The Athos Question in the Context of European Diplomacy in the Second Quarter of the 19th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapter touches upon issues related to the history of Athos and the position of Orthodox monasticism in the second quarter of the 19th century, when, after the Greek war for independence from the Ottoman Empire, Athos begins to be perceived by the great powers as an important Orthodox outpost in the Christian East. Particular attention is paid to such little-studied issues as the role of European diplomacy in the normalization of the situation on the Holy Mountain after the Greek Revolution of 1821, the Russian-Turkish war of 1828/1829, the recognition of the independence of Greece (1830); the reaction of European diplomats to the growth of Russian monasticism on Athos; “British” factor in the development of Russian-Greek relations. The author traces the measures of the British government and the public organizations for the study of Athos, indicating that starting from the 1830s the Holy Mountain was perceived in British political circles as an important strategic foothold, which was associated with the inclusion of Mount Athos in the general naval strategy of Great Britain in the Eastern Mediterranean. Russian-British foreign policy rivalry, which led to confrontation in the ecclesiastical sphere, characterizes the policy of Britain in relation to the Ecumenical Patriarchs, which is shown by the example of the activities of Constantinople Patriarchs Constanty I (1830–1834) and Gregory VI (1835–1840) and the participation of the latter in the “case Ionian Islands”, when British patronage over the Ionian Islands was used as a pretext for the intervention of British diplomats in the affairs of Orthodox Athos. These facts indicate that the “ecclesiastical” vector of the foreign policy of the great powers in the Eastern Mediterranean leads to the need to consider the “Athos question” in the context of the Eastern question as an important and organic component of it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".