned their morality, indeed under certain circumstances, between 1870 and 1918, they accused them of being cosy with foreigners, notably the German enemy. This historiography was met head-on with the alternative version proposed by historians promoting the concept of human progress. In his History of France, published between 1833 and 1867, Jules Michelet^[1] hailed the Huguenot as emblematic of an enlightened but oppressed France. When writing about the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and the persecution of the Protestants, he honoured them as national heroes and martyrs who gave up all they had rather than lie and betray their convictions. The account of their ordeal was intended to « jolt the conscience of their fellow countrymen » but also to offer role models and consolation to all who faught for the establishment of a republic. A « Protestant myth » (Paul Viallaneix) was taking shape which set the Reform as a preamble to the Revolution, and Protestantism as the party of liberty. According to this historiography, France lost to the Refuge a large section of its enlightened elite.

This perception of the Reform as the ‘party of liberty' had long been a given on the other side of the border, in the Protestant Swiss cantons. There, history records no conflict but it does acknowledge internal contradictions around a refugee seen as the bringer of a number of skills, values and lessons for the times. The Huguenot character was valued as such. His timely arrival helped invigorate a country stalled, nay dispirited by the ‘wars and political upheavals' of the 17^th century. The refugees « united by the most steadfast and fecund principles in religious and political matters » had a « beneficial influence » on the French speaking Swiss of Romandy. Their courage and their fortitude earned them the unanimous admiration of 19^th century historians. They were considered exemplary Christians and their memory was summoned by the pastors with the stated aim of combating the age's indifference, that is the slow drift away from the Christian faith and practice that marks 19^thand 20^th century Europe. The refugee was also called upon when defending freedom of conscience, he epitomised the struggle to the death to preserve what was considered a most precious right.

The refugees had brought in applied skills, both in farming and in business and finance, which were considered critical to the growth of Geneva and the Canton of Vaud. Their contribution to ideological and political developments was also praised. For Pastor and Historian Jean Gaberel^[2], the French Protestants were « forward looking in politics » and they brought with them in Romandy new ideas on peoples' sovereignty and republican principles. In this respect, the Huguenots establishing themselves in Geneva represented a class of « enlightened » and « progressive » people who would play a remarkable role in revolutions to come. In this, Swiss historical evidence corroborates one trend in the French historiographic tradition. But this idealised portrait of the Huguenot refugee as harbinger of ‘modernity', whether through a distinct and individual form of religious fervour or through his political convictions is not the Genevans' last word on the matter. The themes of the reception and shelter given the refugees loom large in historiography, setting side by side without merging them two archetypal scenarios.

In the first version, the historians stress the generosity of the Swiss in sheltering refugees : they specify the number of people supported, they look into monies collected, blankets handed out, houses opened to house them. They make much of the fact that the Swiss – and especially the Genevans stood up to the king of France and risked their independence for the safety of the Huguenots. Authors such as Pastor Gaberel go so far as to say that the people « risked ruin to uphold the right of asylum ». In other words, the Genevans had arguably done all they could to give optimal help to the refugees while still protecting their national independence and their very existence as a Protestant entity. This latter imperative takes us, however, to the other version. In this scenario, the realities of this reception effort are reassessed. In order to maintain their Republic, the Genevans could not open their gates to all comers. Besides, « the promised land was not Heaven on earth » to quote the memorial predication of a Genevan pastor on 18 October 1885. Textbooks published at the turn of the 20^thcentury are emphatic on this point, adding another qualifier : they remind students that the Genevans, particularly the craftsmen fought against the new arrivals who competed with their business by selling their work cheaper. The authors appear to deplore undertones of xenophobia while granting it some legitimacy or ordinariness owed to the circumstances.

The Genevans, along with other 19^th and 20^thcentury Protestant Swiss, hold the history of the Refuge as a model through which they construct themselves and their relationship to others. Reiterated at every opportunity the theme of a reception and shelter restricted by the imperatives of national protection and capacity for assimilation has been absorbed as the only one possible, indeed the only one desirable. It was called upon throughout the 19^thcentury and applied to the Catholics in Geneva and the political refugees from the diverse European revolutions. After World War II it helped explain both the reception of the Jews and their being taken back to the borders. The threat of a German invasion, as well as the economic impact of an influx of refugees, formed the basis of the authorities' case. A Federal Councillor would use a formula that lives on : « the boat is full » implying that if the country took in more refugees it was liable to ‘sink', to court disaster. This doctrine has been extended to other migrations and is making a comeback when discussing Muslim migrants.