オスマン朝のエジプト占領とヴェネツィア人領事・居留民：1517年セリム１世の勅令の内容を中心として

With the Ottoman conquest of Mamlūk territories in 1517, Mamlūk-Venetian relationship was subsumed into Ottoman-Venetian relationship. The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on its process by focusing on the continuing or changing of norms between governmental authority and Venetian consul and residents in Egypt immediately after the Ottoman conquest. The source used mainly in this paper is the decree which Selim I. issued to approve the rights of Venetian consul and residents in Egypt when he gained control of Cairo. The author compares this decree with two Mamlūk decrees issued in its last stage to Florence whose contents seem to be following Venetian rights and obligations in Mamlūk territories, and also with Ottoman ahdnames to Venice which the author examined its contents before. Selecting common items of provisions from these documents and by comparing these contents, the author concludes as follows.Approval of consular jurisdiction, prohibition of residents’ collective responsibility, and returning cargos to its owner on the occasion of shipwreck were common norms in both Mamlūk and Ottoman territories, and were also approved in Egypt in 1517. On the other hand, the provision concerning the consul in the decree of 1517 expresses clearly that the Sultan’s authority should be superior to consul’s, although it also expresses continuation of the customs of Mamlūk age.It seems that this is a reflection of the Ottomans’ original position. The provisions of the consular supervision against his residents and prohibition of consul’s collective responsibility are also likely reflecting original norms for the Ottomans.In short, immediately after his conquest of Egypt, Selim, on the one hand, approved the provisions of Mamlūk age concerning the rights of Venetian consul and residents in case of its coincidence with the Ottoman norms, and on the other hand, made changes or additions of provisions according to the Ottomans’ original position.The newly added two provisions in ahdname of 1521 concerning bailo and merchants’ lawsuit show the possibility of partial change of relevant Mamūk provisions. This matter will be examined in the future by the author