Between Crown and Commerce: Marseille and the Early Modern Mediterranean

• Notes
• Chapter
• Johns Hopkins University Press
• pp. 197-223
• View Citation
• Additional Information

Notes

INTRODUCTION

1. Shovlin, Political Economy of Virtue, 18–19.

2. For most recent work on the subject of commerce, virtue, and luxury, see ibid.; Smith, Nobility Reimagined; Kessler, Revolution in Commerce; Sonenscher, Before the Deluge; Venturi, Virtue, Commerce, History.

3. For Fénelon vs. Colbert, see Shovlin, Political Economy of Virtue, 20–21.

4. Kessler, Revolution in Commerce, 17.

5. “Edit pour l’affranchissement du port de Marseille (1732), Archives départementales des Bouches du Rhône (hereafter AdBdR), Fonds Intendance sanitaire de Marseille (hereafter FISM), 200 E 1.

6. Gordon, “Confrontations with the Plague,” “The City and the Plague,” and Citizens Without Sovereignty; Baker, “Enlightenment and the Institution of Society,” 95–120.

7. Condorcet, “The Future Progress of the Human Mind,” 26–38. Baker, From Natural Philosophy to Social Mathematics; Avery, Progress, Poverty and Population.

8. I draw away from categorizing this new attitude toward commercial public engagement as “humanistic,” because in early modern France, it did not replicate the civic humanist traditions of the Renaissance Italian republics. The commercial civic spirit of seventeenth-century France is not comparable to the intellectual stances vis-à-vis the classical world that Italian civic humanists adopted to disengage from Catholic scholasticism and their support of princes, despots, and elite citizens who patronized the arts and sciences in pursuit of a vita activa.

9. Clark, Compass of Society, 5–6, and “Commerce, the Virtues and the Public Sphere,” 415–40; Shovlin, Political Economy of Virtue, 18–19.

10. Baker, “Transformations of Classical Republicanism,” 32–53.

11. Fénelon, Télémaque, ed. and trans. Riley as Telemachus, xvi.

12. Ibid., 195.

13. Ibid., 295–96.

14. For “civic republicanism” in European history, see, e.g., Schilling, “Civic Republicanism in Late Medieval and Early Modern German Cities,” and Mijnhardt, “The Dutch Republic as a Town,” 345–448.

15. Baron, Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance, and In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism; Pocock, Machiavellian Moment; Kramnick, Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism; Republicanism, ed. van Gelderen and Skinner; Skinner, Liberty Before Liberalism.

16. Such assumptions can be found in Goulemot, “Du républicanisme et de l’idée républicaine,” and Venturi, Utopia and Reform in the Enlightenment. For other works on classical republicanism, see Baker, “Transformations of Classical Republicanism,” 33–34; Bell, Cult of the Nation in France; Linton, Politics of Virtue in Enlightenment France; Smith, Nobility Reimagined; Sonenscher, Sans-Culottes; Whatmore, Republicanism and the French Revolution; Wright, Classical Republican in Eighteenth-Century France.

17. The relationship between Marseillais municipal administrators and the French Crown sheds light on how commercial and political associations could develop between monarchies and republics across Europe (the relationship between France and the Venetian republic being another example), despite dissimilar political structures and traditions. As an analysis of the associative dynamics between municipal politics and state-building, my work provides conceptual models relevant to recent scholarship on the connections between local patriotism and nationalism in Europe, though the framing dates for my study of early modern France are too early for a consideration of French nationalism in any modern sense. My argument can find resonance in recent studies on local, republican, and regional politics and identities in eighteenth-and nineteenth-century central Europe and Germany that show how, as Katherine Aaslestad argues, “within the nation, there is a place for regional and local identity, which can help as well as hinder nation-building.” See Aaslestad, Place and Politics, 12; Confino, The Nation as Local Metaphor; Lindemann, Patriots and Paupers.

18. Tocqueville, Old Regime and the French Revolution; Beik, Absolutism and Society in Seventeenth-Century France, and “Absolutism of Louis XIV.” Bien, “Offices, Corps and a System of State Credit”; Bossenga, Politics of Privilege; Monahan, Year of Sorrows.

19. Beik, Absolutism and Society; Bossenga, Politics of Privilege; Kwass, Privilege and the Politics of Taxation; Tocqueville and Beyond, ed. Schwartz and Schneider.

20. I borrow the term “accommodation” from historians of twentieth-century France. Burrin, France Under the Germans, introduction.

21. Sonenscher, Before the Deluge, 4, 10.

22. Quoted in Baratier, Histoire de Marseille, 188–89; and Recueil d’édits, arrests du conseil, et règlemens.

23. Busquet, Histoire de la Provence, chap. 3.14, pp. 284–89; J.-B. Bertrand, Historical Relation of the Plague at Marseille, 30–31; Baratier, Histoire de Marseille, 188–89.

24. “Délibérations de la Bureau de la santé,” AdBdR, 200 E 37, FISM.

25. Ibid., E 35.

26. Carrière, Courdurié, and Rebuffat, Marseille ville morte, 240–41; Lucenet, Grandes pestes, 218. For more on culpability, see Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets; Bouyala d’Arnaud, Evocation du vieux Marseille.

27. “Editto in materia di sanità,” 9 October 1720, 3 December 1721, Archivio di stato di Venezia, Provveditori alla sanità 651.

28. Plague mortality is widely debated. Exaggerated estimations range from 70,000 to 100,000 in Marseille alone. A more plausible figure lies in the vicinity of 50,000, half the population of Marseille. Daniel Panzac offers the following statistics: 126,000 dead for all Provence, Comtat Venaissin, and Languedoc; eighty-one Provençal communities, their population totaling 293,113 inhabitants, lost 105,417, or 36 percent. Le Comtat and Languedoc lost 8,062 out of 36,641 (22 percent), and 12,597 out of 75,377 (16.7 percent), respectively. Cities with considerable losses included Ollioules (54.8 percent of its 2,500); Marvejols (57.8 percent of its 2,756); Manosque, Brignoles, and Néoules, all with more than half of its inhabitants killed (Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets, 61).

29. Famine, Disease and Social Order, ed. Walter and Schofield, 2, 5–6; Appleby, Famine in Tudor and Stuart England; Meuvret, “La géographie des prix des cereals et les anciennes economies européens,” 63–69; Meuvret, Le problème des subsistances à l’époque Louis XIV; for more political approaches, see Kaplan, Bread, Politics and Political Economy; Kaplan, Provisioning Paris.

30. For social studies on plague, see, e.g., Biraben, Les hommes et la peste en France; Benedictow, “Morbidity in Historical Plague Epidemics,” 401–31; Famine, Disease and the Social Order, ed. Walter and Schofield; Appleby, “Epidemics and Famine in the Little Ice Age,” 643–63; Appleby, “Disappearance of the Plague,” 161–73.

31. Gordon, “Confrontations with the Plague,” 15–16.

32. Jones, “Plague and Its Metaphors in Early Modern France,” 97–127; Sontag, Illness as Metaphor. I also take into consideration the relationship between the “social” and “language” articulated in Sewell, Logics of History, 9, 21.

33. Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets.

34. Smith, Nobility Reimagined, 16.

35. Carrière, Négociants marseillais, 247.

CHAPTER 1: LOUIS XIV, MARSEILLAIS MERCHANTS, AND THE PROBLEM OF DISCERNING THE PUBLIC GOOD

1. Colbert, Mémoire, 1651, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, cxxii.

2. Colbert to Rouillé, 21 September 1679, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 706.

3. Baratier, Histoire de Marseille, 44.

4. Ibid., 85.

5. Clause from the 1486 treaty, quoted in Bouyala d’Arnaud, Evocation du vieil Aix-en-Provence, 16.

6. Busquet, Histoire de la Provence, 224.

7. Royal letters patent created the parlement de Provence in 1501 and the Cour des comptes aides et finances in 1555, but the Etats de Provence continued to advise the Crown as a “consultative agency.” This structure mirrored that of Languedoc as described by Beik, Absolutism and Society, 37. See also Fairchilds, Poverty and Charity in Aix-en-Provence, 3–8. The royal intendant served as premier président of the parlement of Aix; the archbishop of Aix served ex officio as procureur-né and as president of the Assemblée des communautés, a council of representatives from Provence’s towns, villages, and cities. As chef-lieu of its viguerie, Aix had a sénéchaussée court and the maréchaussée. Around 1,172 administrators, 600 noble heads of households, and 451 lawyers made Aix their home in 1695.

8. Marseillais were not required to participate in the provincial assemblies. The city sent deputies to observe the sessions, but did not take part in them. Zarb, Histoire d’une autonomie communale, 134–36.

9. Cubells, “Les pratiques politiques à Marseille au milieu du XVIIe siècle,” 71.

10. Zanger, Scenes from the Marriage of Louis XIV, 17.

11. Colbert to Mazarin, 7, 10, and 11 July 1658 in Lettres, instructions et Mémoires de Colbert, 297, 299, 301–2.

12. Hénin, “L’agrandissement de Marseille,” 7.

13. Pérouse de Montclos, “Les prix de Rome,” 7–8, 10.

14. Ibid., 19.

15. Emmanuelli, Vivre à Marseille sous l’Ancien régime, 22–23.

16. The commission was named by Colbert on 15 June 1666 with an arrêt du Conseil.

17. “Articles et conditions accordées à François Roustan,” Archives municipales de la ville de Marseille (hereafter AMVM), DD 152.

18. “Requête des échevins en opposition aux Lettres patentes de 1666, relatives à l’agrandissement de Marseille” (1667), AMVM, DD 152. The échevins also argued that the expansion would not boost foreign commerce. Foreign residents were already housed in areas suitable for trading; a new area “far from trading routes” would inconvenience them. They added that the old quarters were not susceptible to contagious maladies; citizens owned country houses (bastides) where they could take refuge in emergencies.

19. Arnoul, “Lettres et mémoires,” 22 January 1667, Archives de la Chambre de commerce de Marseille (hereafter ACCM).

20. “Premier comparant touchant l’agrandissement de Marseille,” 22 (1667), AMVM, DD 155, Echevins.

21. Ibid., 23 (1667).

22. Arnoul, “Lettres et mémoires,” 2 October 1666.

23. Ibid., 31 August 1666.

24. Ibid., 14 September 1666.

25. Ibid., 18 January 1667.

26. Arnoul, 23 February 1666.

27. Baker, “French Political Thought at the Accession of Louis XVI,” 287.

28. Arnoul, “Lettres et mémoires,” undated, 1667.

29. Ibid., 16 November 1666.

30. This was particularly the case following Arnoul’s departure from Marseille to Toulon in 1673.

31. Unfortunately, Puget’s architectural plans are no longer available; all that is left are historical accounts and recent photographs taken of maisons particuliers attributed to Puget.

32. Emmanuelli, Vivre à Marseille sous l’Ancien régime, 100.

33. “Déliberations du Bureau,” 15 October 1687, AMVM DD 94.

34. Hénin, “L’agrandissement de Marseille,” 13.

35. Carrière, Négociants marseillais, 34. The massive upswing in commercial activity actually began after the first decade of the eighteenth century. “Marseille was becoming—though modestly—an international port” (ibid., 101). The fragmentary evidence blurs the effects of Louis XIV’s policies prior to 1710, but although “the lists of vessels, exception for those from the Levant and Barbary, are not certain prior to 1710,” Carrière found 98 Marseillais voyages to the New World in 1699; 90 in 1700; 82 in 1701; 88 in 1702; 22 in 1703; 30 in 1704; 26 in 1705; and 35 in 1706 (ibid., 80–81). The fall in the number of sailings after 1702 was owing to the War of the Spanish Succession.

36. Ibid., 213–15.

37. Ibid., 105.

38. Ibid.; Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille; Cole, Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism.

39. La Chambre de commerce de Marseille à travers ses archives: XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, 12–14; Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 78–87, 300–330; Baratier, 182.

40. Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 300.

41. Arnoul to Colbert, 25 August 1668, quoted in Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 207, 300.

42. “Mémoire dressé contre le port franc pour envoyer à Sa Majesté.” ACCM, D 23.

43. For full discussion, see Chapter 4.

44. Colbert to Morant, 11 September 1681, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 717n1.

45. Colbert to d’Oppède, 30 May 1669, ibid., 470.

46. “Edit pour l’affranchissement du Port de Marseille” (1732), AdBdR, FISM, 200 E 1.

47. “Edit sur la franchise du port de Marseille,” in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 796–98.

48. Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 208.

49. Colbert to d’Oppède, 30 May 1669, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 470–72.

50. Colbert to Rouillé, ibid., 717–18.

51. “Etablissement du droit de 1669: Edits, ordonnances, mémoires et correspondances,” ACCM, C 88.

52. Colbert to Rouillé, 26 October 1679, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 709; Colbert to Morant, 17 April 1681, ibid., 717–18.

53. Cole, Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism, 394–95.

54. The French bombarded the Ottoman port of Chios following reports that corsairs from Tripoli had taken French prisoners. The French ambassador promised to pay the sultan 250,000 livres to restore Franco-Turkish relations and rebuild the city. Colbert decided that the Marseillais chamber should “borrow this sum” from the Crown to pay the Turks, and then repay the Crown through the cottimo. Colbert to Morant, 4 September 1682, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 738.

55. “Extrait des registres du Conseil d’Etat.” ACCM, C 88.

56. On piracy in the early modern Mediterranean, see Weiss, “Back from Barbary”; Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters.

57. Cole, Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism, 388.

58. Colbert to Arnoul, 25 May 1669 and 17 October 1670, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 3: 128, 297; Colbert, “Mémoire sur les soldats des vaisseaux de Levant,” ibid., 486–88.

59. Colbert to Morant, 27 March 1681, ibid., 2: 716.

60. Colbert to Morant, 17 April 1681, ibid., 717.

61. Colbert to Morant, quoted in Cole, Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism, 389–90.

62. Colbert to Arnoul, 16 August 1669, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 3: 154.

63. Colbert to Morant, 27 March 1681, ibid., 2: 716.

64. Colbert to Rouillé, 3 March 1679, ibid., 695.

65. Colbert, ibid., 698n1.

66. Colbert to Morant, 29 March 1679, ibid., 696.

67. Colbert, ibid., 455n1.

68. Ibid., 403.

69. Kessler, Revolution in Commerce, 3, 17, 20.

70. Colbert to French consuls overseas, 15 March 1669, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 453.

71. Colbert to French consuls overseas, 16 March 1669, ibid., 454–55.

72. Colbert to French consuls in the Levant, 10 February 1670, ibid., 517.

73. Colbert also ended abuses committed by the consuls, who farmed out their offices to the highest bidder or used their authority to exact higher taxes on both French and non-French traders. Decrees in 1664, 1669, and 1675 ruled that consulships had to be held in person, excessive duties could not be imposed, and consuls should not abuse executive powers.

74. Colbert to échevins and députés du commerce, Marseille, 16 February 1670, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 518.

75. Colbert to the marquis de Nointel, ambassador at Constantinople, 1 November 1670, ibid., 575.

76. Ibid., 575n3.

77. Colbert, ibid., 491.

78. Colbert to Louis XIV, 21 September 1669, ibid., 491.

79. Colbert, “Instruction au Sieur de Nointel,” ibid., 841.

80. Colbert, “Note sur le commerce et les relations de la France avec le Levant,” ibid., 628–29.

81. Louis XIV, Capitulations renouvellées, 2.

82. Ibid., 13.

83. Ibid., 8.

84. Chambon quoted in Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 212.

85. Anonymous quoted in Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 213–14. Also Archives nationales Marine B 7.488 (1664–1740).

86. For studies on administrative practices after Colbert, see Chapman, Private Ambition and Political Alliances.

87. Cole, Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism, 3; for a contrasting viewpoint, see Chapman, Private Ambition and Political Alliances; for Marseillais relationships with the Crown post-Colbert, see Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille; Masson, Histoire du commerce français dans le Levant.

88. See, e.g., Kettering, Patronage in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century France; Patrons, Brokers and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France; “Brokerage at the Court of Louis XIV”; and “Historical Development of Political Clientelism.”

89. Cole, French Mercantilism, 1683–1700, 26.

90. Lagny, letter to Pontchartrain, 28 September 1686, ACCM, B 101.

91. Lagny, letter, 15 November 1699, ACCM, B 101.

92. Schaeper, French Council of Commerce, 10. Colbert set precedents for such a council with his Council of Commerce in 1664. In 1669, he had also issued an ordinance calling for the creation of assemblies (assemblées représentatives du commerce) of municipal officials and négociants, who would assemble periodically in their municipalities. Neither of Colbert’s plans had panned out: his Council of Commerce was discontinued, and only a handful of cities established assemblées du commerce.

93. “Arrest du Conseil d’Estat de Roy portent establissement d’un Conseil de Commerce, du 29 juin 1700,” ACCM, A 15.

94. Commissaires included Daguesseau, (chair), Controller-General Michel Chamillart, Secretary of State for the Navy Jêrome de Pontchartrain, Michel Jean Amelot de Gournay, and Maîtres des requêtes François Joseph d’Ernothon and Nicolas-Prosper Bauyn d’Angervilliers. Deputies came from Paris, Rouen, Bordeaux, Lyon, Marseille, La Rochelle, Nantes, Saint-Malo, Lille, Bayonne, and Dunkerque.

95. Biography of Fabre from Joseph Fournier, Chambre de commerce de Marseille et ses représentants, 42–58; Schaeper, French Council of Commerce.

96. Fabre enjoyed a positive reputation at court; he had distinguished himself by serving as Marseille’s representative to the Crown to offer formal apologies for Niozelles’ seditious activities that set off the conquest of 1660. Furthermore, he had served as Colbert’s informant. Following the conquest, Colbert created the office of L’inspection du commerce de Levant. He named informateurs to help “execute [the Crown’s] decisions, hand over accounts” and inspect commerce, Fabre being the first of these. Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 285–300.

97. ACCM, A 17.

98. Fabre, letter to the Marseille Chamber of Commerce, 20 January 1701, ACCM, B 153 (all letters from Fabre cited below are to the Marseille Chamber). See Fournier, Chambre de Commerce de Marseille et ses représentants permanents à Paris, 47.

99. Schaeper, “Government and Business in Early Eighteenth-Century France,” 540.

100. Fabre, 26 April 1701, ACCM, B 153.

101. “Instructions de la Chambre de commerce de Marseille à Monsieur Joseph Fabre” (1700), ACCM, B 152.

102. Fabre, 16 July 1701, ACCM, B 154.

103. Fabre, 8 October, 1701, ACCM, B 154. For more, see ibid., 30 July, 2 August, and 9 August, 1701; also ACCM, B 157, 6 January, 23 January, and 25 January 1703.

104. Fabre, 26 January, 12 and 15 February, 1 March, and 5 April 1701, ACCM, B 1532, and 1 September 1702, ACCM, B 156.

105. Fabre, 23 July 1701, ACCM, B 154.

106. Fabre, 5 February 1701, ACCM, B 153.

107. ACCM, B 153–157.

108. Fabre, 13 September 1701, ACCM, B 154.

109. Fabre, 9 September 1701, ACCM, B 154.

110. Fabre, 21 May 1701, ACCM, B 153.

111. Fabre, 23 and 30 July 1701, ACCM, B 154; 19 and 24 January 1702, ACCM B 155; September 1702, ACCM, B 156.

112. Fabre, letter, 31 January 1701, ACCM, B 153.

113. Schaeper, French Council of Commerce, 54.

114. Fabre, 26 April 1701, ACCM, B 153.

115. Fabre, 8 July 1702, ACCM, B 156.

116. Fabre, 7 February 1701, ACCM, B 153.

117. Matthieu Fabre, 9 September 1708.

118. While arguing for three years on behalf of the liberties of “virtuous,” “useful” Marseillais merchants who enriched the state, Fabre distributed bribes to win over Chamillart, Pontchartrain, and the conseillers d’état who decided his city’s fate. “Good politics demand that I encourage those who work for us,” Fabre wrote. “It is necessary to have permanent friends, one must manage [people] by giving a pension.” Historians have estimated that Fabre’s pots-de-vin amounted to over 100,000 livres. While complaining that such people-managing gave him extreme “arm-aches,” Fabre reported that it produced excellent results: “the king told me that he is happy with Marseille.” See Fabre, 15 March 1701, ACCM, B 153, and 24 and 30 August 1701, ACCM, B 154;. For more on gifts and bribes, see Schaeper, French Council of Commerce, 86; Kettering, “Brokerage at the Court of Louis XIV,” 69–87, and “Political Clientelism,” 419–47.

119. The delay was caused by conseiller d’état Michel Amelot’s illness in 1702 and 1703. See 27 March 1703, ACCM, B 157, and letters, 29 July–30 September 1702, ACCM, B 156. “Monsieur Amelot’s sickness lasts a bit too long,” Fabre wrote the Chamber.

120. Fabre, letter, 27 April 1702, quoted in Fournier, Chambre de Commerce de Marseille et ses représentants permanents à Paris, 52.

121. Clark, Compass of Society, 34.

122. Kessler, Revolution in Commerce, 3.

123. Clark, Compass of Society, 5–6.

CHAPTER 2: BETWEEN REPUBLIC AND MONARCHY: DEBATING COMMERCE AND VIRTUE

1. Carrière, Négociants marseillais, 247.

2. Kessler, “Question of Name,” 50.

3. Clark, Compass of Society, 6, and “Commerce, the Virtues, and the Public Sphere,” 415–40.

4. Clark, “Commerce, the Virtues, and the Public Sphere,” 419.

5. Savary, Parfait négociant, Preface to 1st ed. (1675), x.

6. Ibid.

7. Savary, Parfait négociant, bk. 1, 1–2.

8. Kessler, “Question of Name,” 53.

9. Savary, “Dessein de l’auteur et l’ordre qu’il a venu en son ouvrage,” in Parfait négociant, 2.

10. Savary, Parfait négociant, pt. 1, bk. 1, 27–40.

11. Colonie, Eclaircissement sur le légitime commerce des intérêts (1682), 30–32, 60.

12. Kessler, “Question of Name,” 50.

13. Lebret, Bibliothèque municipale de Marseille, MS 49002, folio 228.

14. Carrière, Négociants marseillais, 259–66.

15. Savary, Parfait négociant, pt. 2, bk. 1, 408–9.

16. Savary, “Du commerce en gros et de son excellence,” in Parfait négociant, 408. The nobility, by definition, were traditionally legally barred from mercantile activity. Also Kessler, “Question in Name,” 50–52.

17. Eon, Commerce honorable; also Clark, “Commerce, the Virtues, and the Public Sphere,” 438.

18. Clark, “Commerce, the Virtues, and the Public Sphere,” 439.

19. Savary, Parfait négociant, 408.

20. Ibid., 241.

21. Carrière, Négociants marseillais, 243–44.

22. Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, s.v. “negoce,” “négoçiant” 2: 115.

23. Quoted in Carrière, Négociants marseillais, 244–45.

24. Panzac, “International and Domestic Maritime Trade in the Ottoman Empire,” 193.

25. For more on the Marseillais sword nobility’s remonstrances, see Chapter 7.

26. Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, 2.7–12: 799–800, s.v. “Marseille.”

27. Koselleck, “Linguistic Change and the History of Events,” 649–66. Koselleck describes how languages control events by representing them in “certain ways and not otherwise.” Baker expanded on this idea to study the relationship between “memory and political practice” in his analysis of representations of the past by parlementary magistrates in eighteenth-century France. Baker, “Memory and Practice,” 134.

28. Mollicone, “Redécouverte,” 1: 117, 9.

29. Koselleck, “Linguistic Change,” 660.

30. The French monarchy’s role in activating civic patriotism remains surprisingly unexplored, but see on this Bell, Cult of the Nation in France; Gordon, Citizens Without Sovereignty; Bernstein, Between Crown and Community. In Marseille, historical research on civic fashioning have been confined to local histories that sacrifice analytical distance and continue to invoke 1660 as the point when the city reclaimed its grandeur. The important question that remains is not whether Marseille reclaimed its greatness in 1660, but rather why the tradition of imagining this resurrection as a republican one emerged.

31. Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, s.v. “République.”

32. Chasseneuz, Catalogus gloriae mundi, quoted in Gojosso, Concept de république en France, 79.

33. Gojosso, Concept de république, 165.

34. Ibid., 264–70.

35. Cubells, “Vie intellectuelle,” 333–38, 339–40, 349. Looking at the inventories of five private library holdings in Provence, Cubells gives a percentage breakdown of different categories of texts for the years 1700 to 1730. The most popular subjects were law and jurisprudence, history, and antiquity.

36. McCabe, Orientalism in Early Modern France, 124.

37. Michaud, Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne, 37: 44–45.

38. For the full title, see Bibliography.

39. Ruffi, Histoire de la ville de Marseille, Preface. The first edition conserved at the Bibliothèque Méjanes is in delicate condition and no longer accessible to the public. My thanks to the conservateur Philip Ferrand, who allowed me use of the text. Because of its fragility, I went through it to note the differences from the second edition; where the chapters were identical, I consulted the latter edition. In sum, the first edition ends its narrative with the defeat of Casaulx and then provides a list of prominent ecclesiastics, bishops, churches, and buildings in Marseille. It ends in the tenth chapter with a discussion of the fertility of the region, its wines, food, and herbs. The 1696 edition adds four chapters. It takes the narrative up to the birth of Louis XIV, and then discusses the bishops, churches, buildings, and artifacts of the city, as in the first edition, with the addition of images of artifacts and coins found. The latter edition also includes chapters on the royal galleys and French naval and commercial power after 1660, as well as a list of famous Marseillais from ancient and modern times.

40. Ibid., 13, 16–17.

41. Ibid., 12, 205, 13–14. Massilia’s women allegedly shunned alcohol and were as virtuous as its men. Ruffi says that “comedians and actors were not allowed entry into the city for fear that the youth would accustom themselves to adultery and other falsities.”

42. Ibid., 364–381. This institution taught grammar, rhetoric, poetry, philosophy, medicine, jurisprudence, theology, mathematics, and astrology.

43. Ibid., 20, 23, 208, 236.

44. Ibid., 417, 425–28.

45. “Franciscus Patricius Senensis, Episcopus Caietanus libro tertio titulo 3. de institute. reipubl.,” in Ruffi, Le Règlement du sort, Preface. Bibliothèque Méjanes, M FP Anc. F. 0103. My short summary of the ruling bodies is gleaned from Pocock, Machiavellian Moment, 278–82.

46. Ruffi, Règlement du sort, Preface.

47. “Extrait des Délibérations du Conseil,” 4 January 1654, in Ruffi, Règlement du sort.

48. “Extrait des Délibérations de l’Hostel de Ville de Marseille,” 28 October 1652, in Ruffi, Règlement du sort.

49. Règlement du sort, articles 1–11.

50. Ibid., articles 1–5.

51. Ibid. Members of the council convened to vote on the Sunday before the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude: “without distinction of quality … they would be called upon by the secretary in alphabetical order, to write their names on an equal piece of paper, which would be folded … in a ball.” The balls were tossed into “the Vase of Destiny,” and a young boy drew names at random.

52. Ibid., article 10.

53. Ibid., article 25.

54. Ibid., “Des privilèges de Marseille,” 122.

55. Ruffi, Histoire de la Ville de Marseille, “Epître.”

56. Ruffi, Histoire de la Ville de Marseille, 2nd ed., bk. 1, 4.

57. Ibid., bk. 14, 295–97, 346–64.

58. Ibid., 277.

59. For more, see list of local works in Guys, Marseille ancienne et moderne, 149–50.

60. Gaufridi, Histoire de Provence, 4, 7, 838.

61. Pliny quoted in Busquet, Histoire de la Provence, 81.

62. Ruffi, Histoire de Marseille, bk. 13, 312.

63. Gautier, Histoire de la ville de Nismes, introduction.

64. On Louis XIV and the Arles obelisk, see Mollicone, “Redécouverte,” 1:120–24.

65. Archaeological studies suggest that the remains in Rome’s western provinces date to early imperial Rome, and Augustan settlement in particular. Provençal ruins dated to the Hellenic period have been found at the sites of ancient Massilia, Glanum, Saint-Rémy, and Narbonensis in the Bouches-du-Rhône. When Hellenic settlements gave way to romanization, imperial Roman architecture dominated. See Ward-Perkins, “From Republic to Empire,” 1–19.

66. Smith, Nobility Reimagined, 26, 30–33.

67. Van Kley, Religious Origins of the French Revolution, 55.

68. Fénelon, Télémaque, ed. and trans. Riley as Telemachus, 36–37.

69. Ibid., 49, 52, 152.

70. Riley, Introduction, Fénelon, Telemachus, xvii, xxi.

71. This combination of republicanism and religion was not limited to Fénelon. His adversaries the Jansenists also used republican motifs in their discussions of Church governance and reform. For a discussion of the convergence of republicanism, civic spirit, and religion in Marseille, see Chapter 6.

72. Riley, Introduction, Fénelon, Telemachus, xxii.

73. Fénelon, Education of a Daughter, 24, 57.

74. Van Kley, Religious Origins of the French Revolution, 56–57; Riley, Introduction, Fénelon, Telemachus, xiv–xv.

75. Shovlin, Political Economy of Virtue, 21.

76. Smith, Nobility Reimagined, 44.

77. Ibid., 28; Kaiser, “Evil Empire?”; Richter, “Despotism,” in Dictionary of the History of Ideas; McCabe, Orientalism in Early Modern France.

CHAPTER 3: FRANCE AND THE LEVANTINE MERCHANT

1. Guys, Marseille ancienne et moderne, 29.

2. As Thomas Kaiser has shown, “running through these narratives was the steady theme of a society operating on the inversion of natural law” (Kaiser, “Evil Empire?” 8).

3. I use several works as my springboard: Adamovsy, Euro-Orientalism; Kaiser, “Evil Empire?”; Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe.

4. McCabe, Orientalism in Early Modern France.

5. A similar argument, that discussions about “race” informed and were informed by individuals and groups struggling to position themselves in the metropole, has been made in studies of imperial Britain in the nineteenth century. See Cannadine, Ornamentalism.

6. Through this chapter, I use the terms, “Mohammad,” “Mahomet,” “Mahometan,” depending on the terminology used by French and British authors.

7. Colbert, “Edit sur la franchise du port de Marseille,” in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 796–98.

8. Colbert in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: clxxiii.

9. Jensen, “Ottoman Turks in Sixteenth-Century French Diplomacy,” 451–470.

10. Panzac, Commerce et navigation dans l’empire Ottoman, 198.

11. McCabe, Orientalism in Early Modern France, chaps. 6–9. See also Castelluccio, Carrousels.

12. Fontenelle, “Eloge,” in Tournefort, Relation d’un voyage du Levant.

13. Tournefort, Relation d’un voyage du Levant, introduction.

14. Ibid., 8–9.

15. Poullet, Nouvelles relations du Levant, 35.

16. Ibid., 305–6.

17. Fermanel, Voyage d’Italie et du Levant, 111–12.

18. Poullet, Nouvelles relations du Levant, 314.

19. Ibid., 22, 51, 72.

20. Ibid., 280.

21. Fermanel, Voyage d’Italie et du Levant, 113 -4.

22. Poullet, Nouvelles relations du Levant, 329.

23. Ibid., 31.

24. Fermanel, Voyage d’Italie et du Levant, 109, 332 -33.

25. Ibid., 460.

26. I refer to Istanbul as Constantinople here as my sources all use the latter name.

27. Avril, Voyages en divers états, 113.

28. Ibid., 50–51.

29. Fermanel, Voyage d’Italie et du Levant, 42, 23–24, 18.

30. Avril, Voyages en divers états, 342.

31. Poullet, Nouvelles relations du Levant, 35.

32. Herbelot de Molainville, Bibliothèque orientale, preface.

33. Cousin, “Eloge de Monsieur d’Herbelot,” in Herbelot de Molainville, Bibliothèque orientale.

34. Herbelot de Molainville, Bibliothèque orientale, s.v., “Turc.”

35. Ibid., preface.

36. Ibid., s.v., “Mohammed.”

37. Histoire de l’islam et des musulmans en France, ed. Arkoun, 452.

38. Thévenot, Relation d’un voyage fait au Levant; Chardin, Journal de voyage du chevalier Chardin; Tavernier, Six voyages.

39. Histoire de l’islam et des musulmans en France, ed. Arkoun, 448, 450.

40. Ibid., 452.

41. Ibid.

42. The 1752 English translation of Boulainvilliers’ Histoire and Vie de Mahomet begins with a translator’s preface that notes: “the idea of Mahomet, which the Count of Boulainvilliers here presents us with, is so new and surprising, so different, and even contrary to all that we have hitherto been taught.” It warns that this text, which paints Islam and its founder as exemplary models, would seem offensive to Christians. The translator qualifies Boulainvilliers’ criticisms of Christianity, however, reminding the reader that the author had “lived in a country, where civil and ecclesiastic tyranny was combined in the glorious design of suppressing reason, truth and freedom.” Boulainvilliers’ arguments were not criticisms of Christianity, but rather justified condemnation of “the pollutions of Popery.” “Translator’s Preface,” in Boulainvilliers, Life of Mahomed, i–iv.

43. Boulainvilliers, Life of Mahomed, 1–3.

44. Ibid., 20, 21, 22, 25, 26.

45. Ibid., 26, 28–30, 34.

46. Ibid., 12–13.

47. Ibid., 118–19, 131, 145–46, 147, 150

48. Ibid., 156–57, 160, 163.

49. Eon, Commerce honorable.

50. Eon, Commerce honorable, “Epître.”

51. Ibid., 19, 20–22, 25. Eon described how for every ten to twelve French ships in active duty, there were fifty to sixty foreign ones; forty years back, the Dutch had only had four to five hundred vessels, but they now had over ten thousand.

52. Ibid., 49, 45–46.

53. Ibid., 50.

54. Ibid., 56, 57.

55. Ibid., 57, 59.

56. Ibid., 84, 95.

57. Ibid., 61, 97.

58. Sahlins, Unnaturally French, 72–74.

59. Ibid., 102–3, 9, 106, 180–84.

60. Ibid., 31–56.

61. The Crown did not single out aliens as the targets of such practices; the withdrawal and reinstitution of naturalized status in exchange for payment can be compared to the practices of Louis XIV’s successors in regards to the selling of venality. See Bien, “Offices, Corps and a System of State Credit,” 89–114.

62. Echinard and Temime, Histoire des migrations à Marseille, 51, 28.

63. The Corsican diaspora was such a large part of the Marseillais immigrant population in the sixteenth century that Braudel calls the city “demi corse.” Echinard and Temime, Histoire des migrations à Marseille, vol. 1, chap. 2.

64. Charles VIII, letter, 10 May 1485, quoted in Echinard and Temime, Histoire des migrations à Marseille, 1: 33.

65. “Instructions données par le Conseil municipal de Marseille à ses envoyés auprès du Conseil royal de Provence,” quoted in Echinard and Temime, Histoire des migrations à Marseille.

66. Ferrier, ambassador to Venice, letter to Charles IX, 18 April 1572, in Echinard and Temime, Histoire des migrations à Marseille, 1: 44.

67. Ibid., 45.

68. Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 507–9.

69. Echinard and Temime, Histoire des migrations à Marseille, 1: 27. Historians have not been able to calculate the percentage of foreigners given the large number of petites gens and temporary guest workers who escaped documentation.

70. Colbert, “Edit sur la franchise du port de Marseille,” in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 796–98.

71. Collection A. Fiorentino, Musée de la Marine, Marseille.

72. Echinard and Temime, Histoire des migrations à Marseille, 1: 51.

73. McCabe, Orientalism in Early Modern France, 149.

74. Richelieu, “Edit du 24 juin 1635 organizant le commerce des arméniens,” in Echinard and Temime, Histoire des migrations à Marseille, 1: 45.

75. Echinard and Temime, Histoire des migrations à Marseille, 1: 54.

76. Colbert to Oppède, 16 October 1671, quoted in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: clxxii.

77. Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 498–504.

78. Anonymous mémoire, ACCM, G5.

79. Colbert to Rouillé, 8 September 1673, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 2: 679.

80. Colbert to Morant, 20 November 1681, ibid., 722.

81. “Mémoire contre les Juifs residans à Marseille et de l’ordonnance du Roy qui ordre qu’ils sortirons de ladite ville” (2 May 1682), ACCM, G5, “Juifs à Marseille.”

82. Seignelay scribbled a letter to his uncle Charles Colbert de Croissy, secretary of state for foreign affairs, calling on him to “expel the Jews from Marseille” (Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 6: 159n4).

83. “Mémoire à Monseigneur le marquis de Seignelay ministre et secretaire d’Etat,” ACCM, G5, “Juifs à Marseille.”

84. Thomas-Alexandre Morant, letter, ACCM, G5.

85. “Extrait des registres du Conseil d’Etat” (Versailles, 15 February 1710), ACCM, G5.

86. “Declaration du Roy concernant le commerce des Soyes de Levant du 21 octobre 1687” (Paris, 1687), ACCM, J 1585.

87. Pontchartrain, quoted in Echinard and Temime, Histoire des migrations à Marseille, 1: 54.

88. “Chambre de Commerce à Monsigneur l’Intendant” (n.d.). ACCM, J 1585.

89. Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 508.

90. “Declaration du Roy qui revoque et annulle les lettres de naturalité accordées aux étrangers” (5 February 1720) and “Declaration du Roy qui revoque et annulle les lettres de naturalité accordées aux Genois” (21 August 1718), ACCM, F 35.

91. “Ordonnance du Roy du juin 1726; aoust 1681, avril 1689, aoust 1725,” ACCM, F 35.

92. Governor Alphonse de Fortia Forville de Pilles, letter to François Agneau et al., ACCM, G 6, “Religion prétendue réformée et Musulmans, 1685–1775.”

93. “Ordonnance du Roy portent defenses à ses sujets nouveaux convertis, de passer dans les pays étrangers et aux refugiez de venire en France sans Sa permission” (Marseille, 1713), ACCM, G 6.

94. Seignelay, letter to Morant, 27 October 1685, quoted in Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille, 502n3.

95. Colbert, letter to Intendant of the Galleys Brodart, 14 April 1680, in Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert, 6: 130. The king would send “an ecclesiastic capable of instructing those who would like to place themselves in a state of knowing their own errors” to Marseille, Colbert wrote.

CHAPTER 4: PLAGUE, COMMERCE, AND CENTRALIZED DISEASE CONTROL IN EARLY MODERN FRANCE

1. Pestalozzi, Avis de précaution contre la peste, 40.

2. Tournefort, Relation d’un voyage du Levant, 470–71.

3. Gaudereau, Relation des differentes espèces de peste, 129–30, 133.

4. Paris, “Mémoire sur la peste,” 10, bound in Recueil de pièces relatifs à la peste qui sévit en Provence, vol. 2.

5. G.-A. Olivier, Voyage dans l’Empire Othoman, l’Egypte et la Perse.

6. Stephen Tobriner, “Safety and Reconstruction of Noto after the Sicilian Earthquake of 1693,” in Dreadful Visitations, ed. Johns, 51.

7. G. A. Starr, “Defoe and Disasters,” in Dreadful Visitations, ed. Johns, 38.

8. Carla Hesse, in Dreadful Visitations, ed. Johns, 183.

9. Gordon, “Confrontations with the Plague,” and “The City and the Plague”; Jones, “Plague and Its Metaphors,” 97–127.

10. Nineteenth-century scientists determined how rats native to the Trans-Caucasian and Balkan steppes, Mongolia, and Kurdistan spread plague as far as the Arctic Circle and America. Accidental encounters between man and rat—not rodent migration—transmitted plague; travelers inadvertently carried rats and fleas from one location to another. Upon the rodents’ deaths, fleas could survive a month within merchandise until they landed on human hosts. Plague decimated the human population through bubonic, pneumonic, or septicemic transmission. The most common, bubonic plague spread through the fleabite, attacking the body’s lymphatic system. When fleas hibernated, plague could persist in pneumonic form; coughing transmitted bacilli from person to person. Septicaemic transmission involved fleabites that injected bacilli into the bloodstream. Without antibiotics, the fatality rate for victims of plague ran from 60 to 90 percent. Hudson, Disease and Its Control, 33.

11. Chicoyneau, “Relation succinte touchant les accidens de la Peste,” in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 178.

12. Pestalozzi, Avis de précaution contre la peste, 40.

13. Harrison, Disease and the Modern World, 41.

14. Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets, 58–59.

15. Panzac, La peste dans l’empire Ottoman, 192, 198, 360–61.

16. Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets, 11.

17. Ibid.

18. Dols, Black Death, 88. The works of Arabic scholars were made available to Europeans by Gerard of Cremona (1114–87), among other translators, and Gentile di Foligno’s fourteenth-century treatise on the plague explicitly drew upon works Avicenna and other Muslim writers. See Hamarneh, “Islamic Medicine and Its Impact,” in id., Health Sciences in Early Islam, 169–87.

19. P.-J. Fabre, Remèdes, curatifs et préservatifs, 6–7.

20. Hamarneh, “A Brief Survey of Islamic Medicine,” in id., Health Sciences in Early Islam, 40.

21. Vallant, Consultation sur la maladie de Provence faite le vingt-uniéme novembre 1720, 37–38.

22. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 98–101.

23. Chicoyneau, Notice sur les principales pestes, 1, 2–4.

24. Bertrand, Relation historique, 5, 9.

25. Ibid., 298.

26. Pitton, Histoire de la ville d’Aix, 499.

27. Dictionnaire de l’Académie française (1694), s.v. “Peste.”

28. Féraud, Dictionnaire critique de la langue française, 4.

29. Ibid., 1–2.

30. Though no complete inventory has been compiled in France, Colin Jones’s research in the Bibliothèque nationale’s Catalogue des sciences médicales and Jean-Noël Biraben’s Les hommes et la peste reveal an extensive collection of early modern plague treatises. Jones traced 264 French and Latin texts written between 1500 and 1770. Two-thirds of these were published in the provinces.

31. Jones, “Plague and Its Metaphors,” 104, 115.

32. Pestalozzi, Dissertation sur les causes et la nature de la peste.

33. Ibid.

34. Pestalozzi, Avis de precaution contre la peste, 34.

35. Dictionnaire de l’Académie française (1762), s.v. “Economie.”

36. Pestalozzi, Avis de precaution contre la peste, 2–3.

37. Ibid., 5–7.

38. Chicoyneau, “Notice sur les principales pestes,” in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 1,4.

39. Ibid., 2–4.

40. Chicoyneau, Discours prononcé le 26 octobre de l’année 1722, 59. Quoted in Gordon, “Confrontations with the Plague,” 22.

41. Gordon, “Confrontations with the Plague,” 22.

42. Chicoyneau, “Notice sur les principales pestes,” 185, 188.

43. “Mémoire du Bureau de la santé de Marseille,” ii, AdBdR, 200 E 7 FISM.

44. Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets, 91–92.

45. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 198–200.

46. Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets, 33.

47. Letter in “Rapport sur les terrains du Lazaret, Marseille, le 18 juillet 1849,” AMVM, DD 47.

48. “De par le Roy Comte de Provence,” Vincennes, 25 August 1666. AMVM, DD 47.

49. Porter, Blood and Guts, 136.

50. Hildesheimer, Bureau de la santé de Marseille, 43.

51. Ibid., 37.

52. Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets, 35.

53. Ibid., 173.

54. Howard, Histoire des principaux lazarets, 3.

55. Ibid., 6.

56. J.-B. Bertrand, Historical Relation, 30.

57. Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné, s.v. “Lazaret.”

58. The Confessions of Jean Jacques Rousseau, bk. 7, www.gutenberg.org/files/3913/3913.txt (accessed 2 July 2010).

59. Marchebeus, Voyage de Paris à Constantinople par bateau à vapeur, 217–20.

60. Hildesheimer, Bureau de la santé, 213.

61. “Mémoire sur les infirmeries” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 177–78; Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets, 41.

62. “Instruction pour les intendants de la santé” in Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets, 134.

63. Mémoire instructif sur ce qui doit être observé dans les villes, 4.

64. Bertrand, Historical Relation, 31–33.

65. Mémoire sur les infirmeries” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 175–76.

66. “Mémoire sur le Bureau de la santé de Marseille et sur les règles qu’on y observe” (1730), AdBdR, 200 E 7 FISM.

67. Guys, Marseille ancienne et moderne, 90–91.

68. Panzac, Quarantaines et lazarets, 33.

69. “A monseigneur l’intendant de justice” and the intendant’s reply, 22 June 1688, AdBdR, 200 E 1 FISM.

70. “De par le Roy, Comte de Provence,” 6 August 1689, AdBdR, 200 E 1 FISM.

71. Lebret, “Ordonnance,” 22 March 1690, AdBdR, 200 E 1 FISM.

72. “De par le Roy,” 31 July 1709, AdBdR, 200 E 1 FISM.

73. “Ordonnance du Roi portent defenses aux batimens qui ne sont pas en quarantaine d’entrer dans la reserve du Bureau de la santé,” 9 January 1718, AdBdR, 200 E 1 FISM.

74. Memorandum of October 1721 quoted in Hildesheimer, Bureau de la santé de Marseille, 156–57. See also AdBdR, 200 E 166 FISM.

75. “Arrêt du Conseil du 7 octobre, 1694,” AdBdR, 200 E 1 FISM.

76. Hildesheimer, Bureau de la santé, 164, 157. See also AdBdR, 200 E 287 FISM.

77. Hildesheimer, Bureau de la santé, 156–58.

78. Letter, 12 November 1770, AdBdR, 200 E 290 FISM and Hildesheimer, Bureau de la santé, 156–58.

79. “Mémoire pour le Bureau de la santé” (1721), bound in “Registres: Correspondence générale. Copies de lettres addressées aux ministres et à divers, 1713–1726,” AdBdR, 200 E 166.

80. Lucenet, Grandes pestes en France, 226, 228.

81. Croissante, Journal abregé, 5.

82. Bertrand, Historical Relation, 63–64.

83. Bureau de la santé, Marseille, letter to health authorities, République de Genève, 19 March 1721, Archivio di stato di Venezia, Provveditori alla sanità, 651.

84. Ibid.

85. The Archivio di stato di Venezia, Provveditori alla sanità, 650–51, preserves series of letters sent from the Toulon and Marseillais health bureaux to Geneva, Milan, Venice, and Genoa. Particularly complete are the weekly letters from Marseille to Geneva. The series also contains letters sent by Italian consuls in Marseille to their home offices in Milan, Venice, and Genoa.

86. Pouliquen, Oculiste, 55.

87. Sturgill, Claude Le Blanc, 161, 163. Half of Le Blanc’s correspondence from August 1720 to March 1723 dealt with his war against plague.

88. “Arrêt du Conseil d’Etat du Roi, au sujet de la maladie contagieuse de la ville de Marseille,” 14 September 1720, in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 147–57.

89. “Décisions du Conseil de la santé,” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 32.

90. “Instruction générale pour exécuter les premieres décisions du Conseil de santé,” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 117–19.

91. “Décisions du Conseil de la santé,” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 95.

92. Sturgill, Claude Le Blanc, 162.

93. “Instruction générale pour exécuter les premieres décisions du Conseil de santé,” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 69, 75.

94. Ibid., 72–73.

95. Ibid., 75.

96. Ibid., 89.

97. Lucenet, Grandes pestes en France, 226, 228.

CHAPTER 5: VIRTUE WITHOUT COMMERCE

1. Bertrand, Historical Relation, 3, 85.

2. Gordon, “The City and the Plague,” 84.

3. Bertrand, Historical Relation, 5.

4. Boccaccio, Decameron, “Introduction.”

5. Boccaccio, quoted in Hudson, Disease and Its Control, 37.

6. Defoe, Journal of the Plague Year, 12–13.

7. Gabriel, Proselite charitable, in Jones, “Plague and Its Metaphors,” 126.

8. “Ordres à observer pour empêcher que la peste ne se communique.”

9. Ibid., 10.

10. Ibid., 13–14, 15, 11.

11. “Règlements de police et remèdes contre la peste,” bound in Recueil de pieces relatives à la peste qui sévit en Provence, 13–14, 16–17.

12. “Ordres à observer pour empêcher que la peste ne se communique,” 16.

13. Ranchin, Traité politique et médical de la peste, 6, 60.

14. Maurice de Toulon, Capucin charitable, preface. Maurice provided service in southern France and northern Italy in the plagues of 1650, 1657, and 1665. His first publication, Trattato politico da pratticarsi nei tempi de peste was dedicated to the Genoese Senate. The Capucin charitable was published in 1662, 1668, and 1720. Dubois, Homme de peste.

15. Maurice de Toulon, Capucin charitable, 38, 66–76.

16. Ibid., 31.

17. Valeriolle, Ordre politique, 214, 217.

18. Ranchin, Traité nouveau, 77.

19. Gabriel, Proselite charitable, in Jones, “Plague and Its Metaphors,” 115.

20. Ibid., 169.

21. Villiers, Peste de 1720–1721, 19.

22. “Remonstrance du parlement de Provence sur les désordres”, 3.

23. “Ordres donnez par Messieurs les consuls gouverneurs de Marseille,” in Arrêt et règlement général fait … pour la conservation de la santé publique, 1–8.

24. Arrêt et réglement général fait … pour la conservation de la santé publique, 3, 4, 6, 16, 35–40 (articles 110–34).

25. “Extrait des registres de parlement tenant la chambre des vacations, du septième août 1720,” AdBdR, C 908.

26. “Extrait des registres …, du huitième août 1720,” AdBdR, C 908.

27. “Note des divers arrêts et réglemens rendus et publiés par le parlement,” 29, ACM, BB1.

28. Croissante, Journal abregé, 10–12.

29. “Mémoire sur quelques abus qui se commettent,” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 204.

30. Croissante, Journal abregé, 10, 22.

31. “Declaration du Roy, gouvernant les procés criminals, qu’il s’agira d’instruire dans les villes et lieux infectés du mal contagieux (1720), AMVM, GG 426.

32. Ibid.

33. “Declaration du Roy … du 11 novembre 1721,” 3, ACM, GG 426.

34. Croissante, Journal abregé, 42.

35. Valeriolle, Ordre politique, 3–6.

36. Croissante, Journal abregé, 42–43.

37. Ibid., 21, 66, 43.

38. Bertrand, Historical Relation, 176.

39. Poëme héroïque sur la peste.

40. Troy, La peste dans la ville de Marseille en 1720 (1723), AMVM, 11 Fi 12.

41. Autran, Eloge historique du chevalier Roze.

42. Poëme héroïque sur la peste.

43. Ordinance, De par le Roy, 20 January 1721, no. 148, AMVM, FF.

44. Bertrand, Historical Relation, 240–43.

45. The Regent called for the presence of three lawyers in these procedures, but none of the dossiers show signs of any such presence.

46. “Dossier Limoge, Fidelle, Rabeau et Boulle–vol nocturne,” AMVM, FF.

47. “Dossier Laurens Audrie–armes prohibées,” AMVM, FF.

48. Bertrand, Historical Relation, 240–43.

49. Ordinance of 22 March 1721, AMVM, FF 324.

50. Langeron, Ordinance, De par le Roy, 1 May 1721, no. 163, AMVM, FF.

51. Bertrand, Historical Relation, 240–45.

52. “Deliberation du Bureau de la Maison du refuge,” AMVM, FF 238.

53. “Police locale, prostitution et débauche: dénonces et jugements, 1721–1724,” AMVM FF 239.

54. Belsunce, “Mandement de Mgr d’évêque de Marseille pour l’ouverture des églises,” in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 327–35.

55. “Lettres … pour la punition des femmes et filles d’une débauche publique,” 4 May 1691, AMVM, FF 238.

56. Ibid., 7.

57. AMVM, FF 239.

58. “A Monsieur le commandant et messieurs les échevins, commissaires du Roy, lieutenants généraux de police” (1721), AMVM, FF 239.

59. “Conclusions diffinitives de M. du Procureur du Roy,” 26 March 1721, AMVM, FF 239.

60. Croissante, Journal abregé, 33.

61. Terran, Discours, 7, 27–28.

62. Ibid., 38.

63. Because many of the trial documents from the plague are damaged by fire or inaccessible, I was unable to count the number of rape trials. The majority of the cases I found are from November 1720 on. There are no dossiers for rape in the first three months of plague.

64. “Dossier Honoré Taneron,” summary (1721), AMVM, GG 428.

65.“Extrait des registres du greffe de la police,” 2 July 1721, AMVM, GG 428.

66. “Interrogations … de Honoré Taneron,” 19 July 1721, AMVM, GG 428.

67. “Nous ordonnons … conclusions diffinitives,” 14 July 1721, ACM, GG 428.

68. Langeron, “Mémoire au sujet d’une disinfection,” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 208.

69. “Mémoire dressé par Messieurs les échevins, et députés de la Chambre du Commerce,” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 220–22.

70. Ibid., 225–27.

71. Quoted in Carrière, Courdurié, and Rebuffat, Marseille ville morte, 251.

72. Ibid., 255.

73. Croissante, Journal abregé, 50.

74. On 21 May 1720, the same week that plague arrived in Marseille, Law reduced the value of government banknotes by 20 percent, making them “legally worth less than their stated value in livres.” Hamilton, “Prices and Wages at Paris Under John Law’s System,” 42–70; Kaiser, “Money, Despotism and Public Opinion.”

75. Echevins de Marseille, letter, “A Mgr Law conseiller d’Etat du 3 novembre 1720,” AMVM, BB 268.

76. “Mémoire au sujet d’une disinfection générale,” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 208–09.

77. “Mémoire sur les infirmaries,” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 181.

78. Ibid., 187, 181.

79. Ibid., 200–201; 192–93.

80. “Mémoire sur quelques abus qui se commettent,” in Chicoyneau, Traité des causes, 204–5.

81. France, Gouvernement de Marseille, Acte déclaratif de l’état présent de la santé de la ville de Marseille et de la désinfection générale que y a été faite par ordre du Roi.

82. De par le Roy. Le Bailly de Langeron, lieutenant général des armées du Roy, Chef d’escadre de ses galères, commandant pour sa majesté dans la ville de Marseille, et Mrs. Les Echevins, Lieutenants généraux de police de Ladite ville … 17 août 1723.

83. “Remonstrance du parlement de Provence sur les desordres …” 11, 3, 9, ACM, BB1.

84. Ibid., 2–5.

85. Ibid., 16, 18, 13.

86. Ibid., 9, 12–14.

87. Ibid.,13–4. Langeron did, on 8 November 1720, impose rates on goods without the knowledge or participation of the parlement.

88. Michel Foucault analyzed the draconian measures taken in plague contexts within broader studies on the development of repressive mechanisms of power in the modern period. See Chapter 4 and Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 195–200.

89. Harrison, Disease and the Modern World, 47; Paul Slack, “The Response to Plague in Early Modern England: Public Policies and Their Consequences,” in Famine, Disease and Social Order, ed. Walter and Schofield, 167–87.

90. Baehrel, “Epidémie et terreur,” 137.

CHAPTER 6: CIVIC RELIGIOSITY AND RELIGIOUS CITIZENSHIP IN PLAGUE-STRICKEN MARSEILLE

1. Belsunce, “Mandement de Mgr l’évêque de Marseille, sur la desolation,” in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 169.

2. Jacques de Forbin de Janson, “Mandement de Mr. l’Archevêque d’Arles,” in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 158–62.

3. Belsunce, letter to the abbé de Gay, 4 August 1720,” in Correspondences, 146–47.

4. Belsunce, “Ordonnance de Mr. l’évêque de Marseille, sur la desolation,” in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 135. Also archbishop of Arles, letter to Mgr Languet, 26 September 1720, in Ardoin, Jansénisme en Basse-Provence, 186.

5. For the religious interpretation of disease beyond France, see Greenspan, “Religious Contagion in Mid-Seventeenth Century England,” in Imagining Contagion, ed. Carlin, 212–27.

6. Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, eds. 4, 5, 6, and 8 (1762, 1798, 1832–35, and 1932–35 respectively), s.v. “Contagion.” Only in the 8th ed. (1932–35) was “plague” dropped as a definition of “contagion.”

7. Van Kley, Religious Origins of the French Revolution, 34.

8. Raymond Jonas traces the history of the cult, and shows how the Sacred Heart became “a Christian patriotic alternative to the idealized Republic” after the Old Regime. Jonas, France and the Cult of the Sacred Heart, 3.

9. Habermas’s analysis of a bourgeois public sphere, a collection of private individuals come together as a public, has served as a springboard for historians studying the political culture of the eighteenth century. See Habermas, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere; Baker, Inventing the French Revolution; Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Calhoun. For more on “public,” see Chartier, Cultural Origins of the French Revolution; Goodman, Republic of Letters; Haine, World of the Paris Café; Eisenstein, Printing Press; Melton, Rise of the Public.

10. “French politics broke out of the absolutist mold” through the 1750s debates over the refusal of sacraments, the 1760s discussions over grain trade, and the Maupeou coup, Keith Michael Baker argues. See Baker, Inventing the French Revolution, 170.

11. As Thomas Kaiser has shown, writers became aware of the power of “public opinion,” and “public judgment” as early as the late seventeenth century; they imagined the “Public” as the ideal tribunal that “rarely judged incorrectly in the political sphere when making assessments of … generals, magistrates, or government ministers.” See Kaiser, “Rhetoric in the Service of the King,” 191, and “Abbé de Saint-Pierre,” 618–43.

12. See, e.g., Horrox, Black Death; Aberth, Black Death.

13. Biraben attributes this hysteria to the fact that Jews in the Dauphiné and Provence were suspected of having easy access to poisons because many worked as retail merchants, apothecaries, and grocers. Biraben, Les hommes et la peste, 58–59.

14. Moote and Moote, Great Plague.

15. Naphy, Plagues, Poisons and Potions; Closson, “The Devil’s Curses,” in Carlin, ed. Imagining Contagion, 63–77.

16. “Note des divers Arrêts et Règlements rendus et publiés par le Parlement de Provence, relativement à la Peste en 1720,” in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 23–38.

17. Burns and Izbicki, Conciliarism and Papalism, viii.

18. Van Kley, Religious Origins of the French Revolution, 34.

19. Quoted in ibid., 37.

20. Burns and Isbicki, Conciliarism and Papalism, x.

21. Cornette, Histoire de la France, 40.

22. Quesnel, Réflexions sur les cent et une propositions, 45.

23. Languet de Gergy, bishop of Soissons, in Van Kley, Religious Origins of the French Revolution, 84–85.

24. Cornette, Histoire de la France, 39.

25. Le Gros, Abrégé chronologique, 34.

26. Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, prop. 79, p. 28; prop. 92, p. 33.

27. Le Gros, Abrégé chronologique, 33, 35.

28. These included the declaration of 1672 against parlementary remonstrance, the Gallican declaration of 1682, the edict of 1695 that extended episcopal authority over priests, the edict of Fontainebleau, and Unigenitus in 1713. See further, Van Kley, Religious Origins of the French Revolution.

29. Ardoin, Jansenisme en Basse-Provence, 130; Busquet, Histoire de la Provence, 302.

30. La politique des Jésuites demasquée, 7, 9, 33–34.

31. Ibid., 146.

32. Ibid., 77, 145.

33. Lettre à Monseigneur l’évêque de Marseille, 5, 17.

34. Born in Toulouse in 1680, La Borde entered the Oratory in 1699 and became chair of philosophy at Vendôme and director of the seminary at St. Magloire. His works include Lettre au cardinal de Noailles touchant les artifices et intrigues du P. Tellier et quelques autres jésuites contre Son Eminence (1711); Examen de la constitution Unigenitus selon la méthode des géomètres (1714); Du témoignage de la verité dans l’Eglise (1714); and the posthumously published Principes sur l’essence, la distinction et les limites des deux puissances, spirituelle et temporelle (1753). During the plague, he criticized Belsunce for denouncing the Oratory and organized conferences attended by “persons of all ranks,” urging Catholics to serve in a “tribunal” to cleanse the Church of error. Michaud, Biographie universelle, 22: 284–86.

35. La Borde, Principes sur l’essence, 86.

36. La Borde, Témoignage, 2: 16.

37. Van Kley, Religious Origins of the French Revolution, 78.

38. La Borde, Témoignage, 2: 20–21.

39. Ibid., 1: 79, 25.

40. Ibid., 2: 91–92, 25, 74.

41. Ibid., 129–31, 31.

42. Justification des PP. de l’Oratoire, 7.

43. Ardoin, Jansénisme en Basse-Provence, 142.

44. Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, 1–3.

45. Then the youngest bishop in France, La Tour expressed his hatred for Jansenists violently. He condemned a large number to the galleys, and “he took his fist to the throat of Monsieur the archbishop of Narbonne claiming that he was led by the hand of Cardinal de Noailles.” “Avertissement sur le lettre de Monsieur l’évêque d’Apt,” in Foresta, Lettre de Monsieur l’évêque d’Apt, 46.

46. Belsunce, letter to Pope Clement XI, in Correspondences, 38–39.

47. Belsunce, “Requête en cassation,” in Correspondences, 104.

48. “Lettre pastorale de Monseigneur l’évêque d’Apt supprimée par Arrêt du Parlement d’Aix, du 15 Juin 1716,” in Foresta, Lettre de Monsieur l’évêque d’Apt, 46–47.

49. On 25 October 1717, the parlement in Aix registered the declaration to reestablish religious tranquility as law (Ardoin, Jansénisme en Basse-Provence, 142). They deemed ultramontane arguments “pernicious to the repose of the Church and the tranquility of the state.” The parlement issued numerous arrêts against Foresta and Belsunce; in 1718, it sentenced de Foresta and Belsunces’s mandates against the Jansenists to be “lacerated and burned” (Arrest de la Cour de Parlement de Provence … du 20 decembre 1718 dans la Grand Chambre,159, 170).

50. Revenues from the 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of January 1719. See Arrest de la Cour de Parlement de Provence … du 20 decembre 1718 dans la Grand Chambre, 159–70.

51. Belsunce, “Requête en cassation,” in Correspondences, 103–18.

52. Belsunce, letter to Mgr Alamanno Salviati, 24 May 1716, in Correspondences, 59–60.

53. Belsunce, “Requête en cassation,” in Correspondences, 113.

54. Belsunce, letter to Salviati cited n. 52 above.

55. Pope Clement XI, letter to Belsunce, December 1717, in Belsunce, Correspondences, 470.

56. Parlement de Provence, Arrest du Parlement de Provence, 21 Octobre 1718. Also Ardoin, Jansénisme en Basse-Provence, chap. 5, 153–84.

57. Belsunce, Statuts synodaux, 5.

58. Ibid., 3, 15, 146, 7–9, 146.

59. Ibid., 30, 10–11,13.

60. Belsunce, “Ordonnance de Mgr l’évêque de Marseille sur les immodesties,” in Statuts synodaux, 147.

61. Ibid., 143–50. Belsunce also appealed to the Crown to help curb sexual excess. He cited as a precedent Henri II’s order punishing “women who have conceived children through dishonest means … disguised their pregnancies … and delivered their children without the sacrament of Baptism.” In 1708, following the bishop’s wish, Louis XIV reactivated this edict. See France, Acte Royal, Déclaration … qui ordonne que l’édit du Roy Henri II … de février 1556 contre les femmes. This declaration deemed that if children born in secret died without baptism, the mothers would be presumed guilty of murder.

62. Ibid., 73–74.

63. Jonas, France and the Cult of the Sacred Heart, 1–7.

64. Martin, Jesuit Mind, 74–75; Rose Marie San Juan, “Corruptible Bodies and Contaminating Technologies,” in Imagining Contagion, ed. Carlin, 107–23.

65. Martin, Jesuit Mind, 199. Ignatius Loyola, the father of the Society of Jesus, had written in his “Guidelines for Discernment of Spirits” appended to his Spiritual Exercises that the devil was comparable to women.

66. Belsunce, “Mandement de Mgr l’évêque de Marseille pour l’ouverture des églises,” in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 327–335.

67. Carrière, Courdurié, and Rebuffat, Marseille ville morte, 199.

68. Belsunce, “Mandement de Mgr l’évêque de Marseille, sur la desolation,” in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 168–69.

69. Belsunce, letter to the abbé de Gay, in Correspondences, 155.

70. Belsunce, Mandement, 28 octobre 1720.

71. Jonas, France and the Cult of the Sacred Heart, 16–17, 14.

72. The Sacred Heart, Alacoque asserted, “wants to reign in his palace, to be painted on his standards, and engraved on his arms, in order to render them victorious over their enemies” (ibid., 25).

73. Ardoin, Jansénisme en Basse-Provence, 212.

74. Vie de la très honorée soeur Anne Magdelaine Rémuzat, 15.

75. Rémuzet reported “the same pain one feels when fire touches the body, with this difference—the pain was accompanied by sweet feelings I cannot describe” (Jonas, France and the Cult of the Sacred Heart, 37).

76. Rémuzat’s daily routine involved fifteen minutes of “cruelty against herself”; she cut the letters J-E-S-U-S on her chest and wore bracelets and belts studded with metal thorns (ibid., 37–39).

77. Vie de la très honorée soeur Anne Magdelaine Rémuzat, 131–33.

78. Ibid., 139.

79. Belsunce, “Mandement de Mgr l’évêque de Marseille, sur la desolation,” in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 170–71.

80. Belsunce, letter to Mgr Languet, in Correspondences, 317–21.

81. Gordon, “The City and the Plague,” 83–84.

82. Ardoin, Jansénisme en Basse-Provence, 228–29.

83. Van Kley, Religious Origins of the French Revolution, 51.

84. Forrestal, Fathers, Pastors and Kings, 182–84, 186.

85. Goujon, Journal du sieur Goujon, maître d’hôtel de Mgr de Belsunce, 7; Belsunce, Mandement de Mgr l’évêque de Marseille pour l’ouverture des églises, in Pièces historiques sur la peste de Marseille, ed. Jauffret, 334–35.

86. Abbé de Gay, letter to the cardinal–secretary of state, in Belsunce, Correspondences, 152.

87. Ibid., 26, 36.

88. These included “42 Capuchins, 21 Jesuits, 32 Observationalists, 29 Recolets, more than 10 Carmelites, 22 reformed Augustinians, the Trinitarians, the Religious of Mercy, the Dominicans, the Grand Augustinians.” Croissante, Journal abregé, 20–21, 36.

89. Belsunce, letter to the abbé de Gay, in Correspondences, 154–56.

90. “Each day since the arrival of the plague, I have repeatedly passed in front of the door of the Fathers of the Oratory, which I have always seen well shut,” Belsunce wrote. “I have never seen a single person … priests, secondaries, confessors, in the city or the neighborhoods.” “Langeron also found the House of the Oratory abandoned,” he continued, “and you know that Monsieur de Langeron is a man of honor.” Belsunce, “Réponse de Mgr de Belsunce à Madame de XXX,” in Correspondences, 207–8, 210–11.

91. Ibid., 218.

92. Decormis and Saurin, Ancien barreau, 156.

93. In Ciotat, the Superior of the Oratory argued that Belsunce’s persecution of the Jansenists, “ambitious zeal, falsehood and self-interest” had invited God’s fury in the form of plague. Ibid., 30, 34–35, 44–45, 68–69. Also Belsunce, letter to the abbé de Gay, in Correspondences, 156.

94. Montesquieu, Lettres persanes, 1.

95. Justification des PP. de l’Oratoire, 3–4.

96. Ibid., 3–4.

97. Ibid., 6.

98. Ibid., 13, 7.

99. Ibid., 13–14.

100. Ibid., 25, 141, 12.

101. La Borde, Lettre d’un gentilhomme, 66, 143.

102. Ibid., 18.

103. Echevins Dieude and Audimar in Justification des PP. de l’Oratoire, 30.

CHAPTER 7: POSTMORTEM

1. Eldem, French Trade in Istanbul, 14–15.

2. Panzac, Commerce et navigation dans l’empire Ottoman, 200–201.

3. Eldem, French Trade in Istanbul, 23–24. Ottoman trade with Marseille slowly declined in the nineteenth century.

4. Daniel Roche, Martin Fitzpatrick, and Maxine Berg, among others, have demonstrated how French commercial expansion in the Enlightenment transformed cityscapes, gardens, and the living spaces of the urban elite. See Roche, France in the Enlightenment; Berg, Consumers and Luxury; Luxury in the Eighteenth-Century, ed. Berg; Fitzpatrick, Enlightenment World.

5. Giraud in Carrière, Négociant marseillais, 201–3, 205. Some like Bishop Belsunce, were critical of immigration, claiming that Protestants and heretic immigrants threatened the city: “Since the plague,” he complained, “the Huguenots have flooded Marseille…. They take over all commerce here.” The idea that the majority of immigrants were Protestant was a miscalculation. As Carrière corrects, Languedocians formed only a small minority of immigrants, and few of them were Protestant.

6. Discussion of establishing an academy in Marseille began in 1715, but the plague postponed plans. After the epidemic, the governor of Provence, the maréchal de Villars, was named “protector” of the Marseille Académie in 1726. Boudin, Histoire de Marseille, 473.

7. Roche, Siècle des lumières en province, 40, 242.

8. Letter from royal delegate to Crown, 12 January 1726, Archive de l’académie, Marseille, portefeuille I.

9. Scott, Terror and Repression, 6.

10. Après le discours de Mr. le directeur, in Recueil de plusiers pièces de poesies, 10.

11. Olivier, “Dissertation historique,” in Recueil de plusiers pièces de poesies présentées à l’académie de Marseille, 57, 59–60.

12. Romieu, Discours, 104; also Académie de Marseille, 21.

13. Michaud, Biographie universelle, 20: 293.

14. Guys, Marseille ancienne et moderne, 1–2, 5–6, 8, 10–11.

15. Ibid. 28–30, 44–45.

16. Ibid., 195–96.

17. Ibid., 207, 215–16, 222–23, 204.

18. Ibid., 230, 204, 200, 225.

19. Liquier, Discours qui a remporté le prix de l’Académie de Marseille, 5–6, 19, 23–27.

20.“Mémoire présenté au nom de la noblesse de Marseille, qui demande d’être réintegrée dans l’administration municipale de cette ville” (Paris, 1759), 15, AdBdR, C3651.

21. “Requette presentée au Roy par la noblesse de Marseille de Mars 1716,” 34–40, AdBdR, C3651.

22. “Mémoire pour la ville de Marseille,” AN, Paris, H 1239, in Carrière, Négociants marseillais, 214–15.

23. Ibid., 2.

24. “Mémoire” cited n. 20 above, 12–13 15.

25. “Mémoire … au sujet du rétablissement de la noblesse dans la premiere place de l’Administration municipale” (Paris, 1759), 8, 10, AdBdR, C3651.

26. Ibid., 42, 12.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.,13.

29. Ibid., 6.

30. Ibid., 11.

31. Ibid., 17, 46.

32. Ibid., 24.

33. Observations des négociants de Marseille, 4, 8–12, 18, 19, 33.

34. Carrière, Négociants marseillais, 214–215.

35. Ramsay, New Cyropaedia, 3–4, 12.

36. Ibid., 56, 70, 73, 75.

37. Ibid., 94, 99, 111, 113–23.

38. Ibid., 115, 117.

39. Ibid., 6–10.

40. Boureau-Deslandes, Essay on Maritime Power and Commerce, ix, 2, 3, 5–10.

41. Ibid., 10–15, 23, 24–26.

42. Ibid., 34–35.

43. Ibid., 151–61, 10–15.

44. Ibid., 48–50, 58, 62, 74, 93, 75, 83–84.

45. Ibid., 100, 101, 122, 126, 145–49.

46. Ibid., 97–99.

47. Boureau-Deslandes, Lettre sur le luxe, Avertissement, 1.

48. Boureau-Deslandes cited historical examples to show how luxury destroyed strong republics. Unlike the argument he presented in his Essai, what emerges here is a darker interpretation of Greek and Roman history, where virtues expired as a result of luxury. He described how Greece became wealthier but fell into utter disarray after the death of Alexander the Great. Republics were “disfigured,” laws deteriorated, and universities fell into intellectual decay. Ibid., 1–12, 16, 18–20, 25. See also Boureau-Deslandes, Lettre sur le luxe, “Fragmens d’un auteur grec …” 56–67.

49. Jay Smith, Nobility Reimagined, 6, 8.