Browse results
Mount Athos’ rich archival holdings allow both for the minute scrutiny of economic activity and the tracing of long-term trends. Not only were Hagiorite monasteries major players on a local level, but they were also embedded within trans-Mediterranean networks of patronage. The unique status of Mount Athos as a semi-autonomous monastic polity also influenced attitudes towards landholding as well as wealth and poverty more generally.
Contributors are Tinatin Chronz, Zachary Chitwood, Stefan Eichert , Martina Filosa, Mihai-D. Grigore, Michel Kaplan, Vladimer Kekelia, Kirill A. Maksimovič, Zisis Melissakis, Nicholas Melvani, Vanessa R. de Obaldía, Daniel Oltean, Nina Richards, Kostis Smyrlis, Apolon Tabuashvili, and Alexander Watzinger.
Mount Athos’ rich archival holdings allow both for the minute scrutiny of economic activity and the tracing of long-term trends. Not only were Hagiorite monasteries major players on a local level, but they were also embedded within trans-Mediterranean networks of patronage. The unique status of Mount Athos as a semi-autonomous monastic polity also influenced attitudes towards landholding as well as wealth and poverty more generally.
Contributors are Tinatin Chronz, Zachary Chitwood, Stefan Eichert , Martina Filosa, Mihai-D. Grigore, Michel Kaplan, Vladimer Kekelia, Kirill A. Maksimovič, Zisis Melissakis, Nicholas Melvani, Vanessa R. de Obaldía, Daniel Oltean, Nina Richards, Kostis Smyrlis, Apolon Tabuashvili, and Alexander Watzinger.
As this book shows, calls to “discriminate the true from the fake”, a founding motto of philological practice from the 16th century onwards, prompted many encounters between forgers and bureaucrats in the late Ottoman world. Each tells a different story about how fakes occurred. Quoted and translated in full, reports of these forgery affairs shed new light on Ottoman state-society relations. They show that the taming of the fake has been crucial to the reforming of the state.
As this book shows, calls to “discriminate the true from the fake”, a founding motto of philological practice from the 16th century onwards, prompted many encounters between forgers and bureaucrats in the late Ottoman world. Each tells a different story about how fakes occurred. Quoted and translated in full, reports of these forgery affairs shed new light on Ottoman state-society relations. They show that the taming of the fake has been crucial to the reforming of the state.