[38] Young, op. cit., vol. i, note, p. 167.
[39] “There are few Turkish beggars, for they which beg among Christians are set to do servile offices among the Turks. If a slave become lame, his master is bound to support him, yet the veriest cripple among them brings his master some profit.”
We may omit Busbequius’ advocacy of slavery. He continues later: “The Turks in their way do make a huge advantage of slaves; for if an ordinary Turk bring home one or two slaves, whom he has taken as prisoners of war, he accounts he hath made a good campaign of it, and his prize is worth his labor. An ordinary slave is sold among them for 40 to 50 crowns, but if he be young and beautiful and have some skill in some trade also, then they rate him as twice as much. By this you may know how advantageous the Turkish depredations are to them, when many times from one expedition they bring home five or six thousand prisoners.” Ogier Ghiselin de Busbequius, Travels in Turkey, trans. into English, 1774.
[40] Snouck Hurgronje makes practically the same statement in his Mekka, vol. ii, p. 19 (Haag, 1889). “Alles in Allem ist der Zustand des muslimischen Sklaven nur formell verschieden von dem der europäischen Diener und Arbeiter.”
[41] Memoirs of the Baron de Tott on The Turk and the Tartars, (trans. from the French, London, 1785), vol. ii, pp. 379–380.
[42] D’Ohsson, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 38.
[43] M. le Chevalier Ricaut, Tableau de l’empire Ottomane (1709), vol. ii, chap. ii, p. 5.
[44] Albèri, III, 3, p. 95, note, Pietro Zen.
[45] The formula of enfranchisement. D’Ohsson, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 143.
[46] Albèri, III, 3, p. 95, note, Pietro Zen.