[BRIEF NOTE] Fustel de Coulanges on Alsace

[rfmcdonald]

The recent war in Georgia, on top of the past several decades of nationalist wars and peaceful separatist movements all around the world, have done me the service of reminding me of an interesting essay written one hundred thirty-eight years ago in the middle of yet another--although more foundational--nationalist war.

Some weeks after the Franco-Prussian War, when it became clear that the German amrmies--led by Prussia--were broadly superior to those of France and bound to triumph, talk of annexing Alsace, a French province at the time populated mainly by speakers of German dialects and with its capital of Strasbourg Strassberg a centre of German learning, eventually became policy in the nascent Germany. The French opposed this and tried to oppose this outcome militarily to the point of creating a provisional government, the Third Republic, that desperately created volunteer armies and a self-governing Commune in Paris that, well, had unexpected side-effects and did nothing to save French Alsace quite apart from saving France's public reputation and allowing it to pose as a victim in many of the circles where it was once a villain.

A lot was written from the French side at the time, but one piece that has interested me--thanks to the Bibliothèque municipale de Lisieux--is one written by classical historian Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, (French Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, in October 1870 issue of La Revue des deux mondes "L'Alsace est-elle allemande ou française". In this, an address to a German colleague who welcomed Alsace's entry into the German polity on the grounds of its impeccably German background, Fustel de Coulanges questioned his rationale.

Vous invoquez le principe de nationalité, mais vous le comprenez autrement que toute l'Europe. Suivant vous, ce principe autoriserait un État puissant à s'emparer d'une province par la force, à la seule condition d'affirmer que cette province est occupée par la même race que cet État. Suivant l'Europe et le bon sens, il autorise simplement une province ou une population à ne pas obéir malgré elle à un maître étranger. Je m'explique par un exemple : le principe de nationalité ne permettait pas au Piémont de conquérir par la force Milan et Venise ; mais il permettait à Milan et à Venise de s'affranchir de l'Autriche et de se joindre volontairement au Piémont. Vous voyez la différence. Ce principe peut bien donner à l'Alsace un droit, mais il ne vous en donne aucun sur elle.

You invoke the principle of nationality, but you understand that differently from the rest of Europe. According to you, this principle would allow a powerful State to capture one province by force, the only requirement being an affirmation that the territory is occupied by the same race as that state. Following practice in Europe and common sense, this allows a province or a population not to disobey a foreign master. Let me explain with an example: the principle of nationality did not allow the Piedmont to conquer by force Milan and Venice, but it allowed Milan and Venice to get rid of Austria and voluntarily join the Piedmont. You see the difference. This principle may well give Alsace a right, but it does give you no on it.

If this principle was extended, he wondered, would "Prussia" (not, interestingly enough, Germany) have a right to go on to take Holland, Switzerland, Austria, Livonia and Riga? The author can't claim race as a factor, since according to that principle Belgium would be French and Portugal Spanish. Language isn't the issue at hand, since the United States and the United Kingdom are not united. What makes Alsace French?

Ce n'est pas Louis XIV, c'est notre Révolution de 1789. Depuis ce moment, I'Alsace a suivi toutes nos destinées ; elle a vécu de notre vie. Tout ce que nous pensions, elle le pensait ; tout ce que nous sentions, elle le sentait. Elle a partagé nos victoires et nos revers, notre gloire et nos fautes, toutes nos joies et toutes nos douleurs. Elle n'a rien eu de commun avec vous. La patrie, pour elle, c'est la France. L'étranger, pour elle, c'est l'Allemagne.

Tous les raisonnements du monde n'y changeront rien. Vous avez beau invoquer l'ethnographie et la philologie. Nous ne sommes pas ici dans un cours d'université. Nous sommes au milieu des faits et en plein coeur humain. Si vos raisonnements vous disent que l'Alsace doit avoir le coeur allemand, mes yeux et mes oreilles m'assurent qu'elle a le coeur français. Vous affirmez, de loin, " qu'elle garde un esprit d'opposition provinciale contre la France " ; je l'ai vue de près ; j'ai connu des hommes de toutes les classes, de tous les cultes, de tous les partis politiques, et je n'ai trouvé cet esprit d'opposition contre la France nulle part. Vous insinuez qu'elle a une antipathie contre les hommes de Paris ; je me vante de savoir avec quelle sympathie elle les accueille. Par le coeur et par l'esprit, I'Alsace est une de nos provinces les plus françaises. Le Strasbourgeois a, comme chacun de nous, deux patries : sa ville natale d'abord, puis, au-dessus, la France. Quant à l'Allemagne, il n'a pas même la pensée qu'elle puisse être en aucune façon sa patrie.

[. . .]

Ne parlez donc plus de nationalité, et surtout gardez-vous bien de dire aux Italiens : Strasbourg est à nous du même droit que Milan et Venise sont à vous ; car les Italiens vous répondraient qu'ils n'ont bombardé ni Milan ni Venise. Si l'on avait pu avoir quelque doute sur la vraie nationalité de Strasbourg et de l'Alsace, le doute ne serait plus possible aujourd'hui. La cruauté de l'attaque et l'énergie de la défense ont fait éclater la vérité à tous les yeux. Quelle preuve plus forte voudriez vous?

This is not Louis XIV, it is our Revolution of 1789. Since that time, Alsace followed all our destinies; she lived our life. Everything that we thought, she thought; all that we all felt, she felt. She shared our victories and our setbacks, our glory and our faults, all our joys and our pain. She had nothing in common with you. The homeland, it is France. A foreigner, it is Germany.

All the arguments of the world change noything. You invoke beautiful ethnography and philology. We are not here in a university course. We are in the midst of facts and full human heart. If your reasoning tell you that Alsace should have a German heart, my eyes and my ears assure me that it has a French heart. You say, "it retains a spirit of provincial opposition against France," I who have seen it close up say that I have known men of all classes, of all faiths, of all parties and policies, and I have found this spirit of opposition against France nowhere. You insinuate it has an antipathy against the men in Paris and I am proud to know how it has sympathy with Paris. By heart and by mind, Alsace is one of most French provinces most French. The Strasbourgeois, like each of us, two homelands: his hometown and then, above, France. As for Germany, he never thought that it could be in any way his homeland.

Speak no more of nationality, and most importantly never say to the Italians that "Strasbourg is ours for the same right that as Milan and Venice are yours," because when you meet the Italians they will tell you that they have not bombed Milan or Venice. If we could have had any doubt about the true nationality of Strasbourg and of Alsace, doubt would no longer be possible today. The cruelty of the attack and energy of the defence have pushed the truth into everyone's eyes. What more could you wantr?

Nous souhaitons que l'Alsace reste parmi les provinces françaises, mais sachez bien quel motif nous alléguons pour cela. Disons-nous que c'est parce que Louis XIV l'a conquise? Nullement. Disons-nous que c'est parce qu'elle est utile à notre défense ? Non. Ni les raisons tirées de la force, ni les intérêts de la stratégie n'ont de valeur en cette affaire. Il ne s'agit que d'une question de droit public, et nous devons résoudre cette question d'après les principes modernes. La France n'a qu'un seul motif pour vouloir conserver l'Alsace, c'est que l'Alsace a vaillamment montré qu'elle voulait rester avec la France. Voilà pourquoi nous soutenons la guerre contre la Prusse. Bretons et Bourguignons, Parisiens et Marseillais, nous combattons contre vous au sujet de l'Alsace; mais, que nul ne s'y trompe ; nous ne combattons pas pour la contraindre, nous combattons pour vous empêcher de la contraindre.

We hope that Alsace continues to be one of the French provinces, but know well what reason we want this. Is it because Louis XIV had conquered it? Not at all. Is it because it is useful to our defence? No. Neither the reasons drawn from force, nor from strategy are relevant in this case. This is only a matter of public law, and we must resolve this issue according to modern principles. France has only one reason for wanting to keep Alsace, and it is that Alsace has valiantly shown she wanted to remain with France. That is why we support the war against Prussia. Bretons and Burgundians, Paris and Marseillais, we are fighting against you on the Alsace, but make no mistake: we do not fight to take it, we fight to keep you from taking it.

This essay strongly reminds me of Ernest Renan's suggestion in his famous formulation, in the 1882 lecture Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? that a nation is formed by the day-tio-day referendum of the people who choose to live in it. While it's true that the arguments of Fustel de Coulanges and Renan are vulnerable to exploitation by people who'd like to manipulate the popular will ("Look, the people of Vermont want to be Canadians!"), they're still highly relevant to the day-to-day world, especially in the light of the nationalism-associated conflicts in our worlds. For whatever it's worth.