Building a Local Administration Abroad

The relation of consular institutions to legal and administrative space was a question that occupied a number of authors in the 19th century.

Stamatios Antonopoulos: Περι της εν Τουρκια Ετεροδικιας, Athina 1880 [German translation: Über die Exterritorialität der Ausländer in der Türkei mit Rücksicht auf die Gerichtsbarkeit in Civil- und Strafprozessen, Berlin 1895]; Arrigo Cavaglieri: »La finzione di extraterritorialità dei consolati«, in: La Scuola positiva. Rivista di criminologia e diritto N. S. 2 (1922), p. 18–30; Bernhard Hübler: Die Magistraturen des völkerrechtlichen Verkehrs (Gesandtschafts- und Konsularrecht) und die Exterritorialität. Zum Gebrauch für Vorlesungen über Völkerrecht und Politik, Berlin 1900.

This contemporary analysis shows a clear comprehension of an aspect of the specificity of consulates’ spatial position that is of particular interest here: it locates them in relation to the territoriality of not one state, but two. In both respects, their status is an exception to the principle of territoriality. On the one hand, consulates and their jurisdictions are – at least partially – exempted from the legal and administrative control of the state on whose territory they are built. On the other, they apply laws of the state that operates them, although they are outside its territory. In the case of the French consulate at Salonica, this meant that the consuls, in the exercise of their duties, were constantly confronted with the demands of two states, or rather, of two ongoing state-building projects.

France in the 19th century witnessed the continuation of the construction of a modern state: territorial standardization with departments and prefects, legislative standardization marked by codification and, mainly, the Civil Code,

Jean Carbonnier: »Le Code Civil«, in: Pierre Nora (ed.): Les lieux de mémoire, vol. 2: La Nation, pt. 2: Le territoire, ľÉtat, le patrimoine, Paris 1986, p. 293–315. He describes its symbolic power: standardization is founded on compromise and gradually internalized over the course of the century.

In order to deal with the particular conditions of this network, the French state had regulated the organization of consulates, from their first institutionalization, through a legislation which was, so to speak, two-faced. While on the one hand it was specific to the consulates, on the other hand it integrated the evolutions of the legislation applied in France. The consular system was primarily structured by general ordinances. The first, issued in 1681, which brought the consulates under the control of the monarchy, was updated by a series of new ordinances from 1778 to 1781, and above all that of 3 March 1781, which constituted »the true keystone of the legislative vault of the consular institution«.

Anne Mézin: »La fonction consulaire dans la France ďAncien Régime: origine, principe, prérogatives«, in: Jörg Ulbert / Gérard Le Bouëdec (ed.): La fonction consulaire à ľépoque moderne. Ľaffirmation ďune institution économique et politique (1500–1800), Rennes 2006, p. 37–49, at p. 40.

Indeed, the various regimes that succeeded the absolute monarchy after 1789 had experienced difficulties in changing the consular organization in depth. This was the meaning of the instructions received by the new consul, Louis-Auguste Félix-Beaujour,

Later known as Louis-Auguste Félix, baron de Beaujour (from 1818).

If the revision of the ordinance of 1781 was again considered in July 1814, during the first Restoration, »time and circumstances having made it indispensable«,

AMAE, Consulats, rapports et décisions, 1814–1819, no. 66, report dated 3. 7. 1814 on the ordinances of 1778 and 1781.

These – very numerous – texts adjusted the organization of the diplomatic machine to the needs and evolutions of French and local legislation.

See especially Théodore Roland de Bussy: Dictionnaire des consulats. Exposé des devoirs, droits et fonctions des consuls et officiers consulaires de France dans leurs rapports avec les administrations de la métropole, les autorités étrangères, les nationaux et les navigateurs; rédigé ďaprès les lois, décrets et conventions en vigueur et suivi du tarif des chancelleries, Al-Jazā’ir 1854.

The first article of the ordinance of 23 October 1833 thus provided that »our consuls shall comply […] with the rules prescribed by this [Civil] Code«.

»Ordonnance du roi sur ľintervention des consuls relativement aux actes de ľétat civil des Français en pays étranger, du 23 octobre 1833«, cited from Jean-Baptiste Duvergier: Collection complète des lois, décrets, ordonnances, réglemens, et avis du Conseil-ďÉtat, vol. 33: Année 1833, Paris 1834, p. 487.

The existence of consular representations in Ottoman territory depended first and foremost on capitulations, the founding texts regulating, at different levels, the relations between the Ottoman Empire and its external partners. Signed by states, they were settled at the local level between their representatives and established, as far as possible, the general framework of the foreign presence in the imperial space. »Antique monument of the wisdom of our Kings«,

AMAE, CCC, Salonique, vol. 17, no. 8, Bottu (consul) to Duc de Richelieu (Minister of Foreign Affairs), 26. 12. 1817.

Indeed, while France might think of its consular network as institutions regulated by French law and acting on its behalf, and strive to limit the autonomous power of its agents, the capitulations granted them a place and functions which were potentially very broad and subject to interpretation. They laid down the legal and spatial framework within which the consulates could enforce French legislation, and gave the incumbents the means to implement it at the local level. In particular, they accorded consulates a certain number of freedoms and immunities in religious, judicial or administrative matters which gave them a quite different scope than that imagined by the French government.

Jean-Louis-Gérard Pélissié du Rausas: Le régime des capitulations dans ľEmpire ottoman, 2 vol., Paris 1902–1905.

Despite the multiple changes of regime in France and the repeated demands of the Ottoman government, especially during the Congress of Paris in 1856 and that of Berlin in 1878,

Pélissié du Rausas: Régime, vol. 1, p. 117.

The political upheavals, as important as they were, thus did not make the mental space of law enforcement disappear; its modification seemed to be difficult for all of the actors involved. Indeed, it was first and foremost at the local level that the clauses of treaties, often obtained through diplomatic concessions, were put into practice. The ways in which this happened depended on the balance of power between Ottoman and foreign representatives, each trying not only to apply them, but also to make the most of their opportunities. The French central government thus never cut back on consular prerogatives when it came to retaining the advantage in the balance of power between administrations.

However, if the Ottoman Empire failed to weaken the general framework of the consular presence in its sovereign territory,

Feroz Ahmad: »Ottoman Perceptions of the Capitulations 18001914«, in: Journal of Islamic Studies 11 (2000), p. 1–20.

Beginning at their institutionalization, but more and more in the 19th century, consulates were at the crossroads of a double legislative movement. On the one hand, France understood them as part of its administrative system, trying to shape them into a multifaceted administration outside its borders and an extension of its legal space. On the other hand, the Ottoman reforms tended to reduce their real margin of action in local space by more firmly integrating that space into what was becoming a more legally and administratively unified imperial territory. For consuls, this situation created specific challenges that could also be opportunities. While ordinances and capitulations constituted their main guidelines, in the face of incompatibilities between the two sets of legislation, consuls had to adapt in order to function locally as efficiently as possible. Therefore, knowledge and understanding of legislative frameworks and their evolution formed the basis of their ability not merely to enforce laws, but also to take advantage of gaps in the legislation. They considered this legislative arsenal primarily as shifting »normative landmarks«

Christian Windler: La diplomatie comme expérience de ľautre. Consuls français au Maghreb, 1700–1840, Genève 2002, p. 400.

The French central government conceived of consulates as extraterritorial administrative links, using an ideal image which was meant to be applicable anywhere. However, consulates cannot be adequately understood on the basis of this delocalized notion alone. In order to function in practice, they needed to have defined areas of jurisdiction. One limit of their authority was a personal one: for the most part, it extended only over French nationals. Consular jurisdiction thus lacked the exclusive control over a physical space that was and is considered the hallmark of territorial statehood. Nonetheless, consulates did act in spaces with geographical borders, within which they could exercise their authority and prerogatives. These areas of jurisdiction were referred to as consular districts, departments or circumscriptions.

In French: ›arrondissement, département ou circonscription consulaire‹.

Each was centered on a chief town, the principal residence of the consul,

Adnen El Ghali: La route des consuls. Les territoires de la diplomatie à Tunis, Paris 2015.

As with all other aspects of the consular system, formally it was the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs which exercised control over the organization of the network. Numerous circulars, in addition to the general ordinances, spelled out the history of the organization of the consulates and their districts: for Salonica, especially those of 1756,

Ordinance of 17. 8. 1756 on consuls and vice-consuls of the Archipelago.

Until the middle of the 19th century, the configuration of this district evolved little. Its main purpose being to meet the commercial needs of French nationals active in the region, it was more or less exclusively littoral. In addition to Salonica, two secondary ports had been the seats of French representatives since the 18th century: the island of Skopelos at the northeast end of the Thermaic Gulf until the 1820s, when it was replaced by the city of Volos; and the port of Kavala, north of Salonica, although jurisdiction over this consular agency had long been disputed between the embassy in Constantinople and the consulate of Salonica, until its temporary abolition in 1756.

Paul Masson: Histoire du commerce français dans le Levant au XVIII^e siècle, Paris 1911, p. 616.

The strongly littoral and nodal construction of the district was not specific to Salonica. Rather, it reflected the general mode of functioning of French consular installations in the Empire, and specifically in the area then known locally as Rumelia, or in the West as ›Turkey-in-Europe‹, and which gradually, during the 19th century, would come to be called ›the Balkans‹ or ›the Balkan Peninsula‹ (fig. 1). Part of the reason for such a littoral orientation was that non-Ottomans were forbidden to settle in the imperial hinterland until 1838,

Ilkay Sunar: »Anthropologie politique et économique: ľEmpire ottoman et sa transformation«, in: Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 35 (1980), p. 551–579, at p. 568–569; Michel Morineau: »Naissance ďune domination. Marchands Européens, marchands et marchés du Levant aux XVIII^e et XIX^e siècles«, in: Commerce de gros, commerce de détail dans les pays méditerranéens (XVI^e – XIX^e siècles). Actes des journées ďétudes, Bendor, 25–26 avril 1975, Nice 1976, p. 145–184.

Figure 1

Another major factor taken into account by the French authorities was the evolving territorial organization of the Ottoman Empire itself. While France was not legally bound to conform to Ottoman administrative divisions in the creation of its consular districts, in practice it was substantially constrained by the need for specific accreditation for its local agents. The installation of the consuls was ratified by the Sublime Porte, which accredited them to specific local authorities, at the request of the ambassador. Thus, within the immense administrative entity that was Rumelia, the French consular districts followed, quite coherently, the Ottoman administrative subdivisions, making it possible to apply for accreditations only to a limited number of Ottoman officials. The city of Salonica became, in 1846, the capital of a ›pashalik‹, a province composed of several ›sandjaks‹, including that of Serres, which had hitherto been part of the Salonica sandjak.

For details, see Andreas Birken: Die Provinzen des Osmanischen Reiches, Wiesbaden 1976, p. 76–78.

Primarily, then, the consular district of the early 19th century was constituted not so much by a coherent land area as by a handful of nodes, chosen by the French government with regard to factors including trade routes and travel times, administrative expediency and Ottoman territorial divisions.

It is worth noting that the French diplomatic service also attentively kept track of the seats chosen by its international competitors, though it did not necessarily follow their example.

Consequently, the French consuls generally did not bother with obtaining prior authorizations to carry out inspection missions within what they considered to be their established area of competence. This was the case, for example, in Vodena (now Edessa), the regular but seasonal setting of a small French colony linked to the traditional silkworm harvest. In such cases, the consular visits themselves constituted the markers of the French presence, in the absence of a permanent agency. As a result, while the consular district of Salonica had been initially defined from the outside by the French diplomatic service through the placement of main and secondary agencies in a logic of networking all the consular establishments, when it came to ›filling in the blanks on the map‹

Isabelle Laboulais-Lesage / Jean-François Chauvard / Odile Goerg (ed.): Combler les blancs de la carte. Modalités et enjeux de la construction des savoirs géographiques (XVI^e – XX^e siècle), Strasbourg 2004.

In the case of Salonica, the consular district retained its early configuration throughout much of the 19th century: the Serres agency remained in operation until 1907, and the one at Kavala closed only at the beginning of the 1990s with the departure of the last agent, a M. Ypsilantis.

The agency is last mentioned in 1990 in the official listings of the French Foreign Office: Annuaire diplomatique et consulaire de la République française pour ľannée 1990, Paris 1990, p. 388.

Finally, the appearance of an independent Greek state in 1832 placed the consular district of Salonica in a hitherto unprecedented situation. It became a border area, adjoining the line of demarcation between two states, which was also a zone of contacts and exchanges – and notably, of military confrontations. The first consequence was the loss of the agency of Skopelos, the island being attached to Greece; the post at Volos was soon founded to replace it. Thus, for the first time, the southern border of the consular district as imagined by the French government coincided with the practical range of the action of the consuls: both were now equal to the Greek-Ottoman border, the consuls of Salonica having no legitimacy in the new Greek territorial space. Adrien Dupré, who held the position from 1825 to 1830, experienced this bitterly in 1828, when he had to leave his city of residence by order of his superiors, because of the Greek Revolution. His first choice was Skopelos, part of his district, but as it was infested with pirates, he had to go to the island of Syros and the town of Ermoupoli. There, in Hellenic territory,

AMAE, CCC, Salonique, vol. 20, no. 18, Dupré (consul) to Comte de La Ferronnays (Minister of Foreign Affairs), 29. 2. 1828.

The second direct consequence of the appearance of this territorial limit was to accelerate the process, already begun, by which the area of jurisdiction of the consuls came to be viewed as a distinct spatial entity. Taking increasingly concrete shape in the second half of the century, it was given a name: ›Macedonia‹.

Two of the most noteworthy consuls of the 19th century published in the genre of travel literature; see Esprit-Marie Cousinéry: Voyage dans la Macédoine, contenant des recherches sur ľhistoire, la géographie et les antiquités de ce pays, 2 vol., Paris 1831; Charles-Édouard Guys: Le guide de la Macédoine, Paris 1857.

Maintaining a presence at the national borders became an increasingly important part of the consular mission, leading to spatial reconfigurations. A new post on the southern margin of the district, the agency of Larissa in Thessaly, was thus created in 1867 and entrusted to Félix Robert with the status of political agent.

AMAE, CCC, Salonique, vol. 26, no. 99, Marquis de Poncharra (consul) to Marquis de Moustier (Minister of Foreign Affairs), 11. 2. 1867.

Consequently, the district was henceforth delimited according to the new nation-states born from the Ottoman Empire, in which the French foreign service had to reinvent its diplomatic and consular network. Concomitantly, the consular district of Salonica also evolved in its internal organization. In what remained of Ottoman territory in Europe, only two French consulates, at Salonica and Scutari (now Shkodër; since 1853),

AMAE, Personnel, 1791–1965, carton 21, circular dated 23. 7. 1853.

The consuls of Macedonia were thus accredited to the ›vali‹, or governor, of Salonica but also to those of Monastir, of Kosovo and, until 1903, of Ioannina. Their district reached its maximum geographical extension, including the agencies at Monastir – founded in 1854,

Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes, Monastir, carton 5, 1855–1915, Arrivée départ 1894–1909, no. 1, dated 10. 7. 1894.

In the 19th century, the Salonica consulate’s circumscription evolved in depth, even if the list of places where agencies were set up changed little. Seen from France, the consular space of action was at first considered in terms of an assemblage of individual places; over time, it was thought of more as a solid area such as might be represented on a map. In the case of Salonica, the creation of the Greek state can be considered as the turning point of a partial territorialization of the consular district. By its effects, combined with the evolution of both French and Ottoman legislation, the space of action of the consulate was reduced in its geographical extent, while at the same time the scope of its action was broadened. It was no longer a matter of an assemblage of places, but a question of controlling a clearly bounded space. And it was not by chance that from the 1900s, the territory of effective competence of the French consulate in Salonica exactly corresponded to the Ottoman vilayet of Macedonia. But this history of administrative reality abroad cannot be limited to laws and borders. The human factor must also be taken into consideration, because space is constituted by the people inhabiting or using it. For the purpose of this article, the focus in the final section will be on the consular employees controlling the consular space.

The 19th century saw a gradual transformation of consular occupations into an administrative profession, oriented towards what Yvan Debbasch has called a »consular ideal«.

Yvan Debbasch: La nation française en Tunisie (1577–1835), Paris 1957, p. 158–159.

While the trend toward professionalization affected all consular employees, it primarily concerned the incumbents. The efforts to rationalize and homogenize the figure of the consul can be seen as integrating that office into the pantheon of local holders of authority which, in the 19th century, was being in part taken over and in part created by and for the state. Indeed, the local space allowed the consecration of notables.

Jacques Rondin: Le sacre des notables. La France en décentralisation, Paris 1985.

In the course of the 19th century, steps were taken to regulate their recruitment – the entrance examination to the ministry was created in 1880

Raymond Poussard: »Le personnel des services extérieurs«, in: Jean Baillou (ed.): Les Affaires étrangères et le Corps diplomatique français, vol. 2: 1870–1980, Paris 1984, p. 135–163, at p. 152–153.

On the one hand, their everyday tasks were increasingly standardized, streamlined and bureaucratized, partaking of the 19th-century trend toward ever more encompassing and elaborate government by paperwork.

See for example Benjamin Kafka: The Demon of Writing. Powers and Failures of Paperwork, New York 2012; Delphine Gardey: Écrire, calculer, classer. Comment une révolution de papier a transformé les sociétés contemporaines (1800–1940), Paris 2008.

This evolution was materialized in the urban landscape by the consular buildings and by the successive changes to them. These buildings, on the inside but also to the outside, represented the exclusive space of France, in Salonica as well as in the other cities of the district where agencies were established. In 1826, the French consul François Bottu expressed delight after France bought back the building which had been sold during the Revolution in 1793:

But when the building was definitively sold in 1892, successive rental arrangements reversed the hierarchy of norms: priority was from then on given to the office facilities rather than the demonstration of French power in urban space. This trend was attested first by the choice of locations, often on the Hamidié Boulevard, renamed ›Boulevard des Consulats‹ due to the presence of several foreign consulates built on the same plan, and also by the constitution of an inventory of state-owned furnishings for the offices and waiting room. Consequently, it was no longer the specificity of a particular consular post that guided the work of consuls, but their capacity to integrate it into the general logic of the French foreign service. The central administration aimed to make consulates standardized, interchangeable administrative links.

Thus, though the holders of the consular post changed frequently – staying in place for three years on average around the turn of the 20th century, compared to ten years at the beginning of the 19th

Faivre ďArcier: »Service consulaire«.

On the other hand, the consular personnel was gradually relieved of some of its functions. Experts – doctors, archaeologists, soldiers, engineers – moved about within the consular district, taking over parts of what the consuls had once considered their prerogatives – tasks which the central government now viewed as ancillary to their mission priorities. The 19th century saw the gradual reduction of the paradox created at the establishment of consulates: by affirming the ›public service‹ dimension of the consular institution, France gradually succeeded in setting up a corps of civil servants outside its borders. Whereas the increasing density of the diplomatic network and the growing number of consular missions could have been synonymous with a reduction in consular responsibilities, on the contrary, the administrative dimension of consulates and their employees expanded.

This change highlights both the »consular ideal«

Debbasch: Nation française, p. 158–159.

However, this general trend towards professionalization and bureaucratization must be qualified in its local application. Let us consider the tenure of the chancellor Turquet de Beauregard in Salonica from 1912 to 1917, who received the following evaluation from his immediate superior:

After starting his professional career in the administration of the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique (1892–1902), Turquet had joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and been assigned as a consular chancellor. Trained in administrative services and fluent in English, he quickly adapted to the requirements of the Ministry and enjoyed the positions he held at Southampton in England, then Johannesburg and Pretoria in South Africa. After the Great War, he was again appointed to England and Canada. The position at Salonica was therefore only a parenthesis in his career, but his superior, Jules Jousselin, deplored the fact that Turquet was ignorant of the local realities and people – knowledge of which he would have needed to successfully put the French administrative standard into practice. Thus, even if consuls were approaching the bureaucratic ideal type, local reality remained important and consuls always had to legitimate their local position.

Thus the exterritoriality and the extraterritoriality of French consulates in the Ottoman Empire and, to a certain extent, those in its successor states remained a permanently thorny issue, which the French administration tried to take into account for the implementation of its standards. As a result, regionally oriented careers were the rule more than the exception among consular personnel, with transfers like Turquet’s remaining unusual. The interchangeability of posts was effective, but only within regions characterized by similar tasks and circumstances. Moreover, while the Ministry systematically appointed French-trained career personnel to the principal posts of the district, where the agents were entrusted with the same administrative responsibilities that their hierarchical superiors at Salonica had previously held alone, it still kept its confidence in locally recruited employees to run the secondary agencies. This personnel was not specifically trained, and therefore was not accorded the same extent of powers; specifically, it was barred from performing civil acts.

AMAE, CCC, Salonique, vol. 27, Moulin (consul) to Comte de Rémusat (Minister of Foreign Affairs), 23. 12. 1872.

Considered in terms of the implementation of laws and of the building of a real space of action abroad, the evolution of the consular staff followed two main trends in the 19th century. On the one hand, the French state wanted to rely on a trained and homogeneous staff, committed exclusively to its service and disconnected from any local considerations. On the other hand, local reality could not be neglected: to be able to fulfill their missions, the consular staff had to continue seriously taking local specificities into consideration. Thus consuls could be considered as notables, because they combined autochthonous, locally acquired and maintained power with state-awarded office which, to some extent, allowed territorialization of their powers.

In the preceding sections, we have looked at the French consulate in Salonica from three perspectives, with a focus drawing increasingly closer: From the intergovernmental level of the laws and treaties, via the regional setting of the consular district, to the local action of the consular personnel. On all three levels, we observed the spatial effects of multiple intersecting influences: on the one hand, there were the state-building projects of France, the Empire, and its successor states, all of which vied for control of the local spaces in which the consulate existed, and strove to integrate them into homogenized spaces of the respective states. On the other hand, local actors including the consuls and their personnel, Ottoman and successor-state officials, and non-state actors exercised real agency in shaping, controlling, and limiting the space of the consulate’s jurisdiction. The gaps and conflicts between the rival state-building agendas facilitated this. It is in the light of these conflicting influences that the evolution of the French consular institution and of its mode of organizing space must be seen.

Referring to the French colonial governors of the 19th century, the legal scholar René Maunier maintained in the inter-war period: »They hold all functions concurrently, they are dictators in more than one respect«.

Cited from Olivier Le Cour Grandmaison: »Ľexception et la règle: sur le droit colonial français«, in: Diogène. Revue internationale des sciences humaines 212 (2005), p. 42–64, at p. 64.

Yet by shifting the focus from men to the consular institution, this statement must be qualified. The French government viewed its consulates as entities holding part of its power over a portion of space abroad. Throughout the 19th century, it consistently sought to bring this administrative network abroad into line with the situation within its borders, while taking into account the local reality and its evolutions. Hence, if Christian Windler asserts that »the consuls participated in the collective invention of the state which legitimized their position«,

Windler: Diplomatie, p. 104.

Annuaire diplomatique et consulaire de la République française pour ľannée 1914, Paris 1914. • Annuaire diplomatique et consulaire de la République française pour ľannée 1921, Paris 1921. • Annuaire diplomatique et consulaire de la République française pour ľannée 1990, Paris 1990. ANTONOPOULOS, Stamatios: Περι της εν τουρκια Ετεροδικιας, Athina 1880. • Über die Exterritorialität der Ausländer in der Türkei mit Rücksicht auf die Gerichtsbarkeit in Civil- und Strafprozessen, Berlin 1895. BOPPE, Auguste: »Le consulat général de Morée et ses dépendances (Athènes, Coron, Modon, Napoli de Romanie, Patras, Arta)«, in: Revue des études grecques 20 (1907), p. 18–37. BOURDEAU DE FONTENAY, Pierre-François: Iniquités des consuls français dans le Levant, Paris 1838. CAVAGLIERI, Arrigo: »La finzione di extraterritorialità dei consolati«, in: La Scuola positiva. Rivista di criminologia e diritto N. S. 2 (1922), p. 18–30. COUSINÉRY, Esprit-Marie: Voyage dans la Macédoine, contenant des recherches sur ľhistoire, la géographie et les antiquités de ce pays, 2 vol., Paris 1831. DUVERGIER, Jean-Baptiste: Collection complète des lois, décrets, ordonnances, réglemens, et avis du Conseil-ďÉtat, vol. 33: Année 1833, Paris 1834. GUYS, Charles-Édouard: Le guide de la Macédoine, Paris 1857. HÜBLER, Bernhard: Die Magistraturen des völkerrechtlichen Verkehrs (Gesandtschafts- und Konsularrecht) und die Exterritorialität. Zum Gebrauch für Vorlesungen über Völkerrecht und Politik, Berlin 1900. MASSON, Paul: Histoire du commerce français dans le Levant au XVIII^e siècle, Paris 1911. MOREÜIL, Louis-JosephAuguste de: Manuel des agents consulaires français et étrangers, contenant 1^o la juridiction des consuls; 2^o la théorie consulaire basée sur le droit des gens conventionnel; 3^o la jurisprudence commerciale et consulaire, Paris 1850. PÉLISSIÉ DU RAUSAS, Jean-Louis-Gérard: Le régime des capitulations dans ľEmpire ottoman, 2 vol., Paris 1902–1905. PIGGOTT, Francis Taylor: Exterritoriality. The Law Relating to Consular Jurisdiction and to Residence in Oriental Countries, London 1892. ROLAND DE BUSSY, Théodore: Dictionnaire des consulats. Exposé des devoirs, droits et fonctions des consuls et officiers consulaires de France dans leurs rapports avec les administrations de la métropole, les autorités étrangères, les nationaux et les navigateurs; rédigé ďaprès les lois, décrets et conventions en vigueur et suivi du tarif des chancelleries, Al-Jazā’ir 1854.

AHMAD, Feroz: »Ottoman Perceptions of the Capitulations 1800–1914«, in: Journal of Islamic Studies 11 (2000), p. 1–20. BARKEY, Karen: Empire of Difference. The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge 2008. BARTOLOMEI, Arnaud et al. (ed.): La chancellerie consulaire française (XVI^e – XX^e siècle): attributions, organisation, agents, usagers, in: Mélanges de ľÉcole française de Rome. Italie et Méditerranée modernes et contemporaines 128/2 (2016). BARUCH, Marc-Olivier / DUCLERT, Vincent (ed.): Serviteurs de ľÉtat. Une histoire politique de ľadministration française 1875–1945, Paris 2000. BERCHTOLD, Johannes: Recht und Gerechtigkeit in der Konsulargerichtsbarkeit. Britische Exterritorialität im Osmanischen Reich 1825–1914, München 2009. BIRKEN, Andreas: Die Provinzen des Osmanischen Reiches, Wiesbaden 1976. BRADDICK, Michael J.: »State Formation and Political Culture in Elizabethan and Stuart England. Micro-histories and Macro-historical Change«, in: Ronald G. Asch / Dagmar Freist (ed.): Staatsbildung als kultureller Prozess. Strukturwandel und Legitimation von Herrschaft in der Frühen Neuzeit, Köln 2005, p. 69–90. CARBONNIER, Jean: »Le Code Civil«, in: Pierre Nora (ed.): Les lieux de mémoire, vol. 2: La Nation, pt. 2: Le territoire, ľÉtat, le patrimoine, Paris 1986, p. 293–315. CHARITOS, Charalambos G.: Volos 1881–1955. The City and the People, Volos 2004. CHARTIER, Roger: »Science sociale et découpage régional. Note sur deux débats (1820–1920)«, in: Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 35 (1980), p. 27–36. COUDERC, Anne: État, nations et territoires dans les Balkans au XIX^e siècle. Histoire de la première frontière gréco-ottomane (18271881), 2 vol., unpublished dissertation, Université Paris 1 – Panthéon-Sorbonne 2000. DAVISON, Roderic H.: »Ottoman Public Relations in the Nineteenth Century: How the Sublime Porte Tried to Influence European Public Opinion«, in: Daniel Panzac (ed.): Histoire économique et sociale de ľEmpire ottoman et de la Turquie (1326–1960). Actes du Congrès international tenu à Aix-en-Provence du 1er au 4 juillet 1994, Paris 1995, p. 593603. DEBBASCH, Yvan: La nation française en Tunisie (1577–1835), Paris 1957. DEGROS, Maurice: »Ľadministration des consulats sous la Révolution (1789–1799)«, in: Revue ďhistoire diplomatique 96 (1982), p. 68–111. DELMAS, Bruno: »Révolution industrielle et mutation administrative: ľinnovation dans ľadministration française au XIX^e siècle«, in: Histoire, économie et société 4 (1985), p. 205–232. ELGHALI, Adnen: La route des consuls. Les territoires de la diplomatie à Tunis, Paris 2015. FAIVRE D’ARCIER, Amaury: »Le service consulaire au Levant à la fin du XVIII^e siècle et son évolution sous la Révolution«, in: Jörg Ulbert / Gérard Le Bouëdec (ed.): La fonction consulaire à ľépoque moderne. Ľaffirmation ďune institution économique et politique (1500–1800), Rennes 2006, p. 161–188. FAUPIN, Hervé: »Le cadre juridique de ľaction consulaire au début du XIX^e siècle«, in: Jörg Ulbert / Lukian Prijac (ed.): Consuls et services consulaires au XIX^e siècle, Hamburg 2010, p. 21–35. FODOR, Pál: In Quest of the Golden Apple. Imperial Ideology, Politics, and Military Administration in the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul 2000. GARDEY, Delphine: Écrire, calculer, classer. Comment une révolution de papier a transformé les sociétés contemporaines (1800–1940), Paris 2008. GEORGEON, François: »ĽEmpire ottoman et ľEurope au XIX^e siècle: de la question ďOrient à la question ďOccident«, in: Confluences Méditerranée 52 (2004/05), p. 29–39. HARTMANN, Elke: Die Reichweite des Staates. Wehrpflicht und moderne Staatlichkeit im Osmanischen Reich 1869–1910, Paderborn 2016. HASTAOGLOU, Vilma: Volos. Portrait of the City in the 19th and 20th Centuries, Volos 2002. ILBERT, Robert: Alexandrie 1830–1930. Histoire ďune communauté citadine, 2 vol., Al-Qähira 1996. JESTIN, Mathieu: Le voyage du Baron de Boislecomte en Orient entre 1832 et 1834, 2 vol., unpublished master’s thesis, Université Paris 1 – Panthéon-Sorbonne 2005. • »Les identités consulaires dans la Salonique ottomane, 1781–1912«, in: Monde(s). Histoire, espaces, relations 4 (2013), p. 189–209. JOYCE, Patrick: The State of Freedom. A Social History of the British State since 1800, Cambridge 2013. KAFKA, Benjamin: The Demon of Writing. Powers and Failures of Paperwork, New York 2012. KALIFA, Dominique / KARILA-COHEN, Pierre (ed.): Le commissaire de police au XIX^e siècle, Paris 2008. KARILA-COHEN, Pierre: ĽÉtat des esprits. Ľinvention de ľenquête politique en France (1814–1848), Rennes 2008. KIRK - GREENE, Anthony H. M.: Britain’s Imperial Administrators 1858–1966, Basingstoke 2000. KOUTZAKIOTIS, Georges: Cavalla, une échelle égéenne au XVIII^e siècle. Négociants européens et notables ottomans, Istanbul 2009. LABOULAIS-LESAGE, Isabelle / CHAUVARD, Jean-François / GOERG, Odile (ed.): Combler les blancs de la carte. Modalités et enjeux de la construction des savoirs géographiques (XVI^e – XX^e siècle), Strasbourg 2004. LAMBERT, David / LESTER, Alan: »Introduction. Imperial Spaces, Imperial Subjects«, in: David Lambert / Alan Lester (ed.): Colonial Lives Across the British Empire. Imperial Careering in the Long Nineteenth Century, Cambridge 2006, p. 1–31. LAURENS, Henry: Ľempire et ses ennemis. La question impériale dans ľhistoire, Paris 2009. LE COUR GRANDMAISON, Olivier: »Ľexception et la règle: sur le droit colonial français«, in: Diogène. Revue internationale des sciences humaines 212 (2005), p. 42–64. LEFEBVRE, Henri: La production de ľespace, Paris 1974. MANTRAN, Robert: »La Déclaration des droits de ľhomme et les édits sultaniens de 1839 et de 1856«, in: Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont / Edhem Eldem (ed.): De la Révolution française à la Turquie ďAtatürk. La modernisation politique et sociale. Les lettres, les sciences et les arts. Actes des colloques ďIstanbul (10–12 mai 1989), Istanbul 1990, p. 141–148. MÉZIN, Anne: »La fonction consulaire dans la France ďAncien Régime: origine, principe, prérogatives«, in: Jörg Ulbert / Gérard Le Bouëdec (ed.): La fonction consulaire à ľépoque moderne. Ľaffirmation ďune institution économique et politique (1500–1800), Rennes 2006, p. 37–49. MÉZIN - BOURGNINAUD, Véronique: Les gouverneurs des colonies sous ľadministration royale, de 1763 à 1792, unpublished dissertation, Université Paris-Sorbonne 2016. MORINEAU, Michel: »Naissance ďune domination. Marchands Européens, marchands et marchés du Levant aux XVIII^e et XIX^e siècles«, in: Commerce de gros, commerce de détail dans les pays méditerranéens (XVI^e – XIX^e siècles). Actes des journées ďétudes, Bendor, 25–26 avril 1975, Nice 1976, p. 145–184. MOULLIER, Igor: »Bourgeoisie et bureaucratie au début du XIX^e siècle«, in: Jean-Pierre Jessenne et al. (ed.): Vers un ordre bourgeois? Révolution française et changement social, Rennes 2007, p. 237–253. • »Ľintérieur et ľextérieur: ľadministration face à la conjoncture impériale en 1807«, in: Jacques Bernet / Emmanuel Cherrier (ed.): 1807: apogée de ľEmpire?, Valenciennes 2009, p. 195–211. ÖZDEMIR, Bülent: Ottoman Reforms and Social Life. Reflections from Salonica, 1830–1850, Istanbul 2003. PETMEZAS, Socrate: »Serrés et sa région sous les Ottomans«, in: Paolo Odorico / Spyros Asdrachas (ed.): Conseils et mémoires de Synadinos, prêtre de Serrés en Macédoine (XVII^e siècle), Paris 1996, p. 458–470. PIERSON, Christopher: The Modern State, London 1996. PLATT, Desmond Christopher Martin: »The Role of the British Consular Service in Overseas Trade, 1825–1914«, in: The Economic History Review 15 (1963), p. 494–512. POUMARÉDE, Géraud: »Négocier près la Sublime Porte. Jalons pour une nouvelle histoire des capitulations franco-ottomanes«, in: Lucien Bély / Isabelle Richefort (ed.): Ľinvention de la diplomatie. Moyen Âge – Temps modernes, Paris 1998, p. 71–85. • »Le consul dans les dictionnaires et le droit des gens: émergence et affirmation ďune institution nouvelle (XVI^e – XVIII^e siècles)«, in: Jörg Ulbert / Gérard Le Bouëdec (ed.): La fonction consulaire à ľépoque moderne. Ľaffirmation ďune institution économique et politique (1500–1800), Rennes 2006, p. 23–36. POUSSARD, Raymond: »Le personnel des services extérieurs«, in: Jean Baillou (ed.): Les Affaires étrangères et le Corps diplomatique français, vol. 2: 1870–1980, Paris 1984, p. 135–163. ROLLET, Henry / D ET H AN, Georges: »La Monarchie de Juillet«, in: Jean Baillou (ed.): Les Affaires étrangères et le Corps diplomatique français, vol. 1: De ľAncien Régime au Second Empire, Paris 1984, p. 573–625. RONDIN, Jacques: Le sacre des notables. La France en décentralisation, Paris 1985. SOMEL, Selçuk Akçin: The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire 1839–1908. Islamization, Autocracy and Discipline, Leiden 2001. STRAUSS, Michael J.: »Nations Outside their Borders: How Extraterritorial Concessions Reinforce Sovereignty«, in: Anne-Laure Amilhat-Szary / Frédéric Giraut (ed.): Borderities and the Politics of Contemporary Mobile Borders, London 2015, p. 53–67. SUNAR, Ilkay: »Anthropologie politique et économique: ľEmpire ottoman et sa transformation«, in: Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 35 (1980), p. 551–579. SURUN, Isabelle / TERTRAIS, Hugues: »Les continents orphelins? Introduction«, in: Monde(s). Histoire, espace, relations 3 (2013), p. 7–27. THOBIE, Jacques: »Ľagonie de ľihomme malade‹ et ľambiguïté des médecines occidentales«, in: Revue de ľOccident musulman et de la Méditerranée 50 (1988), p. 15–29. TORSTENDAHL, Rolf: Bureaucratisation in Northwestern Europe, 1880–1985. Domination and Governance, London 1991. TÓTH, Ferenc: Un diplomate militaire français en Europe orientale à la fin de ľAncien Régime. La carrière de François baron de Tott (1733–1793), Istanbul 2011. TULARD, Jean: »Préface: Plaidoyer pour une autre histoire«, in: Guy Thuillier: Bureaucratie et bureaucrates en France au XIX^e siècle, Paris 1980, p. VII-XIX. ULBERT, Jörg: »La fonction consulaire au XIX^e siècle«, in: Jörg Ulbert / Lukian Prijac (ed.): Consuls et services consulaires au XIX^e siècle, Hamburg 2010, p. 9–18. • »Pour une typologie des manuels consulaires« [forthcoming 2017]. VEINSTEIN, Gilles: »Le mythe des capitulations de 1536«, in: Mohammed Arkoun (ed.): Histoire de ľislam et des musulmans en France du Moyen Âge à nos jours, Paris 2006, p. 354. WINDLER, Christian: La diplomatie comme expérience de ľautre. Consuls français au Maghreb, 1700–1840, Genève 2002.