Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros8Entreprises et entrepreneurs entr...The Greeks of Marseille and trans...

Entreprises et entrepreneurs entre la France, la Grèce et l’Empire ottoman (XIXe-XXIe siècle)

The Greeks of Marseille and trans‑Mediterranean Industrial Investments

The Zafiropulo and Zarifi Companies (late 19th‑early 20th Century)
Les Grecs de Marseille et les investissements transméditerranéens. Les entreprises Zafiropulo et Zarifi (fin du xixe-début du xxe s.)
Xavier Daumalin
p. 149-163

Résumés

Cet article analyse le rôle des entrepreneurs grecs dans l’industrialisation du bassin méditerranéen à partir des archives inédites des familles Zarifi et Zafiropulo, deux des plus importantes familles grecques de Marseille au xixe siècle. Tout en restant attachées aux activités commerciales et bancaires, ces familles ont également investi dans l’industrie en Ukraine, dans l’Empire ottoman, en Espagne, en Grèce et surtout à Marseille, où elles ont financé l’essor de plusieurs secteurs innovants, comme le pétrole et l’électricité. Elles possédaient également des participations industrielles dans le reste de la France, dans le Nord de la Russie, en Grande-Bretagne, aux États-Unis et en Afrique du Sud. Le parcours entrepreneurial des familles Zarifi et Zafiropulo contribue donc à enrichir notre lecture du processus d’industrialisation du bassin méditerranéen. Entre l’image d’une industrialisation méditerranéenne fortement dépendante des stratégies d’investissement des groupes industriels du Nord-Ouest de l’Europe, et celle d’une industrialisation menée par des investisseurs méditerranéens, mais limitée à un espace-temps précis et restreinte aux biens de consommation courante, les investissements des familles Zarifi et Zafiropulo illustrent une troisième voie : celle d’entrepreneurs méditerranéens impliqués dans l’industrialisation de plusieurs régions méditerranéennes et capables de sortir de cet espace pour participer à l’industrialisation du reste de l’Europe, notamment dans l’industrie lourde.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 Courdurie, Temime 1985, p. 209‑211. Proceedings of the symposium held in Marseille on February 4 an (...)
  • 2 Daumalin, Raveux 2001 ; Chastagnaret, Raveux 2001 ; Chastagnaret, Raveux 2016 ; Bartolomei 2021.

1Did Mediterranean industrial capitalism exist in the 19th century? Leaving aside its provocative nature, this question is not without foundation. A long historical tradition tells us of the mistrust of fixed assets by Mediterranean entrepreneurs – aside from land, buildings or government loans – and, by contrast, their marked preference for business activities that bring a quick capital turnover and multiple profit opportunities. In the conclusions of the symposium Banque et investissement en Méditerranée à l’époque contemporaine, the historian Maurice Lévy-Leboyer contrasts the “taste for capital investment” among Northern investors with the “rentier attitude” of the Mediterranean, “its refusal to invest in risks”, meaning long‑term industrial fixed assets with an uncertain, modest yield.1 This type of analysis has long been backed up by the perception of industry around the Mediterranean basin. Aside from a few structures, industrial growth has always been connected to the investment strategies of North‑West European groups, or otherwise reduced to a regional development process, restricted in space and time, and above all based on the employment of an abundant, low‑cost workforce.2 Where it exists, Mediterranean industrial investment has necessarily been relatively uninnovative, local, and short-term, as if “the highly speculative nature of the environment” and its political fragilities did not allow for large-scale commitment and long-term follow‑up.

  • 3 Dertilis 1985 ; Dertilis 1988.
  • 4 Paris 2001 ; Calopodis 2010, p. 15 et 238 ; Grenet 2016.
  • 5 Mandilara 1998.
  • 6 Zarifi & Zafiropulo accounting ledgers between 1899 and 1905, then Pericles Zarifi & sons from 1906 (...)

2Against this contested but ever-present backdrop, the Greek diaspora occupies a particular place. Well established in Constantinople, Odessa, Livorno, Marseille, London and Alexandria, and prominent in trade between the Ottoman Empire and Western Europe since the French Revolution, it appears to be the archetype of trans-Mediterranean entrepreneurship in the 19th century.3 Sociological studies have noted some of the external categorisations used to define the homo oeconomicus graecus of Marseille.4 Greek entrepreneurs are regularly depicted as – and in a certain way limited to – the role of a merchant. They are referred to as “Hellenic firms”, “Greek companies”, a “commercial aristocracy” or “rich, powerful business owners”, who have succeeded in building fortunes through their opportunism, the boldness of their business ideas or methods of varying advisability. The Greek entrepreneurs in Marseille are also famous for their commitment to protecting their cultural identity and cohesion. They give the impression of forming a united professional and confessional group, with family and friendship ties that have created networks in the whole of the Mediterranean basin and beyond.5 To sum up, an international, wealthy environment, strengthened by family ties and strong personal relations, also partially responsible, due to their commercial domination and investment capacities, for the low industrial development in the Mediterranean basin. Myth or reality? The study of the private archives of two of the largest Greek families in Marseille – the Zafiropulo and the Zarifi – is an opportunity to open up the debate and add nuance to some of these representations.6

Origin and formation of a trans-Mediterranean business network

  • 7 Bruneau 2022.

3Firstly, let us look at the respective origins of these two families and how they built up their business network, a complex task given that many grey areas persist around the reasons for their economic and social rise. Demetrius Zafiropulo (1790-1864) came from the region of Ioannina, in Epirus. He moved to Constantinople to pursue his studies before taking over the business of his father, who specialised in the trade of shawls imported from India. His son Etienne (1817-1894) continued this business for a while, before moving into the export of Russian wheat from the Black Sea and the Danube between Odessa and Marseille, a growing market in the first half of the 19th century.7 The Zarifi came from the island of Avlonia in the Sea of Marmara.

  • 8 Leris 1913 ; Paris 2002 ; Calopodis 2012, p. 151‑152.
  • 9 Echinard 1973, p. 292.
  • 10 The Argenti-Ralli company was founded in Marseille in 1816, becoming Ralli, Schilitzi & Argenti in  (...)

4Ianko Zarifi traded in wines in the Bosphorus, from Constantinople. Suspected of having funded the Greek insurrection of 1821-1822 through the Society of Friends, the family took refuge for a while in Odessa (1821) then Nafplio (1824), where they acquired Greek citizenship.8 They returned to Constantinople in 1832-1833; there, George Zarifi (1806-1884), Ianko’s son, found employment in the Zafiropulo trading company. In 1837, George Zarifi married Helene Zafiropulo, Etienne Zafiropulo’s sister, and became more closely involved in the company’s activity. The two families opened a trading post in Marseille in 1842-1843 under the name Zarifi & Zafiropulo. This is how they joined the small Greek community that had settled there as refugees in 1815-1820, a merchant group of several hundred people, in which several families already played a dominant role:9 the Ralli, Schilitzi, Argenti,10 Petrocochino, etc. But unlike these refugees, the Zarifi and the Zafiropulo settled in Marseille primarily for business reasons. After being successively managed by Etienne Zafiropulo – who kept his Ottoman citizenship – and by George Zarifi, in 1884, Z & Z came under the management of George Zarifi’s son, Pericles Zarifi (1844-1927). Both families were also present in Odessa, Trieste, Paris, Liverpool and London at the time.

  • 11 Landes 1999 ; Edhem 1999 ; Caty, Richard, Echinard 1999, p. 310‑311.
  • 12 The Reggio oil mill is therefore linked to their presence in the oilseed trade.

5This Hellenic trans-Mediterranean network essentially carried out commercial and banking activities. Thanks to their successes in the wheat trade and the quality of their networks, the Zafiropulo and Zarifi families managed to join international financial circles. In 1864-1865, they were to be found in London, in the capital of the Imperial Mercantile Credit Association – the Zarifi even had a seat on the Board –, in Marseille, where they participated in the founding of the Société Marseillaise de Crédit (SMC), and above all in Constantinople, where George Zarifi oversaw the Ottoman Empire Société Générale, which had recently been set up. There, George Zarifi became close to the Sultan Abdul Hamid to the point of being one of his financial advisers, and played a leading role. He granted large advances to the Ottoman government and in return, among other privileges, obtained control over customs for certain ports.11 In a more marginal way, Z & Z was also involved in industry, particularly in Marseille. To use the surplus loads of wheat they were unable to sell, the Zarifi and the Zafiropulo built a mill in Marseille’s Viste district in 1854, “which soon became one of the largest and their names, printed on the flour sacks, became well known throughout the South of France11.” This first incursion into industry was part of a strategy of vertical integration – from the purchase of raw materials up to delivery of the finished product – designed to reap more profits from a strong commercial position in the wheat trade. This was a classic process, not specific to the Greeks, but also found among other Hellenic families in Marseille (the Caramano and the Agelasto in flour mills and semolina production) and in other sectors such as oil mills.12 In Greece, most of the millers from Patras, Syra or Piraeus were also involved in the wheat trade. Consequently, Z & Z’s holdings in the industry, until Pericles Zarifi took over the company, are rare and minor. However, they represent a desire to diversify industrial investments and accept risk in sectors in which the company is not in a position of strength – or event present – from a commercial point of view, as they did with the Raffineries de sucre de Saint-Louis (sugar refineries) (1867); the Tanneries marseillaises (Marseille tanneries) (1881); the Société nouvelle des huileries et savonneries méridionales (Oil mills and soap factories) (1881); the Tanneries marseillaises réunies (Combined Marseille tanneries) (1883). Pericles Zarifi, who came to Marseille in 1871 after working in the Constantinople branch for several years, continued on the same path. Until 1899, from which date the company’s accounts give more complete information on its activities, the company deeds kept in the Marseille Commercial Court archives show that direct industrial holdings continued, although were still quite rare: Montmayeur, Amigues & Cie, for oil purification in 1890; the Grands travaux de Marseille in 1891; the Raffineries de soufre réunies (combined sulphur refineries) in 1898. Z & Z’s industrial investments focused on the agro-industry, the chemical industry and the construction industry.

  • 13 A merchant of Greek origin born in Alexandria, George Zervudachi specialised in the wheat trade and (...)
  • 14 Archives of the Compagnie française d’Afrique occidentale, letter from F. Bohn to J. Le Cesne, 27 N (...)

6Access to Z & Z’s accounts, from 1899 onwards, helps us to identify the general development and geographical and sectoral distribution of the company’s business up to the First World War (table 1). During this period, the asset value follows a generally upward trend, despite two significant dips. The first, quite short, occurred in 1906 after the Zarifi and Zafiropulo families separated. Z & Z was split into two companies: the one, P. Zarifi & sons, a partnership with a capital of one million francs, involving the sons of Pericles Zafiri, George and Theodore Zarifi, Pericles, and his son‑in‑law, Miltiade Mitaranga, from 1910; and the other, Demetrius & George Zafiropulo, a partnership with a capital of 100,000 francs. These companies’ resources were not limited to their share capital. They also had access to current accounts left by their relatives, which quickly amounted to several million francs. Between 1906 and 1913, the share capital of P. Zarifi & sons therefore rose consistently to one million francs, but with the current accounts belonging to its partners or the family, its equity reached 13 million francs in 1913. The second thing that halted the increase in asset value was more serious. It is noticeable from 1908, in the context of a less favourable economic climate, and above all in 1911, following the bankruptcy of one of the largest companies in Alexandria, C. G. Zervudachi & sons:13 “Zarifi was the victim of the skullduggery of the Greek bankers of Alexandria, in unexpected and wholly unfortunate proportions... He estimated his loss at nearly 11 million francs, a quarter of his fortune. This loss was mainly due to the fact that these bankers had stolen and profited from securities deposited with them by the Zarifi company, securities that belonged in part to relatives of Zarifi that he wanted to pay off personally”.14 Despite this significant reversal of fortune, over the whole period the asset value increased considerably, its average annual value going from 18 million francs in 1899-1901 to over 22 million in 1911-1913.

Table 1. Development of Z & Z assets (1899-1906), then P. Zarifi & sons (1906-1913).

 Years 

Total value of assets
     (thousands of francs)     

     Government loans     
(%)

   Industry   
(%)

1899

18,875

6

15.6

1900

15,352

6.2

19.1

1901

19,803

6.4

17.2

1902

20,853

4.3

15.2

1903

22,012

4.6

18.7

1904

26,972

1.7

16

1905

28,419

2.4

12.6

1906

27,035

4.4

10.1

1907

36,879

0.7

8.3

1908

31,000

0.9

12.5

1909

31,679

0.2

14.7

1910

28,338

0.2

17.2

1911

19,350

2.4

19.3

1912

19,946

2.6

22.1

1913

27,014

1.3

18.7

Source: Zarifi family archives.

  • 15 Bouvier, Girault, Thobie 1987, p. 78.

7The examination of the distribution of investments uncovers a number of permanent patterns. Between 1899 and 1913, commercial and banking activities dominated overwhelmingly. However, the share of industrial holdings was far from negligible. At times it represented over 22% of the total asset value, with an annual average of 15.7%. At the same time, still as an annual average, Government loans only represented 2.5% of the company’s investments between 1899 and 1913. This is very different from what we see on a national level, as on the eve of the First World War, “75% to 80% of French export capital consisted of Government loans or similar”.15 The Greeks of Marseille were above all traders and bankers, but they preferred industry to Government loans. The examination of Pericles Zarifi’s investment distribution also shows another reality: the value of industrial holdings was increasing. It rose from an annual average of 3 million francs in 1899-1903, to 4.4 million in 1911-1913. On the eve of the First World War, the company P. Zarifi & sons was therefore present in several sectors, including some very different from its original business: energy (oil, electricity) accounted for 29% of its industrial asset value; chemical industry 20%; railways 14%; agro-industry 11%; mechanical construction 10%; textiles 7.5%; mining extraction 5%; cinema 2.2%; construction 1.2%. Around 80% of P. Zarifi & sons’ industrial investments in 1913 can therefore be placed in the category of heavy industry. This is far from the image of the Greek entrepreneur turning away from industrial investment or not being interested unless it concerned the production of everyday consumer goods.

The primacy of the Mediterranean basin

  • 16 Fourth worldwide producer of rubber items, and first in air chambers, Provodnik had subsidiaries al (...)
  • 17 In the same years, and unlike many other European investors, the company’s accounts do not show any (...)

8Which countries were the recipients of these investments? The situation changed according to the economic climate and crossovers between markets were fairly common. Some constant patterns can however be identified (table 2). Some destinations seem purely speculative, mainly linked to railway and mining opportunities that occasionally opened up in developing industrial countries. This was the case with the American market where, between 1899 and 1913, 60% of Pericles Zarifi’s industrial investments were in several successive railway companies: Baltimore Ohio, Union Pacific Common, New York Central, Puerto Rico Railways, Saint-Louis San Francisco Railroad, Compagnie Sacramento Rio Janeiro. This was also the situation in South Africa where, during the same period, 89% of investments were made in different gold mining operations: General Mining and Finance Co., West Roodpoort Deep Gold Mining, Village Main Reef Gold Mining, Rand Mines, Caratal Gold Mining etc. The Northern Russia market was another type. Especially after 1906, according to what is recorded about French investors, Pericles Zarifi participated in the accelerated industrial growth encouraged by Tsar Nicolas II, this time by distributing his long-term holdings in activities that appeared sound and profitable, without seeking to obtain dominant positions: in 1911-1913, he was present in coal mining (64% of the industrial assets value in Northern Russia), the rubber industry (35.5%) – the Provodnik company in Riga, in association with the Clermont-Ferrand based Raymond Bergougnan, a great rival of Michelin16 – and in textiles (0.5%).17 The same is true of the Western European markets, such as France (excluding Marseille), Great Britain and Germany. In 1911-1913, he was involved in the production and distribution of electricity (70% of industrial assets value in Western Europe), agro-industry (11.4%), mechanical construction (9.3%) and cinema, with Pathé frères (9%).

Table 2. Geographical distribution of Z & Z industrial holdings (1899-1906), then P. Zarifi & sons (1906-1913).

Years

Value
of industrial holdings
(thousands
of francs)

America (%)

South Africa
and others
(%)

Western
Europe

(%)

North-West
Russia

(%)

Mediterranean basin
(%)

1899

2,945

0

5.1

5.4

0

89.5

1900

2,937

0

4.6

4.7

6.7

84

1901

3,409

0.1

7

8.2

6.7

78

1902

3,166

4.1

12.7

7

6.2

70

1903

4,134

26.6

9.8

4.4

4.8

54.4

1904

4,337

14

9

13.5

0

63.5

1905

3,606

3

5

11.5

0

80.5

1906

2,753

0.5

0.8

3.7

13.2

81.8

1907

3,078

6.4

1.8

2.4

17.5

71.9

1908

3,872

0.6

1.4

4.4

15.7

77.9

1909

4,682

0.3

1.3

10.4

23.9

64.1

1910

4,888

17.1

0.9

10.5

17.5

54

1911

3,719

1.9

0.4

14.5

16.1

67.1

1912

4,419

1.6

0

18

13.5

66.9

1913

5,044

6

0

16.5

6

71.5

Source: Zarifi family archives.

  • 18 Bouvier, Girault, Thobie 1987, p. 80.
  • 19 Bouvier, Girault, Thobie 1987, p. 81.

9Pericles Zarifi’s largest industrial investments, however, were in the Mediterranean basin. Over the years 1899-1913, the Mediterranean shores attracted, on average, over 71% of his total industrial holdings. This was above the French average of a little over 55%.18 Here again, the size of the markets fluctuated according to circumstances and opportunities (table 3). Although the Spanish, Portuguese and Greek markets were in second position behind Marseille in 1899-1903, they then gave way to the Levant, which in turn was taken over by Ukraine/Romania from 1911 onwards. The French colonies in North Africa did not appeal much to Pericles Zarifi, apart from a few investments in Tunisian phosphate and tobacco production in Morocco, which he made in 1909. These trends confirm and sometimes amplify the findings of Jean Bouvier, René Girault and Jacques Thobie in the different research studies they carried out into French investments abroad on the eve of the First World War: “French capital was mostly focused on undeveloped or developing countries, outside the colonial Empire, and only very rarely on major industrial States”.19

Table 3. Geographical distribution of Z & Z industrial holdings (1899-1906), then P. Zarifi & sons (1906-1913) in the Mediterranean.

Years

Total
value
(thousands of francs)

Southern Europe (%)

Ottoman Empire

(%)

Romania (%)

Southern Russia

(Ukraine)

(%)

North Africa (%)

Marseille (%)

1899

2,634

39

6.8

4.5

15

0

34.7

1900

2,462

32.9

7.2

4.8

13.5

0

41.6

1901

2,662

33.7

6.6

4.5

12.2

0

43

1902

1,212

22.1

8

5.4

14.2

0

50.3

1903

2,251

21

25.7

5.3

11

0

37

1904

2,751

14.8

20.6

4.3

14.3

0

46

1905

2,889

21.4

19.5

4.3

8.4

0

46.4

1906

2,553

22

23.9

4.4

8.7

0

40

1907

2,214

12.4

35.7

4.4

10

0

37.5

1908

3,019

8

21.8

6.5

24

0

39.7

1909

3,003

3.3

30.5

6.5

18.6

0.8

40.3

1910

2,644

3.8

32

7.4

17.6

2

37.2

1911

2,498

2

19.1

7.8

18.6

2

50.5

1912

2,960

1.7

16.6

6.6

18

1.7

55.4

1913

3,608

4

16.1

7.6

10

1.7

60.6

Source: Zarifi family archives.

10In which sectors did the investments in Southern Europe, the Levant and the shores of the Black Sea mostly focus? Between 1899 and 1914, 56% of industrial investments undertaken by Pericles Zarifi in Southern Europe were in railways (Piraeus/Athens/Peloponnese; Madrid/Caceres; Thessaly railway), 31% in agro-industry (Portuguese tobacco and currants) and 13% in mining extraction (iron and manganese mines in Seriphos and Spiliazeza). The investments in Egypt and the Ottoman Empire were a little more diversified: 35% of funds were invested in railways (in particular the Jaffa-Jerusalem line), 30% in agro-industry (Ottoman tobacco), 24% in the chemical industry (soda/soap) and 11% in textiles (Oriental Carpet Manufacturers Ltd; Anglo Egyptian Spinning Weawing). In Ukraine, 69% of investments were in mining extraction (coal from Nikitowka and Donetz; manganese from Darkveti), 25% in the textile industry (Odessa jute manufacturing company in partnership with the Roubaix-based group Motte), 3% in railways and 2% in the chemical industry (Odessa oil and soap company), whereas in Romania all the investments were in agro-industry (Romanian sugar refinery and manufacturing company). These percentages show that Pericles Zarifi was involved in industry in the Mediterranean basin (excluding Marseille) in five main sectors, two of which accounted on their own for 55% of investments: the construction of railway lines (32%), mining extraction (24%), agro-industry (21%), the textile industry (11%) and the chemical industry (10%). His strong industrial presence in Constantinople and Odessa was probably due to the longevity and strength of his trading networks in these two cities even if, in terms of our current knowledge, it is difficult to see how they were organised and the extent of their ramifications. His good knowledge of the physical and human environment undoubtedly helped his diversification into industry.

  • 20 Thobie 1977, p. 436‑437.
  • 21 Daumalin 2014.
  • 22 General Meetings of Oriental Carpet Manufacturers Ltd, 25 January 1912, 17 April 1912 and 27 June 1 (...)

11Lastly, although some of the companies in which he was involved – such as the Jaffa-Jerusalem railway, built for the seasonal transport of pilgrims – were modest in scale with an irregular yield, others operated factories that employed hundreds of people, generating substantial profits. This was the case with the Mining Company of Seriphos and Spiliazeza, which provided work to a village of over 700 people, or the Ottoman Tobacco Company, founded under the auspices of the Ottoman Imperial Bank. Due to its monopoly in the production, processing and sale of tobacco, the Ottoman Tobacco Company owned factories in cities close to the major regions of cultivation: Beirut, Damascus, Jaffa, Aleppo, Samsun, Adana, Thessaloniki, Smyrna and Magnesia. Between 1899 and 1913, the average rate of return on equity was 66%.20 This is three to four times higher than the most successful Marseille industrial companies of the same era.21 Another notable company was Oriental Carpet Manufacturers Ltd, which specialised in the manufacture of Turkish carpets, including the industrial site at Smyrna which had washing, dyeing and spinning workshops. As the carpets were exclusively handmade by weaving thousands of knots, the factory was not very mechanised and employed several hundred workers. Originally founded with a capital of 400,000 pounds (1907), the company gradually grew to one million pounds (1913), establishing a spinning workshop in Persia and buying up the Ottoman Cloth Co Ltd (Smyrna), a factory that specialised in the manufacture of woollen cloth for the Ottoman Imperial Army using offcuts from carpet manufacture.22 Thanks to its sales offices abroad and various business partnerships formed in 1912 with Fritz and La Rue (New York and Philadelphia), Van Gasbeck and Arkoll (New York and Persia), Austro-Orientalische Handel Akticngcsllschaft (Vienna, Berlin, Constantinople and Persia) or P. Andria & Co and Michel Pappadopoulo (Constantinople), Oriental Carpet Manufacturers Ltd was now present in all the main global markets for Oriental carpets, from India to the United States.

At the heart of Marseille’s second industrial revolution

  • 23 The first two were the sons of Constantin Zafiropulo, brother of Etienne Zafiropulo; the last one, (...)

12Odessa, Constantinople, Smyrna... In actual fact, Marseille, Pericles Zarifi’s adoptive city, attracted most of his industrial investments (table 4). Between 1899 and 1913, these represented, on average, 44% of the investments made in the whole of the Mediterranean basin. Over these fifteen years, there was however a fairly clear development in the distribution of his holdings. Although in 1899-1901, agro-industry, construction and the chemical industry received 42%, 20.5% and 17% respectively of the sums invested in Marseille industry, in 1911-1913 these sectors only represented 22%, 4% and 8%. At the same time, mechanical construction and energy rose from 13.5% and 3% to 20% and 37.5%. Energy took over from agro-industry in terms of Pericles Zarifi’s industrial priorities. This was shown for the first time when he participated in the creation of Energie électrique du littoral méditerranéen (1901), a subsidiary of the Compagnie française pour l’utilisation des procédés Thomson-Houston; and secondly when he decided to support the redeployment by the brothers Théodore and Louis Mante – until then specialised in the trade and processing of oilseed from West Africa and India – towards the extraction, transport and refinery of Romanian crude oil with the foundation of three companies: Compagnie industrielle des pétroles (1904), Pétrole transport (1909) and Naphte transport (1912). Naphtha oils were replacing oilseed. The products and locations changed but the business logistics – import, processing, distribution – stayed the same. In mechanical construction, Pericles Zarifi was involved in the creation of Chantiers & ateliers de Provence (1899) by the Fraissinet family,23 followed by the Société mécanique de précision (1911). As in other Mediterranean or European cities, however, his investments rarely exceeded 10% of the sums to be invested. These holdings were not necessarily intended to give him a role as Director or Chairman. Nevertheless, his presence was sought after by local entrepreneurs. His moral authority and the quality of his network of contacts helped to gather the necessary capital to launch a new company – particularly if it was innovative and therefore risky – make a success of a capital increase or gain new orders. His financial stability could also be valuable in the event of any ad-hoc cashflow needs.

  • 24 The Zafiropulo were also significant shareholders in the Lyon‑based car manufacturing firm Rochet S (...)

13Was Pericles Zarifi an exception? Not really, since other Greek businessmen in the region – such as Demetrius, George and Polybe Zafiropulo – followed a similar strategy. Despite the separation of their businesses in 1906, the two families regularly and simultaneously invested in the same companies. The profile of the Zafiropulo family’s industrial commitments, as we can see from the company’s deeds kept in the Marseille Commercial Court archives, is very similar to that of the Zarifi family. On the eve of the First World War, it was principally involved in the production and distribution of electricity (EELM), the construction of electrical equipment (Société d’électricité de la Méditerranée; Société des accumulateurs Tribelhorn), oil (Compagnie industrielle des pétroles and Naphte transport by the Mante brothers, Hydrocarb) and mechanical construction (Chantiers & ateliers de Provence, Société marseillaise de construction mécanique).24 In total, between 1890 and 1913, the Zarifi and Zafiropulo families invested around 4 million francs in establishing or increasing capital in Marseille industrial companies.

Table 4. Z & Z’s industrial holdings in Marseille (1899-1906), then P. Zarifi & sons (1906-1913)

Years

Total value
(thousands
of francs)

Agro-
industry
(%)

Construction,

construction materials (%)

Chemical industry

(%)

Mechanical constructions

(%)

Energy
(electricity, oil)
(%)

Others
(%)

1899

915

46

27

22

5

0

0

1900

1,025

41

26

16

17

0

0

1901

1,146

39

18.5

13.5

19

10

0

1902

1,113

36

17.5

13.5

17.5

15.5

0

1903

833

30.5

23

11

14.5

21

0

1904

1,267

17.5

15.5

16

14

37

0

1905

1,340

17

14.5

8

18

42.5

0

1906

902

22

18

9.5

21.5

29

0

1907

830

10

18

11

24

36.5

0.5

1908

1,203

7

12

35

16.5

29

0.5

1909

1,212

16

15

7.5

16.5

41

4

1910

933

19

6

9

20

43

3

1911

1,261

26

5.5

5.5

21

36

7

1912

1,640

19.5

4

10.5

21

35

10

1913

2,188

21

3

9

18.5

40.5

8

Source: Zarifi family archives.

  • 25 Lescure 1999 ; Effosse 2010 ; Daumalin 2013.

14In the final analysis, the influence of these Greek families gives us a greater understanding of the developments in the financing of Marseille industry during 1890-1913. Faced with the amount of investment needed to renew their products and improve the performance of their industrial plants, entrepreneurs were no longer content to make exclusive use of internal funding sources, as they had done since the first industrial revolution. With some rare exceptions, they were now forced to change their financing methods by turning towards external funding sources. In a banking context in which the major national banks – Crédit Lyonnais, Société Générale – took little interest in Marseille industries, apart from the largest ones, they had no other choice than to turn to exchange agents in the Marseille stock market, the bourgeoisie and local bankers. Several studies have already highlighted the role of the SMC, Crédit Marseillais and other local banks in supporting the industrial projects of local family capitalists.25 We can see here that the Greek Zarifi and Zafiropulo families also enabled the Marseille industrial companies to expand their funding sources, to face the challenges of the second industrial revolution. They were even on an equal footing with the SMC, as between 1890 and 1913 the latter also invested around 4 million francs in establishing or increasing capital in industrial companies. The links between the two banking groups were also fairly close as the Zarifi – who directly participated in founding the SMC – still held a seat on the Board in 1913.

  • 26 Raveux 2015.

15This study does not claim to be exhaustive. A number of grey areas still exist regarding the entrepreneurial careers of the Greek families who settled in Marseille in the mid-19th century and new research must be undertaken in other cities in the Mediterranean basin where they were solidly established. From our current knowledge, however, several observations can be made. Firstly, it would seem that the distribution of their investments does not conform to the traditional representations of Greek capitalism and, by extension, Mediterranean capitalism. Although trade and banking are still their core business, the careers of the Zarifi and Zafiropulo families cannot be summed up as merchant bankers uninterested in industrial investments, nor as “coupon clipping” rentiers. Industry was a component of their investments in its own right, clearly more significant than State loans and much higher than elsewhere in France during the same period. The second observation concerns the nature of these industrial investments. Although originally, they followed a policy of leveraging strong commercial positions – a classic phenomenon of the modern era26 – they then followed a genuine diversification strategy towards markets far removed from their key commercial locations, often linked to heavy industry and symbolic of the second industrial revolution (oil, electricity, mechanical construction). These investments also demonstrate a strong attachment by these Greek families to their host society. By supporting the growth of Marseille industry to this extent, regularly blending their capital with that of local families – including in innovative, risky activities such as electricity and oil – the Zarifi and Zafiropulo families give the image of a successful integration despite a very strong attachment to their culture of origin (Mandilara, 2010). In many areas, they were even further ahead than the bourgeois families who had been in Marseille for several generations. Lastly, the entrepreneurial career of the Zarifi and Zafiropulo families helps to enrich our interpretation of the industrialisation process in the Mediterranean basin and Europe as a whole. Between the image of Mediterranean industrialisation highly dependent on the investment strategies of industrial groups in North-West Europe, and that of industrialisation led by Mediterranean investors, but limited to a specific space/time and restricted to everyday consumer goods, the industrial holdings of the Zarifi and Zafiropulo families illustrate a third way: that of Mediterranean entrepreneurs involved in industry in several Mediterranean regions and capable of going beyond the Mediterranean basin to participate in industry – including heavy industry – in the rest of Europe, whether North‑West Europe or Eastern Europe. This contrast between the Northern European entrepreneur and the Mediterranean entrepreneur must therefore be nuanced and the representations of the homo oeconomicus graecus considered within the diversity of 19th century historical contexts.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Family archives (Marseille)

Zafiropulo: Family history; company deeds.

Zarifi: family history; company deeds; Zafiropulo & Zarifi company journal (1899-1905); P. Zarifi & Cie company journal (1906-1930).

Bibliographic references

Bartolomei 2021 = Arnaud Bartolomei, « La révolution industrielle en Méditerranée (1780-1880). Un échec ? », Cahiers de la Méditerranée 103, 2021, p. 111‑127.

Bonin 1987 = Hubert Bonin, CFAO, Cent ans de compétition internationale, Paris, Economica, 1987.

Bouvier, Girault, Thobie 1987 = Jean Bouvier, René Girault, Jacques Thobie, La France impériale 1880-1914, Paris, Mégrelis, 1987.

Bruneau 2022 = Michel Bruneau, « Le long xixe siècle des Grecs de la mer Noire : deux systèmes économiques et migratoires distincts ? », Revue de géographie historique 21‑22, 2022, p. 1‑21.

Calopodis 2010 = Michel Calopodis, La communauté grecque à Marseille. Genèse d’un paradigme identitaire 1793-1914, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2010.

Calopodis 2012 = Michel Calopodis, Les Grecs de Marseille : minorité ethnique ou nation en diaspora, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2012.

Caty, Richard, Echinard 1999 = Roland Caty, Eliane Richard, Pierre Echinard, Les patrons du Second Empire. Marseille, Paris, Picard, 1999.

Chastagnaret, Raveux 2001 = Gérard Chastagnaret, Olivier Raveux, “Espaces et stratégies industrielles aux xviiie et xixe siècles : exploiter le laboratoire méditerranéen”, Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, no 8 2/3, 2001, p. 11‑24.

Chastagnaret, Raveux 2016 = Gérard Chastagnaret, Olivier Raveux, « Industrialisation », Dionigi Albera, Maryline Crivello, Mohamed Tozy (éd.), Dictionnaire de la Méditerranée, Arles, Actes Sud, 2016, p. 699‑709.

Courdurie, Temime 1985 = Marcel Courdurié, Emile Temime (dir), Banques et investissements en Méditerranée à l’époque contemporaine, Marseille, Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Marseille, 1985.

Daumalin 2013 = Xavier Daumalin, “Le financement de la deuxième industrialisation à Marseille : nouvelles perspectives”, in Ivan Kharaba, Philippe Mioche (éd.), Banques et industries. Histoire d’une relation timorée du xixe siècle à nos jours, Dijon, Dijon University Press, 2013, p. 17‑31.

Daumalin 2014 = Xavier Daumalin, Le patronat marseillais et la deuxième industrialisation (1880-1930), Aix‑en-Provence, Presses universitaires de Provence, 2014.

Daumalin, Raveux 2001 = Xavier Daumalin, Olivier Raveux, « Marseille (1831-1865) : une révolution industrielle entre Europe du Nord et Méditerranée », Annales HSS, no 1, 2001, p. 153‑176.

Daumalin, Richard 2007 = Xavier Daumalin, Eliane Richard, Lettres d’un père à son fils. Jules Charles-Roux, Marseille, Jeanne Laffitte, 2007.

Dertilis 1985 = George Démétrius Dertilis, « Entrepreneurs grecs : trois générations, 1770-1900 », in Franco Angiolini et Daniel Roche (éd.), Cultures et formations négociantes dans l’Europe moderne, Paris, EHESS, 1985.

Dertilis 1988 = George Démétrius Dertilis (éd.), Banquiers, usuriers et paysans. Réseaux de crédit et stratégies du capital en Grèce (1780-1930), Paris, La Découverte, 1988.

Dumont 1998 = Lionel Dumont, “Un cas de modernisation industrielle précoce : l’industrie française du caoutchouc (1880-1970)”, Histoire, économie et société 17‑1, 1998, p. 83‑100.

Echinard 1973 = Pierre Echinard, Grecs et philhellènes à Marseille de la Révolution française à l’Indépendance de la Grèce, Marseille, Institut historique de Provence, 1973.

Edhem 1999 = Eldem Edhem, A History of the Ottoman Bank, Istanbul, Ottoman Bank Historical Center, 1999.

Effosse 2010 = Sabine Effosse, « Le Crédit marseillais (1907-1966) : une banque locale provençale au xxe siècle », Industries en Provence. Dynamiques d’hier et d’aujourd’hui 18, 2010, p. 29‑37.

Girault 1973 = René Girault, Emprunts russes et investissements français en Russie 1887-1914, Paris, A. Colin, 1973.

Grenet 2016 = Mathieu Grenet, La fabrique communautaire. Les Grecs à Venise, Livourne et Marseille 1770-1840, Rome, EFR‑EFA, 2016.

Landes 1993 = David Landes, Banquiers et pachas. Finance internationale et impérialisme économique en Egypte, Paris, Albin Michel, 1993.

Lescure 1999 = Michel Lescure, « Banques régionales et croissance économique au xixe siècle. L’exemple de la Société marseillaise de crédit », in Michel Lescure, Alain Plessis A. (éd.), Banques locales et banques régionales en France au xixe siècle, Paris, Albin Michel, 1999, p. 293‑322.

Leris 1913 = Pierre Leris, « La colonie grecque de Marseille », Le Sémaphore de Marseille, 1er et 6 octobre 1913.

Mandilara 1998 = Anna Mandilara, The Greek Business Community in Marseille, 1816-1900: Individual and Network Strategies, Doctorate thesis, Florence, European University Institute, 1998.

Paris 2001 = Erato Paris, « Les Grecs de Marseille dans la deuxième moitié du xixe siècle : une perspective nationale et transnationale », Revue européenne des migrations internationales, no 17/3, 2001, p. 23‑42.

Paris 2002 = Erato Paris, « Quand les Grecs voyaient plus loin que la Méditerranée. Les familles Zarifi-Zafiropulo », Recherches régionales. Alpes maritimes et contrées limitrophes 163, 2002, p. 56‑68.

Raveux 2015 = Olivier Raveux, “The Orient and the dawn of Western industrialization: Armenian calico printers from Constantinople in Marseilles (1669-1686)”, in Maxine Berg (ed.), Goods from the East, 1600-1800: Trading Eurasia, London, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2015, p. 77‑91.

Saul 1997 = Samir Saul, La France et l’Egypte de 1882 à 1914. Intérêts financiers et implications politiques, Paris, Comité pour l’histoire économique et financière de la France, 1997.

Thobie 1977 = Jacques Thobie, Intérêts et impérialisme français dans l’empire ottoman (1895-1914), Paris, Sorbonne, 1977.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Courdurie, Temime 1985, p. 209‑211. Proceedings of the symposium held in Marseille on February 4 and 5, 1982 at the Palais de la Bourse.

2 Daumalin, Raveux 2001 ; Chastagnaret, Raveux 2001 ; Chastagnaret, Raveux 2016 ; Bartolomei 2021.

3 Dertilis 1985 ; Dertilis 1988.

4 Paris 2001 ; Calopodis 2010, p. 15 et 238 ; Grenet 2016.

5 Mandilara 1998.

6 Zarifi & Zafiropulo accounting ledgers between 1899 and 1905, then Pericles Zarifi & sons from 1906 to 1913, following the separation of the two families. These sources are completed by consultation of the Marseille Commercial Court archives (deeds incorporating, amending and winding up the companies).

7 Bruneau 2022.

8 Leris 1913 ; Paris 2002 ; Calopodis 2012, p. 151‑152.

9 Echinard 1973, p. 292.

10 The Argenti-Ralli company was founded in Marseille in 1816, becoming Ralli, Schilitzi & Argenti in 1823. Once again, this was an international network with branches in Constantinople, Odessa, Livorno, Trieste, Manchester, Liverpool and London. Originally specialising in the trade of Ukrainian and Romanian wheat, Ralli, Schilitzi & Argenti diversified its activities to cotton, expanding its network to the United States and India. The Petrocochino family specialised in the import of copper from Constantinople, wool from Smyrna or wax and sponges from the Karamania coast.

11 Landes 1999 ; Edhem 1999 ; Caty, Richard, Echinard 1999, p. 310‑311.

12 The Reggio oil mill is therefore linked to their presence in the oilseed trade.

13 A merchant of Greek origin born in Alexandria, George Zervudachi specialised in the wheat trade and banking operations. He was also the founder and director of the Land Bank of Egypt (chaired by his brother Ambroise) and the Union foncière d’Egypte, two companies founded in 1905 which he managed alongside other Greek families such as the Rodocanachi, the Zarifi and the Zafiropulo. In 1911, Ambroise Zervudachi committed suicide, as did Theodore Rodocanachi, director of C. G. Zervudachi & sons. George Zervudachi was imprisoned for fraudulent bankruptcy and died in prison in 1912, in suspicious circumstances. His failure also caused a loss of 2 million to D. & G. Zafiropulo and another 2 million to SMC (SAUL 1997).

14 Archives of the Compagnie française d’Afrique occidentale, letter from F. Bohn to J. Le Cesne, 27 Nov. 1911 (Bonin, 1987, p. 121). See also the analysis of Jules Charles‑Roux, Chairman of the SMC, on the “bad coffee” that the Egyptian authorities – implicated in the bankruptcy – allegedly gave George Zervudachi to drink in prison (Daumalin, Richard 2007, p. 191).

15 Bouvier, Girault, Thobie 1987, p. 78.

16 Fourth worldwide producer of rubber items, and first in air chambers, Provodnik had subsidiaries all over the world, employing over 14,000 people (Dumont 1998).

17 In the same years, and unlike many other European investors, the company’s accounts do not show any direct investment in Government loans. Of the 12.3 billion francs invested by French companies in Russia in 1914, 10.1 billion were in public loans and 2.2 billion in private companies only (Girault 1973).

18 Bouvier, Girault, Thobie 1987, p. 80.

19 Bouvier, Girault, Thobie 1987, p. 81.

20 Thobie 1977, p. 436‑437.

21 Daumalin 2014.

22 General Meetings of Oriental Carpet Manufacturers Ltd, 25 January 1912, 17 April 1912 and 27 June 1913. This naval site was a double of the one in Marseille, at La Madrague, which had become too cramped. The Fraissinet family now had a modern industrial site, organised in a rational, profitable way. A housing development for workers was built nearby, to cover the site’s labour needs.

23 The first two were the sons of Constantin Zafiropulo, brother of Etienne Zafiropulo; the last one, an engineer, was the son of George Zafiropulo, Etienne Zafiropulo’s other brother.

24 The Zafiropulo were also significant shareholders in the Lyon‑based car manufacturing firm Rochet Schneider and Carburateurs Zénith. From 1912, they were also active in Tunisia at the head of the Djebel-Hallouf silver lead mine, North-West of Tunis.

25 Lescure 1999 ; Effosse 2010 ; Daumalin 2013.

26 Raveux 2015.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Xavier Daumalin, « The Greeks of Marseille and trans‑Mediterranean Industrial Investments »Bulletin de correspondance hellénique moderne et contemporain, 8 | -1, 149-163.

Référence électronique

Xavier Daumalin, « The Greeks of Marseille and trans‑Mediterranean Industrial Investments »Bulletin de correspondance hellénique moderne et contemporain [En ligne], 8 | 2023, mis en ligne le 27 décembre 2024, consulté le 07 juillet 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/1228 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/130wb

Haut de page

Auteur

Xavier Daumalin

Univ, CNRS, TELEMMe, Aix‑en‑Provence, France

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search