Identity in a Divided Province: The Folklorists of Lorraine, 1860–1960 David Hopkin 6217 FRENCH HISTORICAL STUDIES 23:4 / sheet97 of 210 The original Lorraine came into existence at the Treaty of Verdun in 843, which divided the Carolingian Empire. Its boundaries have been frequently redrawn since then, as the original Middle Kingdom of the Franks was fought over, occupied, and divided by its neighbors, but Lorraine survived, in the reduced form of an independent duchy, al- most until the Revolution.1 However, from the Constituent Assembly’s partition of France into departments in 1790 until after the Second World War, the term Lorraine was only a geographical expression: the four departments of the Moselle, Meuse, Meurthe, and the Vosges had no significant institutions in common.2 Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries some of its inhabitants felt that Lorraine deserved more unity and control over its own actions. Mostly associated with the political right, they ranged from moderate decentralizers to outright autonomists. But they were all agreed that Lorraine was a real entity, and its political claims were merely the recognition of this ‘‘fact.’’ But of what did this Lorraine consist? Even its boundaries were uncertain; historically, the area covered by the four departments was more one of divisions than of unity. The dukes were, from the fifteenth David Hopkin is lecturer in social history at the University of Glasgow. A short version of this article was delivered to the conference of the Association for French Historical Studies in Ottawa, 1998. The author is grateful for the comments from participants at the conference (particularly those of Tony Nuspl and the commentator Robert Schneider), as well as those of the German Historical Studies Group in Cambridge (particularly Chris Clark, Ulinka Rublack, and Brendan Simms) and the anonymous readers for French Historical Studies. The author would also like to thank Carolyn Scott, fellow student of Lorraine, for sharing her knowledge and enthusiasm for this region. 1 For a brief history of the ‘‘réunion’’ of Lorraine with France see André Gain, Géographie lorraine, La Société lorraine des études locales (Paris, 1938), 1–40. 2 Lorraine, as an administrative region, reappeared in 1955, although only after Mitter- rand’s decentralization in 1982 did it take on a political life of its own (Pierre Barral, L’Esprit lorrain: Cet Accent singulier du patriotism français [Nancy, 1989], 143–53). French Historical Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4 (fall 2000) Copyright © 2000 by the Society for French Historical Studies Tseng 2000.11.20 15:01 DST:103 640 FRENCH HISTORICAL STUDIES century, sovereigns over two distinct duchies, Lorraine and Bar. Until 1542 the bulk of this territory formed part of the Holy Roman Em- pire, but the portion west of the Meuse fell under the jurisdiction of the Parlement of Paris. And although the duchy was the largest con- tender for the ‘‘espace lorrain,’’ it was not alone: its most important rival was the city-state of Metz.3 Throughout the medieval and early mod- ern periods the dukes were in dispute with Metz, a conflict that was intensified when France first occupied (1552) and then incorporated (1648) the Three Bishoprics of Metz,Toul, and Verdun. From the 1620s onward the dukes, usually supported by one or other branch of the Hapsburgs, were at war with the French monarchy, only to be finally 6217 FRENCH HISTORICAL STUDIES 23:4 / sheet98 of 210 driven out in 1737. The duchy retained nominal independence under Duke Stanislas, ex-king of Poland and Louis XV’s father-in-law, until finally incorporated into France in 1766.4 Even then it remained legally and administratively apart from the kingdom.The antagonisms created by these historic divisions have sometimes proved more enduring than the states that created them, particularly those between Metz and the former ducal capital, Nancy.5 These internal conflicts posed problems for regionalists who grounded their arguments for political recognition on history. Cer- tainly the duchy had a long history of combative independence on which to draw, and, like other regions tardily ‘‘reunited’’ with France, regionalists could point to treaties promising the recognition of local rights. But a modern region called Lorraine was unlikely to be concomi- tant with the duchy, which would have been an unworkable patchwork of crisscrossing jurisdictions. Nor could Lorrainers have recourse to ethnicity or language as a basis for regional identity, as was the case in Alsace.6 The majority population of Lorraine and the Three Bishoprics spoke langue d’oïl dialects, but both provinces contained a significant minority of germanophones. 3 The historico-geographical complexity of the ‘‘espace lorrain’’ is depicted in two excel- lent atlases: Geographical Section of Naval Intelligence Division, Naval Staff, Admiralty, AManual of Alsace-Lorraine (London, 1920); and Georg Wolfram and Werner Gley, Elsass-lothringischer Atlas: Landeskunde, Geschichte, Kultur und Wirtschaft Elsass-Lothringens (Frankfurt am Main, 1931). 4 For the history of the conflict and final settlement between France and Lorraine see, in particular, Stéphane Gaber, LaLorrainemeutrie:LesMalheursdelaguerredetrenteans(Nancy, 1979); and Guy Cabourdin, Quand Stanislas régnait en Lorraine (Paris, 1980). 5 The present-day antagonism between the cities is very evident over such important issues as the placing of the TGV line between Paris and Strasbourg, but also in football and even such apparently minor matters as whether Metz University should offer degrees in sport studies. In the past their conflicts were much more bloody; for instance, in 1790 when the National Guard of Metz (and Toul) willingly helped crush the Nancy rebellion. 6 Solange Gras, ‘‘Regionalism and Autonomy in Alsace since 1918,’’ in ThePoliticsofTerritorial Identity, ed. Stein Rokkan and Derek Urwin (London, 1982), 309–54. Tseng 2000.11.20 15:01 DST:103 IDENTITY IN A DIVIDED PROVINCE 641 To justify their position, therefore, regionalists of Lorraine turned to popular traditions as evidence of their cultural identity.7 The nine- teenth-century study of folklore, as part of the romantic ‘‘discovery of the people,’’ had proved a vital element in nascent nationalisms from Finland to Serbia.8 Few Lorrainers would go so far as to argue that folkloric unity gave claim to a national identity, but it was proof that Lorraine continued to exist, despite its lack of common institutions. Folklore also provided an argument for self-government, because this traditional local culture was under threat from the centralizing and ho- mogenizing policies emanating from both of the states that, between 1870 and 1945, battled for dominance in the region. 6217 FRENCH HISTORICAL STUDIES 23:4 / sheet99 of 210 Although France had taken control over Lorraine in the eigh- teenth century, its position was disputed during the nineteenth and twentieth by the Holy Roman Empire’s successors, Prussia and then Germany. Prussia had already gained several pieces of Lorraine at the second Treaty of Paris in 1815. After the war of 1870–71, Prussia, citing both Lorraine’s history and her ethnic mix, occupied the eastern cor- ner of the region. Until 1918 Lothringen, together with Alsace, formed a German Reichsland. As France never gave up its claims to the lost prov- inces, both sides of the border in Lorraine became sites for symbolic displays of national unity. France regained Alsace-Lorraine in 1918, but German governments, before and after the Nazi takeover, continued to interest themselves in the region, and for five traumatic years between 1940 and 1945the Moselle once more formed part of the Reich. The hostility between nations was matched by a desire to ensure unity within each nation. Both France and Germany tried hard to in- culcate a sense of national identity in their subjects, particularly in this contested border region. In this climate of heightened nationalism it was impossible to ignore the competing claims over Lorraine. What- ever their nostalgia for the time of the dukes, most regionalists agreed with Maurice Barrès that ‘‘nous ne pouvons être aujourd’hui que Fran- çais ou Allemands’’ (and, indeed, most had a marked preference for one or the other).9 Their search for a regional identity was, therefore, 7 Of course, even within France they were not alone in this; regionalists everywhere based their claims on a mixture of history, language, and popular culture. For details of how folklore was used by exponents of regionalism in Alsace see James Wilkinson, ‘‘The Uses of Popular Culture by Rival Elites: The Case of Alsace, 1890–1914,’’ History of European Ideas 11 (1989): 605–18. 8 This history is well known, but for examples see William A. Wilson, ‘‘The Kalevala and Finnish Politics,’’ Journal of the Folklore Institute 12 (1975): 131–55; and Duncan Wilson, TheLifeand Times of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (Oxford, 1970), 1–10. 9 René Taveneaux, ‘‘Barrès et la Lorraine,’’ in Maurice Barrès: Actes du colloque organisé par la Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines de l’Université de Nancy (Nancy, 22–25 octobre 1962) (Nancy, 1963), 143. Tseng 2000.11.20 15:01 DST:103 642 FRENCH HISTORICAL STUDIES complicated by their desire for a strong nation to defend them from their well-armed neighbors.The consequent dialectic between national and regional identity is one of the issues considered in this article, as folklorists reacted to the fluctuating policies and military fortunes of France and Germany. Regionalist demands (and folkloric activity) were at their most restrained when the process of nation building was at its mildest, in the 1860s; they became more strident as the national or racial ‘‘community’’ took political center stage in the 1920s and 1930s. It is hardly surprising that nationalist and regionalist arguments devel- oped in tandem: the more the state attempted to enforce uniformity the more regionalists rushed to defend local identities.