[22] They continued the exclusive policy of the Mamelukes in regard to the trade through Egypt and the Red Sea: Sieur J. Savary, Le Parfait Négociant, Geneva, 1752, p. 837.
[23] J. W. Zinkeisen, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches in Europa, Gotha, 1840-63, ii. 576, 577, and G. Berchet, Del Commercio dei Veneti nell’ Asia, Venice, 1869, p. 18, mention the renewal of the old Mameluke treaties with Venice after the Turkish conquest of Egypt in 1517. See references to Heyd in notes [13] and [21] above.
[24] Zinkeisen, loc. cit., in a note quotes Paruta to the effect that in 1517 Selim ‘desiderava l’amicitia de’ Venetiani e che nel principio del nuovo imperio procurava d’accrescere i traffichi in quella provincia per particolare utile e commodo di quei sudditi e per interesse dell’ entrate publiche’.
[25] Heyd, Commerce du Levant, ii. 337, 349.
[26] Savary. pp. 770. 707, says that the Turks never required two payments of duties on merchandise brought to one province and transported to another, ‘comme il se pratique en boaucoup d’autres états do l’Europe,’ and that the penalty for false declarations of weight was not confiscation but correction.
[27] See my Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent, pp. 30 ff.
[28] Heyd, Commerce du Levant, ii. 326 ff.
[29] Q. B. Depping. Histoire du Commerce entre l’Europe et le Levant depuis les Croisades, 1832, ii. 227, 228; P. H. Mischef, La Mer Noire, p. 17. Privileges to navigate in the Black Sea were regularly granted to Venice by the Porte in treaties before that of 1540.
[30] Heyd, Commerce du Levant, ii. 351; Savary, pp. 822, 827.
[31] Heyd. Colonie commerciali, i. 479.