La guerre d’Algérie est entrée dans l’ère des réparations. Face à la pression de groupes mémoriels (appelés, rapatriés, harkis), l’État a pris des mesures compensatrices ciblées avant de nommer cette guerre en 1999. Mais cette histoire partielle marginalise les familles des 4 000 tués et 10 000 blessés qui, sans s’être constituées en groupes, n’ont pas moins œuvré à bas bruit dès le début de la guerre pour une reconnaissance de leur expérience : une guerre en métropole faite d’affrontements fratricides entre Algériens, de répressions policières et de menées OAS. À partir de questions écrites à l’Assemblée nationale, de textes réglementaires, de milliers de dossiers de successions montés par des familles algériennes et de centaines de demandes d’indemnisations adressées aux autorités, cet article propose une ethnographie historique de l’État pris dans les transactions réparatrices d’une guerre non déclarée. Il redéfinit alors la chronologie, les modalités et les stratégies déployées par les victimes civiles de la guerre d’Algérie pour obtenir réparation. Il remarque d’abord que la fiction d’une guerre sans nom n’a pas été simplement imposée par l’État, mais a été renforcée par en bas, à travers les négociations engagées sous la forme d’accidents de travail ou de trajet. Il souligne ensuite que la lutte menée par les victimes collatérales françaises a suscité un élan de solidarité nationale à l’origine d’une des premières lois d’indemnisation pour les victimes du terrorisme en France, rejetant les « inexcusables » algériens. Il démontre enfin que les amnisties, les frontières nationales, la définition rétroactive du maintien de l’ordre et la reconnaissance progressive par l’État de la guerre en Algérie ont achevé de créer une nouvelle guerre sans nom, la guerre en métropole, avec son lot d’exclus des réparations.

A number of recent monographs testify to the dynamism of transimperial analyses of the Russian and Ottoman Empires in the late modern period. In particular, the study of prisoners of war, refugees, and pilgrims has enabled three young scholars, Will Smiley, Vladimir Hamed-Troyansky, and Lâle Can, to offer fresh perspectives on the history of institutions central to political modernity. By exploiting new sources, focusing on interactions between state and non-state actors, exploring ordinary practices of government, and decentering perspectives, these volumes contribute to shaping a powerful historiographical renewal. Reading them together, this article considers the dynamics of the co-construction of imperial orders based on shared conceptions of sovereignty, subjecthood, and protection. It underlines the systemic entanglement of the two empires’ colonization projects, the centrality of borderland actors, and the complex redefinition of affiliations and belonging that took place in the course of these often violent processes of modernization.

When the adjective “vegetarian” first appeared in a published text, in 1842, it was hardly intended as a daring neologism: derived from the Latin vegetus, it was meant to indicate a healthy state of body and mind, and was employed as an alternative to various other terms such as “abstinent,” “Pythagorean,” or “frugivorous.” The nineteenth-century “vegetarians” sought to emphasize the conceptual continuity between their choice to abstain from meat, or from animal products altogether, and the long tradition of ancient philosophers like Porphyry and Plutarch, as well as biblical imagery regarding human diet before the Fall. This article examines the intellectual milieu in which the word “vegetarianism” was coined in order to establish the connections both with current understandings of this diet and with discussions on abstaining from meat before the term itself started to be employed. The result is a case study of the intersections between the history of a concept and the entangled histories of the various words accompanying it. The methodology of controlled anachronism is presented as a productive tool that allows historians (of philosophy) to identify conceptual trajectories while safeguarding contextualization, and thus to trace the history of an idea amidst terminological change. The article is a plaidoyer for the application of anachronisms to historical research, moving beyond the view that they are incompatible with history’s alleged need for neutrality.

Building on previous scholarship on “genetic capital” and the politicization of animal economies, this paper examines how animal breeds and their transnational movement became geopolitical issues in late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe. In particular, it examines how the French government’s efforts to emulate English and Spanish wool production, and to overcome the economic advantage stemming from its rivals’ superior sheep breeds, intensified in the wake of the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763). Despite bans on the exportation of live sheep from Britain and Spain, the French strove to improve their flocks through illicit imports and diplomatic agreements. These efforts culminated in the 1760s, as the Bureau of Commerce began to collaborate with agriculturalists, naturalists, diplomats, and smugglers to bring superior breeds of sheep across the Anglo-French maritime border and the Pyrenean frontier with Spain. These projects developed in tandem with new conceptions of the permanence of race and breed, according to which animals would retain their characteristics in new climates and environments. Combining perspectives from economic, agricultural, political, and cultural history, this article uses the concept of animal mercantilism to open up the geopolitical stakes inherent in understandings of animals, race, and climate.