We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2008
This article deals with the importance of religion as a factor influencing the inclusion and exclusion of foreigners from – and inside – the guilds in eighteenth-century Strasbourg. We consider the different notions of the étranger as socially constructed and circumstantial. Together with factors such as social status, family ties, gender, systems of patronage, wealth, language and the citizenship rights of a town, religious and denominational boundaries constituted a major factor for influencing the inclusion and exclusion of foreigners in the early modern society. The construction and preservation of such boundaries are explored here through the examples of the carpenters' and the shipmen's guild found in the eighteenth-century multiconfessional city of Strasbourg.
1 See Schaser, A., ‘Städtische Fremdenpolitik im Deutschland der Frühen Neuzeit’, in Demandt, A. (ed.), Mit Fremden leben. Eine Kulturgeschichte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Munich, 1995), 137–57Google Scholar; Jessenne, J.-P., ‘L'étranger au-delà du terroir’, in Jessenne, J.-P. (ed.), L'image de l'Autre dans l'Europe du Nord-Ouest à travers l'histoire, Actes du colloque de Villeneuve d'Ascq, 24, 25, 26 novembre 1994 (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 1996), 163–77Google Scholar; Zink, A., ‘L'indifférence à la différence: les forains dans la France du Sud-Ouest’, Annales: Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 43 (1988), 149–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Notably Sahlins, P., Unnaturally French: Foreign Citizens in the Old Regime and After (Ithaca, NY, 2004)Google Scholar; Wahnich, S., L'impossible citoyen. L'étranger dans le discours de la Révolution française (Paris, 1997)Google Scholar; Wells, C., Law and Citizenship in Early Modern France (Baltimore and London, 1995)Google Scholar. See also Brubaker, R., Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar; Weil, P., Qu'est-ce qu'un Français? Histoire de la nationalité française depuis la Révolution (Paris, 2002)Google Scholar. On the surveillance and control of foreigners by the state Noiriel, G., La tyrannie du national. Le droit d'asile en Europe 1793–1993 (Paris, 1991)Google Scholar; Torpey, J., The Invention of the Passport. Surveillance, Citizenship and the State (Cambridge, 2000)Google Scholar. Some studies have focused on the techniques of identification and surveillance applied to étrangers and forains from a local perspective; however, they tend to forget that the state was not the only institution doing the identifying. See Blanc-Chaléard, M.-C., Douki, C., Dyonet, N. and Milliot, V. (eds.), Police et migrants. France, 1667–1939 (Rennes, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roche, D. (ed.), La ville promise. Mobilité et accueil à Paris (fin XVIème–début XIXème siècle) (Paris, 2000)Google Scholar. Equally, J. Bottins and D. Calabi's study of Spain and France limits itself to defining ‘foreigner’ as a ‘nationality’ based category (see Bottin, J. and Calabi, D. (eds.), Les étrangers dans la ville. Minorités et espace urbain du bas Moyen Âge à l'époque moderne (Paris, 1999)Google Scholar).
3 Dubost, J.-F. and Sahlins, P., Et si on faisait payer les étrangers? Louis XIV, les immigrés et quelques autres (Paris, 1999)Google Scholar.
4 Sahlins, Unnaturally French.
5 According to estimates, about 60,000 foreigners arrived in ancien régime France every year. However, the average number of naturalizations was only 40 to 50 per year between 1660 and 1789, Lequin, Y., La mosaïque France: histoire des étrangers et de l'immigration en France (Paris, 1988), 204Google Scholar. For a recent, severe criticism of Sahlin's readings of the naturalization letters, see Cerutti, C., ‘À qui appartiennent les biens qui n'appartiennent à personne? Citoyenneté et droit d'aubaine à l'époque moderne’, Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales, 62 (2007), 355–83Google Scholar.
6 See Heindl, W. and Saurer, E. (eds.), Grenze und Staat: Passwesen, Staatsbürgerschaft, Heimatrecht und Fremdengesetzgebung in der österreichischen Monarchie 1750–1867 (Vienna, Cologne and Weimar, 2000)Google Scholar; Gosewinkel, D., ‘Einbürgern und ausschließen’. Die Nationalisierung der Staatsangehörigkeit von Deutschen Bund bis zur Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Göttingen, 2001)Google Scholar; Fahrmeir, A., Citizens and Aliens: Foreigners and the Law in Britain and the German States 1789–1870 (New York and Oxford, 2000)Google Scholar.
7 Herzog, T., Defining Nations. Immigrants and Citizens in Early Modern Spain and Spanish America (New Haven and London, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Similar conclusions are also reached by Manz, V., Fremde und Gemeinwohl. Integration und Ausgrenzung in Spanien im Übergang vom Ancien Régime zum frühen Nationalstaat (Stuttgart, 2006)Google Scholar.
8 Bossenga, G., ‘Rights and citizens in the Old Regime’, French Historical Studies, 20 (1997), 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 ‘Fremdheit ist keine Eigenschaft, auch kein objektives Verhältnis zweier Personen oder Gruppen, sondern die Definition einer Beziehung’, Hahn, A., ‘Die soziale Konstruktion des Fremden’, in Sprondel, W. (ed.), Die Objektivität der Ordnungen und ihre kommunikative Konstruktion (Frankfurt am Main, 1994), 140Google Scholar.
10 This interactive model has some significant consequences for the vocabulary used. The notions of ‘integration’ and ‘identity’ have therefore been abandoned. Instead of ‘integration’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ have been used. These notions make it possible to focus upon the processes used to identify a foreigner, instead of taking as given the already fixed categories of foreigners. The processes of inclusion and exclusion can take different forms according to the particular context. It is possible to be included or excluded from different sectors of life. Being excluded from one sector of life does not automatically lead to one being excluded from others. See Bohn, C. and Hahn, A., ‘Patterns of inclusion and exclusion: property, nation and religion’, Soziale Systeme, 8 (2002), 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Luhmann, N., ‘Inklusion und Exklusion’, in Berding, H. (ed.), Nationales Bewußtsein und kollektive Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit 2, 2nd edn (Frankfurt am Main, 1996), 15–45Google Scholar. As for identity, one could of course speak of ‘social identity’, as has been done by various historians working on multiple identities or diasporas. But given that (1) for the most part, the sources used for this study do not allow for us to find the same individuals more that once or twice and (2) that the notion of identity always seems to suggest a certain form of continuity, we must accept that it would seem absurd to try and deduce the identity of a person from the scarce material available. In this context, the notion of identity lacks any explicatory value. Instead of identities, what is of interest here is how people were identified by themselves and by others. See Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F., ‘Beyond “identity”’, Theory and Society, 29 (2000), 1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 The local citizenship (droit de bourgeoisie) persisted as a juridical category until the French Revolution in certain parts of Alsace, Lorraine and French Flanders, providing its holders with political, juridical and economic and rights in exchange for a moral and fiscal commitment to the community. See Guignet, P., Le pouvoir dans la ville au XVIIIe siècle. Pratiques politiques, notabilité et éthique sociale de part et d'autre de la frontière franco-belge (Paris, 1990), 58Google Scholar; Imbert, J., ‘Les rapports entre l'aubaine et la bourgeoisie en Lorraine’, Annales de l'Est, 3 (1952), 349–64Google Scholar; J. Imbert, ‘De quelques bourgeoisies voisines. La bourgeoisie lorraine’, in La bourgeoisie alsacienne. Études d'histoire sociale (Strasbourg and Paris, 1954), 495–9; G. Zeller, ‘Manants d'Alsace, derniers manants de France’, in Mélanges 1945, I: Études alsatiques (Paris, 1946), 111–20; C. Wittmer, ‘Les origines du droit de bourgeoisie à Strasbourg’, in La bourgeoisie alsacienne, 49–56.
12 On the multiconfessional city of Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines, see R. McCoy, ‘The culture of accommodation: religion, language, and politics in an Alsatian community, 1648–1870’ (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Ph.D. thesis, 1992); see also Wallace, P.G., Communities and Conflict in Early Modern Colmar, 1575–1730 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1995)Google Scholar.
13 Pallach, U.-C., ‘Fonctions de la mobilité artisanale et ouvrière – compagnons, ouvriers et manufacturiers en France et aux Allemagnes (17e–19e siècles)’, Francia, 11 (1983), 375Google Scholar. On the efforts of the Frankfurt magistracy to stop the Catholics from acquiring citizenship rights through marriage and the guilds' fight to prevent the admission of Catholics, see Roth, R., Stadt und Bürgertum in Frankfurt am Main. Ein besonderer Weg von der ständischen zur modernen Bürgergesellschaft 1760–1914 (Munich, 1996), 70–1Google Scholar, and Wolf, K., ‘Der Kampf der katholischen Handwerker um Bürger- und Meisterrecht in Frankfurt a.M. gegen Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts’, Historisches Jahrbuch, 54 (1934), 239–53Google Scholar.
14 See François, E., Protestants et catholiques en Allemagne. Identités et pluralisme. Ausbourg 1648–1806 (Paris, 1993)Google Scholar. The case of Augsburg is similar to that of Strasbourg: parity was introduced as a principle for the distribution of municipal charges between Catholics and Lutherans in 1648. The same took place in Colmar (1680) and Strasbourg (1687) with the introduction of the Alternative.
15 See F. Barth, ‘Ethnic groups and boundaries’, in Barth, F., Process and Form in Social Life. Selected Essays of Fredrik Barth (London, 1981), 198–227Google Scholar. According to Barth, the construction and the maintenance of (ethnic) boundaries rests on the identification and self-identification of certain categories by the participants in any given situation. The crucial point in Barth's argument is that in such dynamic processes the features taken into account are not the sum of ‘objective’ differences, but only those which the actors themselves consider significant. The primary concern is therefore how the distinction between us and them is established and justified in a specific context.
16 The best overview of eighteenth-century Strasbourg is offered by Livet, G. and Rapp, F. (eds.), Histoire de Strasbourg des origines á nos jours, vol. III: Strasbourg de la guerre de Trente Ans à Napoléon, 1618–1815 (Strasbourg, 1981)Google Scholar.
17 On the Strasbourg constitution, see Livet, G. and Rott, J., ‘En commémoration d'un demi-millénaire. La Constitution de 1482. Aperçu sur l'histoire constitutionnelle de Strasbourg jusqu'à la Révolution’, Annuaire de la Société des amis du Vieux-Strasbourg, 12 (1982), 17–22Google Scholar.
18 On the marginalization of the Calvinists, see Maeder, A., Notice historique sur la paroisse réformée de Strasbourg et recueil de pièces probantes, 2nd edn (Paris and Strasbourg, 1885)Google Scholar; H. Sonkajärvi, ‘L'étranger et le forain entre inclusion et exclusion; de la cité impériale à la ville de province: le cas de Strasbourg (1681–1789)’ (European University Institute Ph.D. thesis, 2006), 90–9.
19 Archives municipales de Strasbourg (hereafter AMS), AA 2118, Capitulation accordée à la ville de Strasbourg par Louis XIV, 30 Sep. 1681. It should be noted that the revocation of the Edict of Nantes was never applied to Alsace, since the Edict was never introduced there in the first place because Alsace was not part of the French kingdom in 1598. See Pfister, C., ‘L'Alsace et l'Édit de Nantes’, Revue historique, 160 (1929), 225Google Scholar.
20 Sonkajärvi, ‘L'étranger et le forain’, 122–8. On the Jews of Alsace, see Raphaël, F. and Weyl, R., Regards nouveaux sur les juifs d'Alsace (Strasbourg, 1980)Google Scholar. On the naturalization of Jews, see, for instance, Sahlins, P., ‘Fictions of a Catholic France: the naturalization of foreigners, 1685–1787’, Representations, 47 (1994), 85–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Szajkowski, Z., ‘The Jewish status in eighteenth-century France and the “Droit d'aubaine”’, Historia Judaica, 19 (1957), 147–61Google Scholar.
21 AMS, AA 2380, Copie de la lettre de M. le préteur royal de Strasbourg à M. le sieur Saint Germain, 13 Apr. 1776.
22 Service historique de l'armée de terre, Vincennes (SHAT), A1 773, sans f., Lettre de Louvois à M. de la Grange, 3 Jan. 1686; ibid., Lettre de Louvois à M. Obrecht, 18 Feb. 1686.
23 See Châtellier, L., Tradition chrétienne et renouveau catholique dans le cadre de l'ancienne diocèse de Strasbourg (1650–1770) (Paris, 1981)Google Scholar; Sarmant, T. and Lemoigne, H., ‘“Les douces violences”: Dominique Dietrich et la politique religieuse de la monarchie à Strasbourg, 1681–1694’, Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire du Protestantisme français, 146 (2000), 367–90Google Scholar. On a more general level, and concerning the different confessions in Alsace, see Vogler, B., Histoire des chrétiens d'Alsace des origines à nos jours (Paris, 1994)Google Scholar.
24 This was particularly the case during the first three decades of the French rule, see Greissler, P., La Classe politique dirigeante à Strasbourg, 1650–1750 (Strasbourg, 1987), 245–6Google Scholar. Recent studies have underlined the opportunistic character of conversions. Hodler, for instance, speaks of religious belonging as an object of exchange, which could be exploited repeatedly in order to improve one's social standing, Hodler, B., ‘Konversionen und der Handlungsspielraum der Untertanen in der Eidgenossenschaft im Zeitalter des reformierten Orthodoxie’, in Schmidt, H., Holenstein, A. and Würgler, A. (eds.), Gemeinde, Reformation und Widerstand. Festschrift für Peter Blickle zum 60. Geburtstag (Tübingen, 1998), 281–91Google Scholar. See also Volkland, F., Konfession und Selbstverständnis. Reformierte Rituale in der gemischtkonfessionellen Kleinstadt Bischofszell im 17. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 2005), 139–87Google Scholar. For an example of conversions as a survival strategy for women from the lower social strata, see von Thiessen, H., ‘Konversionsbereitschaft als Lebensunterhalt. Der Fall der vermeintlichen Konvertitin Catharina Baumännin vor dem Freiburger Stadtgericht (1730/31) und seine Bedeutung für unser Verständnis der Konfessionalisierung’, Zeitschrift des Breisgau-Geschichtsvereins ‘Schau-ins-Land’, 119 (2000), 87–101Google Scholar.
25 The French conquest was followed by a Catholic immigration, so that in 1789 there were between 25,300 and 25,700 Catholics and 22,200 to 22,500 Lutherans in the city. The total number of inhabitants was 48,500. Only a minority of these Catholic immigrants were subjects of the French king. Most immigrants were of Alsatian origin and came from the regions surrounding the city. Other important groups of immigrants came from the Holy Roman Empire, Savoy and Lorraine. The French-speaking population did not account for more than 9% of new citizens in the period 1700–01 and for no more than 8% in the period 1785–86, see Dreyer-Roos, S., La population strasbourgeoise sous l'Ancien Régime (Strasbourg, 1969), 117–21Google Scholar; B. Vogler, ‘La pénétration française en Alsace au XVIIIe siècle à travers les testaments’, in Provinces et États dans la France de l'Est. Le rattachement de la Franche-Comté à la France, espaces régionaux et espaces nationaux, Actes du colloque de Besançon, 3 et 4 octobre 1977 (Paris, 1979), 196.
26 The case of the French carpenters (französischen Schreiner or menuisiers français) has been notably treated by F. Lévy-Coblentz, L'art du meuble en Alsace au siècle des Lumières, vol. II: De la paix de Ryswick à la Révolution (1698–1789) (Saint-Dié, 1985), especially 121–42, and by Polaczek, E., ‘Das Handwerk der französischen Schreiner der Stadt Strassburg’, Elsässische Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Volkskunde, 1 (1910), 321–30Google Scholar.
27 There also existed ‘German’ and ‘French’ saddlers and ‘German’ and ‘French’ bakers. The perruquiers only formed themselves into a community inside the guild Weinsticher (Gourmets) in 1716 after the French crown had introduced a purchasable status of perruquiers privilégiés du roi (1691), the establishment of which led to an enduring conflict between traditionally established barbiers et perruquiers and the new comers.
28 Whereas new crafts like those of upholsterers (90% Catholic), plasterers (100%), gilders (100%) and ‘french saddlers’ (100%) were dominated by Catholic migrants from Alsace and inner France, B. Vogler, ‘La vie économique et les hiérarchies socials’, in Livet and Rapp (eds.), Histoire de Strasbourg, vol. III, 204–5; Dreyer-Roos, La population strasbourgeoise, 132–4.
29 In fact, the number of Lutheran and Catholic citizens remained very unequal. In 1789, when the number of Catholic citizens was at its peak, 74% of the Bürger were still Lutheran as opposed to 24% Catholics. Among the Schirmbürger 22% were Catholic and 11% Lutheran. 52% of the Catholics belonged to the simple inhabitants (Dreyer-Roos, La population strasbourgeoise, 99–100).
30 The masterpiece (Meisterwerk/chef-d'oeuvre) was a demonstration of skill required for reaching the status of a master artisan and consequently becoming a member of a corporation. The master artisans could exercise their profession independently and were allowed to hire journeymen. The prerequisite for the completion of a masterpiece was that the aspirant had completed his years tramping (Wanderjahre). This obligation to tramp did not exist in France, even though many journeymen did leave for a Tour de France. The guild regulations gave detailed instructions on how the masterpiece was to be completed. To be admitted as a master, the candidate was to pay a mastership fee. He was to complete the work alone and at his own expense. The final product was examined by the guild, who established whether the candidate was to be granted the master's status or not. Every master artisan was to pay the citizenship rights of the town and thus became a full member of the local political community. The Strasbourg guilds would acknowledge the master's status attained in the Holy Roman Empire, the Baltic or Sweden, but they refused to acknowledge the same status attained in France.
31 The bishop of Strasbourg and the nobility continued, right until the end of the eighteenth century, to employ professionals who would not adhere to the guild system. For examples of carpenters and other artisans protected by the particular jurisdictions of the citadelle, the Catholic church and noble households, see Lévy-Coblentz, L'art du meuble, vol. II, 235; J.-D. Ludmann, ‘La vie artistique et l'urbanisme à Strasbourg au XVIIIe siècle’, in Livet and Rapp (eds.), Histoire de Strasbourg des origines à nos jours, vol. III, 473–8.
32 Lévy-Coblentz refers to Nicolas de La Mare's Traité de Police, 4 vols. (Paris, 1732–38), according to whom the Parisian Maîtres Huchers-Menuisiers knew five different groups of mastership candidates. The difficulty of the masterpiece was determined by the applicant's social status, Lévy-Coblentz, F., ‘La position des menuisiers français dans l'affaire de leur chef-d'oeuvre à Strasbourg, en 1698’, Annuaire de la Société des amis du Vieux-Strasbourg (1975), 94–6Google Scholar.
33 Lévy-Coblentz, ‘La position des menuisiers’, 94–6.
34 Because the notion of ‘skill’ is socially defined, it can be constantly redefined. Simonton, D., A History of European Women's Work: 1700 to the Present (London and New York, 1998)Google Scholar, has for instance shown how the notion of ‘skill’ was used to exclude women from certain crafts in eighteenth-century Aberdeen. In the case of the Strasbourg ‘German’ and ‘French’ carpenters, it should be noted that the two communities began to criticize each other for their styles of production and their admission criteria only once the boundary – sustained by the confessional division – had been established between the two communities.
35 In fact, numerous cities were boycotted by the journeymen of one or more crafts because they were perceived as failing to respect commonly accepted rules by tolerating illicit workers. On the importance of honour and reputation in relation to the guilds, see Griessinger, A., Das symbolische Kapital der Ehre: Streikbewegungen und kollektives Bewusstsein deutscher Handwerksgesellen im 18. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main, Berlin and Vienna, 1981)Google Scholar. At the same time, holding rigidly to the ‘German tradition’ provided an efficient argument against any intervention by the Crown in relation to the Strasbourg guild system. The magistracy successfully prevented the opening up of the mastership to anyone who had completed a masterpiece in any other city of the Kingdom (1755) and Strasbourg was also exempted from the suppression of the guilds promulgated in 1776, Sonkajärvi, ‘L'étranger et le forain’, 134–40.
36 AMS, 2 R 105, fol. 148, Protocoll des Rats der XV, 15 Apr. 1701; AMS, 2 R 107, fols. 227–8, Protocoll des Rats der XV, 7 Sep. 1703. The great majority of the magistracy's proceedings before the French Revolution are written in German.
37 The Council of Fifteen was one of the three main councils of the Strasbourg magistracy. It consisted of ten commoners and five noble members and was responsible for the internal administration of the city.
38 AMS, XI 38, Extrait du protocole de la chambre des XV, 20 Feb. 1740.
39 Polaczek, ‘Das Handwerk’, 322.
40 Earlier efforts undertaken in 1750 to unite the two communities – again following the demands of the German carpenters' community, which was lacking members – did not have any concrete effect. This was partly because the French carpenters were in debt. However, and even more importantly, it was also the result of the fact that the ‘German’ carpenters refused to contribute to the Catholic mass at the Cathedral, which the ‘French’ had committed themselves to at the establishment of their confrérie, Polaczek, ‘Das Handwerk’, 327–8.
41 Archives départementales du Bas Rhin, Strasbourg, 3 J 45, Extrait des Registres du Conseil d'État du Roy, 4 Jul. 1767.
42 Hertner, P., Stadtwirtschaft zwischen Reich und Frankreich. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Straßburgs 1650–1714 (Cologne and Vienna, 1973), 67Google Scholar, dates the practice back to 1650. During the second half of the eighteenth century the guild of the shipmen, called the ‘Encker’, was in economic decline. These economic difficulties were related to customs fees and smuggling, as well as to competition from small farmers (who had taken over minor transport jobs) and improvements in transportation by land. Most damaging, however, was the fact that since 1681 the Strasbourg shipmen's monopoly of navigation on the Rhine had been contested by the margrave of Baden and the elector of the Palatinate. See Koenig, C., ‘Navigation et traités concernant la navigation sur le Rhin au XVIIIe siècle. Contribution à l'étude des relations entre Versailles, Strasbourg et les cours rhénanes (1681–1790)’, Revue d'Alsace, 105 (1979), 95–116Google Scholar; Livet, G., ‘Strasbourg et la navigation du Rhin. Contribution à l'étude des relations entre la Ville et le Magraviat [sic] de Bade à la fin du XVIIIe siècle’, in Duchhardt, H. and Schmitt, E. (eds.), Deutschland und Frankreich in der frühen Neuzeit. Festschrift für Hermann Weber zum 65. Geburtstag (Munich, 1987), 549–87Google Scholar; Löper, C., Die Rheinschifffahrt Straßburgs in früherer Zeit und die Straßburger Schiffleut-Zunft (Strasbourg, 1877)Google Scholar.
43 Hertner, Stadtwirtschaft, 67–8.
44 AMS, VI 680 n°16, Copie de la lettre du Préteur royal Gayot à M. le duc de Choiseul, 24 Apr. 1767.
45 AMS, AA 2081, fols. 138–9, Lettre du stettmeistre de Burlach concernant l'alternative à observer dans les élections qui se font au sein du corps des bateliers. – Griefs produits, à ce sujet, par les bateliers catholiques, 4 Apr. 1783.
46 ‘We have noted that the Lutherans possess most of the property in Strasbourg; as long as the Catholics are not allowed to enter into their families, they will never share in this wealth; the power, the richness, the esteem will always remain reserved to the Lutherans and the Catholics of Strasbourg, especially those among the second and third class of inhabitants in this city, will always be of a worse condition and have an inferior and oppressed standing . . . Also, as long as these marriages are forbidden, the Strasbourg Catholics and Lutherans will be like two separate corps; two distinct societies, that think, that act differently, and having few common interests, will be united neither by affection nor by sentiment; Does the interest of the state not require that there should be more union in one and the same city?’ (my own translation), Archives Nationales, Paris, H1 1639, n°31, Mémoire sur les mariages des catholiques avec les luthériens à Strasbourg, s.d.
47 de Boug, François Henri (ed.), Recueil des édits, déclarations, lettres patentes, arrêts du Conseil d'État et du Conseil souverain d'Alsace, Ordonnances & Règlemens [sic] concernant cette Province (Colmar, 1775), vol. II, 873–4Google Scholar, ‘Déclaration portant Révocation des défences faites, par l'Édit du mois d'août 1683, aux Sujets du Roi, en la province d'Alsace, faisant profession de la Religion catholique, de contracter des Mariages avec ceux de la même Province qui font profession de la Religion luthérienne’, 19 Mar. 1774.
48 According to C.-F. Boegner (Études historiques sur l'église protestante de Strasbourg considérée dans ses rapports avec l'Église catholique, 1681–1727 (Strasbourg, 1851), 51) 95 mixed marriages occurred between 1774 and 1784. However, Boegner does not reveal his sources. J.-G. Guth makes the point that the mixed marriages mainly concerned the categories of Schirmbürger and simple inhabitants (see ‘Les Protestants de Strasbourg sous monarchie française (de 1681 à la veille de la révolution): une communauté religieuse distincte?’ (Université de Strasbourg II doctoral thesis, 1997), vol. II, 898–908). Similarly, Dreyer-Roos notes that even during the first years of the French Revolution, from 1790 to 1793, the administrative personnel of the city remained predominantly protestant, even though Catholics formed the majority in demographic terms (La population strasbourgeoise), 136–8; only Germans and the Alsatians used the marriage as a strategic tool for obtaining the local citizenship rights; Marx, R., Recherches sur la vie politique de l'Alsace prérévolutionnaire et révolutionnaire (Strasbourg, 1966), 154Google Scholar). Similar prejudices against mixed marriages have also been noted for the city of Augsburg. Mixed marriages were rare, although the Catholic and Lutheran populations of Augsburg possessed equal rights and were much more equal in terms of wealth than their respective counterparts in Strasbourg (see François, ‘Protestants et catholiques’, 203–12).
