JOHANNES PREISER-KAPELLER (VIENNA, AUSTRIA)
CALCULATING THE SYNOD? NEW QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF THE PATRIARCHATE AND THE SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE 14TH CENTURY*
What makes the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (PRK) unique in comparison with other collections of documents from the Byzantine Period is the fact, that it represents a sample of charters issued by the institution responsible for the respective decision in contrast to collections of documents issued for (in most cases) a monastery, etc. For the period between 1315 and 1402, we possess hundreds of decisions of the Patriarch and the synodos endemusa on ecclesiastical and other matters of local relevance as well as of importance for the entire « Byzantine Commonwealth ». Despite various lacunae in the Register, often due to later manipulations, these documents allow us to observe the work of the Patriarchate and the Synod over several decades, month per month, sometimes even day per day.1 At the same time, there emerge various questions: According to * Email :
[email protected] This study was undertaken as part of the Project „Edition des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel: Patriarch Antonios IV. von Konstantinopel, 2. Amtsperiode” which are financed by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF; project P22269); project director is Univ. Prof. Dr. Otto Kresten (Vienna). The paper is an extended version of the text presented at the round table « Le Patriarcat Oecuménique de Constantinople et Byzance « hors frontières » of the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Sofia (Bulgaria), August 2011. 1
J. DARROUZES, Le registre synodal du patriarcat byzantin au XIVe siècle. Étude paléographique et diplomatique, Paris 1971 [Archives de l´Orient chrétien 12] ; Ch. GASTGEBER, « Das Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek », Historicum. Zeitschrift für Geschichte 96 (2008), p. 9-19; J. PREISER-KAPELLER, « Die hauptstädtische Synode von Konstantinopel (Synodos endemusa). Zur Geschichte und Funktion einer zentralen Institution der (spät)byzantinischen Kirche », Historicum. Zeitschrift für Geschichte 96 (2008), p. 20-31
2
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-Kapeller
canon law, within the synod all hierarchs would have had the same vote – but did really all metropolitans and archbishops possess an equal position in the decision-making process? And how did decision-making take place in practice?2 The relatively high density of evidence enables us to use quantitative methods for the analysis of the Register and of the body of hierarchs in Constantinople and their decision-making. On a basic level, this was already done by Jean Darrouzès, who in 1971 provided in his book on the Register several « tableaus », which listed the various metropolitans and archbishops who took part in the sessions of the synod during the respective Patriarchates.3 But modern tools of statistics and network analysis allow us an even deeper insight into the background of synodal decision-making, as we will demonstrate in a short overview in this paper and intend to do in greater detail also in further studies. But why should we use quantitative methods? Almost 30 years ago, Alexander Kazhdan and Giles Constable have given a possible answer to this question: « (…) despite its many limitations and restrictions, statistical evidence provides better, clearer, and more reliable conclusions than the accumulation of occasional and separate examples. » 4 Of course, for many periods of Byzantine history, we have no other choice than to accumulate « the occasional examples » which are left to us. But especially for the late Byzantine period, we possess collections of documents which provide a density of evidence suitable for quantitative analysis. Angeliki Laiou has already demonstrated the value 2
On these issues, see also J. PREISER-KAPELLER, « Hē tōn pleionōn psēphos. Der Mehrheitsbeschluss in der Synode von Konstantinopel in spätbyzantinischer Zeit – Normen, Strukturen, Prozesse », in E. FLAIG (ed.), Genesis und Dynamiken der Mehrheitsentscheidung, Munich 2013 [Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 85], p. 203-227. 3
Cf. the tables in DARROUZES, Le registre synodal …, op. cit., p. 344-388; the lists of episcopal sees are edited in J. DARROUZES, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Paris 1981. 4
A. KAZHDAN – G. CONSTABLE, People and Power in Byzantium, Washington, D.C. 1982, p. 177. Cf. also Cl. LEMERCIER – Cl. ZALC, Méthodes quantitatives pour l’historien, Paris 2008. For further aspects of this combination of « classic » historical research with methods from social and complexity studies cf. J. PREISER-KAPELLER, « Complex historical dynamics of crisis: the case of Byzantium », in S. JALKOTZY-DEGER – A. SUPPAN (eds.), Krise und Transformation, Vienna 2012, p. 69–127.
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
3
of such research in the 1970s for the acts from Mt. Athos as basis for her study on « the Peasant society in the late Byzantine Empire », for instance.5 In addition, the tools of network analysis also allow us to visualise the interconnections and interactions between individuals within groups and institutions ; we are able to create « social topologies », as Lothar Krempel has called them, and to map cores and peripheries as well as zones of more or less dense interactions – in our case for the most central institution of the Late Byzantine Church. Therefore, we combine this study with a large number of graphs and visualisations in order to demonstrate the potential of this possibility for the presentation and interpretation of results of historical research, which enables us – similar to geographical maps, for instance – to exemplify complex structures in a more illustrative way than with mere textual explanations.6 Our new combination of statistics and network analysis we first tested for the period of Patriarch Neilos Kerameus (1379-1390), whose documents constitute the core of Volume 5 of the new edition7; as a comparison, we also analysed the second Patriarchate of Kallistos I (1355 to 1363) : the results were most promising.8 Our aim is an analysis of the entire evidence found in the Register for the working of the Synod; therefore, we extended our research to the beginning of the PRK. In this paper, we will present some first results for the analysis of the documents from the
5
A. LAIOU-THOMADAKIS, Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire. A Social and Demographic Study, Princeton, New Jersey 1977. See also P. KARLIN-HAYTER, « Preparing the Data from Mount Athos for Use with modern Demographic Techniques », Byzantion 48 (1978), p. 501-518. 6
Cf. L. KREMPEL, Visualisierung komplexer Strukturen. Grundlagen der Darstellung mehrdimensionaler Netzwerke, Frankfurt – New York 2005, esp. p. 73-143. 7
Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel. 5. Teil: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1379–1390, ed. Ch. GASTGEBER – Ek. MITSIOU – J. PREISERKAPELLER – O. KRESTEN, Vienna 2013 [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XIX/5 ; in press]. 8
J. PREISER-KAPELLER, « „Our in the Holy Spirit beloved Brothers and Co-Priests“. A network analysis of the synod and the episcopacy in the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the years 1379–1390 », in Ch. GASTGEBER – E. MITSIOU – J. PREISERKAPELLER (eds.), Das Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel. Eine zentrale Quelle zur Geschichte und Kirche im späten Byzanz, Vienna 2013, p. 107–133.
4
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-Kapeller
first two volumes of the new edition, covering the years from 1315 to 1349.9 These decades were dominated by the civil wars in the 1320s and in the 1340s as well as by the theological controversy around the teachings of Gregorios Palamas.10 In the PRK, we find 175 documents for this period, but as a statistical survey demonstrates, the distribution of evidence across years is very unequal (fig. 1); the same holds true for the number of fully documented synodal sessions (all in all 82), where the highest density of evidence we find at the beginning of the period (fig. 1). Yet, for some of our research questions, we are still able to get significant statistical results even on the basis of this evidence; and some statistical techniques, as we will see, even allow us to estimate the influence of different densities of source evidence on our results (see below). So what can quantitative analysis tell us about the working of the Synod of Constantinople? We may ask when the synodal sessions took place during the year? Fig. 2 depicts the results for the 65 synodal sessions which we can date at least to the month for the period 1315 to 1349. If we compare the distribution of sessions with the graph for the maximal monthly temperature in modern-day Istanbul, we detect that the synod neither liked too cold nor too hot. We may also be interested in the number of participants in the respective synodal sessions and on average; during our period, the number of participants fluctuated between 6 and 25, whereupon the sessions in the period of Ioannes XIII Glykys were attended especially well (fig. 3). In the overall frequency of numbers of participants, we detect a peak around the number of 12 (fig. 4); this number had not only a symbolic 9
Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel. 1. Teil: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315-1331, ed. H. HUNGER – O. KRESTEN, Vienna 1981 [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XIX/1] ; Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel. 2. Teil: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1337-1350, ed. H. HUNGER – O. KRESTEN – E. KISLINGER – C. CUPANE, Vienna 1995 [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XIX/2]. 10
For a short overview of the development of the synod in the context of the ecclesiastical and political history of this period, see J. PREISER-KAPELLER, Der Episkopat im späten Byzanz. Ein Verzeichnis der Metropoliten und Bischöfe des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel in der Zeit von 1204 bis 1453, Saarbrücken 2008, p. LXXXI-LXXXV.
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
5
significance, also canon law prescribed a minimal number of 12 hierarchs in the synod for some cases as for the deposition of a bishop. Also the observed minimum of six participants is significant in this respect, since at least six hierarchs were necessary to depose a priest, for instance.11 Of interest is also the development of participation in the synod during the tenures of office of individual Patriarchs; a relatively high number of participants we find in the first months of Ioannes XIII Glykys, a phenomenon we also observed for other Patriarchs: more hierarchs than usual came to Constantinople for the election of a new Patriarch and then obviously used to stand there for a longer time (fig. 3). Several empty years we find in the Register for the period of Esaias, without doubt due to the conflicts of the 1320s between Andronikos II Palaiologos and his grandson Andronikos III. The peak level of synodal participation in Esaias´ time can be dated to April 1329 (DARROUZES, Reg. 2149), in the aftermath of the victory of Andronikos III in the civil war and of the return of Esaias on the patriarchal throne (fig. 3).12 Civil war and retrospective manipulations in the Codex of the PRK for the years of this later condemned Patriarch compromise also the evidence for the tenure of Ioannes XIV Kalekas13; the high point of synodal participation in his time was a session in April 1343 (DARROUZES, Reg. 2243) when the synod decided on the spectacular confrontation between Metropolitan Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos and the Metropolitan of Pyrgion, whom Matthaios had accused for murder (fig. 3).14 As much hierarchs as possible Patriarch Isidoros I 11
Discipline générale antique (IVe-IXe s.), ed. P.-P. IOANNOU, Rome 1962 [Pontifica commissione per la redazione del codice di diritto canonico orientale, Fonti 9], I/2, p. 225-226.
12
See Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, ed. E. TRAPP et. al., 12 Vols. and 2 Addenda, Vienna 1976-1996, respectively the CD-ROM-Version, Vienna 2001 (= PLP), nr 6743 (for Esaias) ; PREISER-KAPELLER, Der Episkopat…, op. cit, p. LXXXI-LXXXII (with further literature).
13
For an example for such manipulations cf. for instance O. KRESTEN, « Ein Indizienprozeß gegen die von Kaiser Andronikos III. Palaiologos eingesetzten katholikoi kritai », Fontes Minores IX (1993), p. 299-337
14
See PLP nr 10288 (for Ioannes Kalekas) ; PREISER-KAPELLER, Der Episkopat…, op. cit, p. LXXXII-LXXXIII (with further literature), and esp. also O. KRESTEN, « Pyrgion. Peripetien in der kirchlichen Rangordnung einer kleinasiatischen Metropolis », Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse d. Öster. Akad. d. Wissenschaften 138 (2003), p. 5-81
6
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-Kapeller
gathered in August 1347 (DARROUZES, Reg. 2289) to condemn those metropolitans who had opposed his election and the decision in favour of the teachings of Gregorios Palamas (fig. 3). Unfortunately, the evidence for the remaining years of Isidoros´ tenure is very sparse in the PRK. 15 In order to illustrate the geographical distribution of the sees of the hierarchs participating in the synod in this period, we defined nine different regions (Thrace, Macedonia, Epiros, Peloponnese, Aegean, Western Asia Minor, Central and Eastern Anatolia, the Black Sea Region and Russia) (Fig. 5). Obviously, the hierarchs from the remaining core regions of the Empire (Thrace and Macedonia) as well as from Western Asia Minor, the region with the highest density of episcopal sees in the Patriarchate, accounted for the lion's share of the synodal participants. But one has to keep in mind that many of the hierarchs in Turkish ruled Asia Minor or in Latin controlled Greece seldom or actually never visited their episcopal sees and remained in Constantinople for their entire tenure of office ; this is also documented in the relatively high average number of synodal sessions the hierarchs from Western Asia Minor visited (fig. 6).16 The metropolitans and archbishops of Thrace, on the contrast, were able to attend the synod more frequently due to their geographical proximity to the capital, but, as is was still possible for them to return to their sees at this period (and they were also bound to do so from a canonical point of view), they on average visited less synodal sessions than the permanent residents of the capital from Asia Minor (fig. 6).17 Of course, we are not only able to determine the total number of participants in the synod, but also how often and with how many individuals a hierarch participated in synodal sessions. Overall, the number of synodal sessions a single hierarch visited during this period 15
See PLP nr 3140 (for Isidoros) ; PREISER-KAPELLER, Der Episkopat…, op. cit, p. LXXXIV (with further literature). 16 17
PREISER-KAPELLER, Der Episkopat…, op. cit, p. LIII-LVIII (with further literature).
PREISER-KAPELLER, Der Episkopat…, op. cit, p. LXVI and XCI (Table 1), on the increase in the number of metropolitan sees and archbishoprics in Thrace during the 14th century. On the spatial distribution of metropolitan sees and archbishoprics in this period see also J. PREISER-KAPELLER – E. MITSIOU, « Hierarchies and fractals: ecclesiastical revenues as indicator for the distribution of relative demographic and economic potential within the cities and regions of the Late Byzantine Empire in the early 14th century », Byzantina Symmeikta 20 (2010), p. 245-308.
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
7
oscillated between one and 59, with a majority (72.7 % ; 101) of all participants taking part in not more than 7 sessions and 23 % (32) of all participants being present in the synod only once (fig. 7). In order to capture and analyse the interconnections between the hierarchs who participated together in one or more sessions of the synod, we introduced the tools of social network analysis in our research; these instruments have already been used for the analysis of communities and institutions in Western medieval history; in Byzantine Studies, only few researchers have made use of network analysis: Giovanni Ruffini, for instance, in his study on social networks in 6th century Byzantine Egypt in 2008, and, as first Byzantinist ever, Margaret Mullett in 1997 in her book on the letters of another Byzantine hierarch, Theophylact of Ochrid ; and in the last years, especially a group of scholars from Vienna has further developed these tools for Byzantine Studies.18 In our network model for the synod, linkages between hierarchs are established if they participate together in one or more sessions of the synod. The result is a network of synodal interaction between hierarchs for a specific period of time (fig. 8, here for the entire period 13151349). These visualisations are the illustrative outcome of the programming and mathematical analysis of network data, which is based on graph theory and matrix algebraic calculations19; fig. 9 depicts a section of such a « sociomatrix » of connections between hierarchs. 18
M. MULLETT, Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop, Aldershot 1997 [Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 2], esp. p. 163-222; see also her observations in IDEM., « Byzantium: A Friendly Society? », Past & Present 118 (1988) p. 3-24; G. R. RUFFINI, Social Networks in Byzantine Egypt, Cambridge 2008 ; E. MITSIOU, « Networks of Nicaea: 13th century socio-economic ties, structures and prosopography », in: G. SAINT-GUILLAN – D. STATHAKOPOULOS (eds.), Liquid and Multiple: Individuals and Identities in the Thirteenth-Century Aegean, Paris 2012, p. 81-94 ; J. PREISER-KAPELLER, « Networks of border zones – multiplex relations of power, religion and economy in South-eastern Europe, 1250-1453 CE », in: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, "Revive the Past" (CAA) in Beijing, China. Amsterdam 2012, p. 381–393 ; PREISER-KAPELLER, « Complex historical dynamics of crisis… », cit. ; PREISER-KAPELLER, « „Our in the Holy Spirit beloved Brothers and Co-Priests, … », cit. See also various examples online : http://oeaw.academia.edu/JohannesPreiserKapeller. 19
Cf. also LEMERCIER – ZALC, Méthodes quantitatives…, op. cit, p. 80-102 ; A. DEGENNE – M. FORSE, Les réseaux sociaux, Paris ²2004.
8
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-Kapeller
For one synodal session (in fig. 10 one example from the beginning of the tenure of Ioannes XIII Glykys), the emerging network is a very simple one: every hierarch is of course connected with all other 20 participants. Therefore, the overall density (the ratio of theoretically possible links actually present in the network) of the network is 1 (all possible links are present, since all individuals are linked to each other).20 The degree (in network analytical terms the number of direct links respectively the ratio of all nodes in the network a node is directly connected to21) of every hierarch is 20 (respectively 1, meaning 100 % of all nodes). Differences can be detected if we combine these networks of synodal sessions for an entire tenure of a Patriarch, for instance. If we look at the distribution of degree values among the nodes, in all four Patriarchates we detect a core of hierarchs, who not only have many connections each but also set together in the synod significantly more often than with others (fig. 11-14, fig. 29-32). This phenomenon we also observed in our earlier research on the synod in the 2nd half of the 14th century ; it helps us to identify potentially influential individuals and cliques of hierarchs. 22 If we consider the density of network links – the ratio of theoretically possible links actually present in the network –, in the period of Ioannes XIII Glykys (1315-1319), the density of interaction within all registered hierarchs is relatively high (fig. 15 and fig. 29). Significantly lower is the density of the synodal interaction network for the tenure of Esaias (13231334); this can be connected up to a certain degree with the lower density of evidence for synodal sessions for these years, but can be ascribed also to the actual pattern of synodal interaction, which during 20
St. WASSERMANN – K. FAUST, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge 1994, p. 100-103; J. SCOTT, Social Network Analysis. A Handbook, London 2000, p. 78; D. JANSEN, Einführung in die Netzwerkanalyse. Grundlagen, Methoden, Forschungsbeispiele, Wiesbaden ³2006, p. 94-95; M. O. JACKSON, Social and Economic Networks, Princeton 2008, p.29; DEGENNE –FORSE, Les réseaux sociaux…, op. cit., p. 146. 21
WASSERMANN –FAUST, Social Network Analysis …, op. cit., p. 100-104; SCOTT, Social Network Analysis…, op. cit., p. 67; JANSEN, Einführung in die Netzwerkanalyse …, op. cit., p. 103-105; JACKSON, Social and Economic Networks …, op. cit., p. 38-39, 59-65; DEGENNE –FORSE, Les réseaux sociaux…, op. cit., p. 156-158. 22
Cf. PREISER-KAPELLER, « „Our in the Holy Spirit beloved Brothers and Co-Priests, … », cit.
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
9
this turbulent decade of the 1320s differed from the previous period (fig. 15 and fig. 30). The same observation can be made for the tenure of Ioannes XIV Kalekas (1334-1347); differences in the number of observations (that is, synodal sessions) relatively to the period of Glykys influence the results, but from a statistical point of view, the actual interaction within the synod shows different patterns, especially after the outbreak of the civil war and the Palamite/Anti-Palamite confrontation in 1341(fig. 15 and fig. 31). An interesting interlude is the network of those hierarchs who came together to oppose Patriarch Ioannes XIV Kalekas in September 1346, when they wrote a letter of accusation to Empress Anna Palaiologina, and finally joined the Synod in February 1347 to depose the Patriarch23: also here we observe a very active core of hierarchs, while other metropolitans are positioned at the periphery, such as Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos24, who joined the opposition against Kalekas, but did not integrate in the victorious new ecclesiastical establishment due to his anti-Palamite convictions (fig. 16). Different components we can also identify in the synodal interaction network for the tenure of Isidoros I; while at the beginning of his period, the synod was dominated by longer serving hierarchs, who also partly had opposed Kalekas at the end, the core of synodal interaction was then composed of the new squad of ProPalamite hierarchs who were elected under Isidoros such as Philotheos Kokkinos of Herakleia or Gregorios Palamas himself as Metropolitan of Thessalonike (fig. 14). This overall development we can also observe if we combine the networks for all 82 sessions from this entire period 1315 to 1349: The relatively very dense interaction network of the time of Glykys transforms in the less densely spanned network in the tenures of Esaias and then Kalekas, from which emerges the clearly identifiable new network of Palamite hierarchs (fig. 15 and 17). The overall differences in the distribution of the number of links among all participants become visible if we scale the nodes according to their degree values (fig. 18). Of interest is of course also the position of individual hierarchs within the network or these networks; in order to determine the position of a hierarch, we extract him from the network with all hierarchs he is 23 24
PREISER-KAPELLER, Der Episkopat…, op. cit, p. LXXXIII (with further literature)
PLP nr 3309 ; PREISER-KAPELLER, Der Episkopat…, op. cit, p. 110 (with further literature).
10
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
directly connected as well as all connections between these hierarchs (this is called the « Ego-Network » of an individual25) – fig. 19 depicts this Ego-network for Metropolitan Malachias of Methymna (1315-1347).26 His Ego-Network covered almost the entire interaction network (119 out of 139 individuals). Malachias, who visited 44 synodal sessions from 1315 to 1347, is also one of most important connecting figures within the network between different periods; this is also reflected in his „betweenness“value, a network analytical key figure which indicates for how many individuals, who are not directly connected, a specific node can serve potentially as direct middleman.27 Malachias has the highest betweenness-value of all hierarchs in the network and could serve as middleman for more than 25 % of all not directly connected individuals (fig. 20). Less impressive is for comparison the position of the already mentioned Metropolitan Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos (1329-1351) in the synod network; his ego-network consists of only 33 hierarchs, and even within his direct „environment“ in the synodal network, Matthaios does not possess a significantly special position in comparison to other nodes (in order to visualise this, we scale all nodes according to their degreevalues within the ego-network ; fig. 21); this may also contribute to an explanation for his defeat in the synod against the Metropolitan of Pyrgion in the above-mentioned lawsuit in 1343. But would it not have been possible to determine the potential influence of a hierarch in the synod by just counting the number of sessions he participated in ? Naturally, visiting the synod frequently was a precondition of influencing its decisions; but the number of individuals a hierarch could interact with and potentially exercise influence on as well as his position as middleman between cliques, generations and different periods depended not only on the number, but also on the respective 25
Cf. Ch. PRELL, Social Network Analysis. History, Theory and Methodology, Los Angeles – London et. al. 2012, p. 118-133. 26
PLP nr 16491 ; PREISER-KAPELLER, Der Episkopat…, op. cit, p. 270 (with further literature).
27
WASSERMANN – FAUST, Social Network Analysis…, op. cit, p. 189-191; SCOTT, Social Network Analysis…, op. cit, p. 86-87; JANSEN, Einführung in die Netzwerkanalyse…, op. cit, p. 134-137; JACKSON, Social and Economic Networks…, op. cit, p. 38-39, 5965; DEGENNE –FORSE, Les réseaux sociaux…, op. cit., p. 159-161.
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
11
composition of sessions, for instance. Statistically, we can determine the influence of the frequency of synodal participation on our results: the variations in the numbers of sessions a hierarch took part in explain 76 % (R²) of the variations in degree values (fig. 22) and 38 % (R²) of the variations of betweenness values (fig. 23); in both cases, the values for Metropolitan Malachias of Methymna for instance lie far above the regression line of linear correlation between the numbers of sessions and degree- respectively betweenness-values (fig. 22 and 23), indicating that his actual position within the network of interaction was far more significant than one could have determined only on the basis of the number of synodal sessions he took part in (the opposite is true for Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos esp. regarding his betweenness-value, see fig. 23). Thus, the results of our network model are definitely significant beyond the mere counting of sessions. The same holds true, if we determine the influence of the number sof years a hierarch was active in the synod during the period 1315 to 1349 on the values in our network model; for the 50 most significant hierarchs with regard to their degreevalues, the variations in their years of activity in the synod can explain 56 % (R²) of the variations in their degree-values (fig. 24), and 46 % (R²) of the variations in their betweenness-values (fig. 25). Again, the position of a node within the network depends not only on the duration of his activity, but also on the actuals dynamics of synodal interaction during these years (as can be again demonstrated, for instance, with the position of Malachias of Methymna far above the regression lines, cf. fig. 24 and 25). This also becomes obvious if we compare the number of sessions they took part in and the degree-values and betweenness-values for Malachias of Methymna and for Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos in all four network models for the four patriarchal tenures (fig. 26-28) ; while the differences in the degree-values correspond relatively well with the differences in the number of visited synodal sessions, the differences in the betweenness-values are far beyond the differences in the number of visited sessions. Therefore, our network models can help us to understand potential influences on the decision-making of the synod beyond the mere counting of sessions and years; but of course the synod did not act in isolation. Every hierarch had connections beyond the synod, as one can illustrate for the relatively well documented case of Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos,
12
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
whose Ego-network outside the Synod we are able to reconstruct on the basis of his letters.28 And, naturally, these two networks interacted through the person of Matthaios and other individuals (fig. 33). The adaptation of the network concept makes us aware of the necessity to embed the synod and its members into the social, political and cultural environment of the time and allows us to capture, analyse and visualise these linkages. And in all cases, the findings on the basis of our network models and graphs lead us back to a renewed reading of our sources for actual traces of these potential influences and linkages in the documents of the PRK29 – as postulated by Kazhdan and Constable. In this way, classical editorial and historical work can be combined with the new tools and concepts of quantitative and network analysis in order to explore new questions we pose on our sources with the help of texts and graphs, thus adding a futher visual dimension to historical research.
28 29
Cf. PREISER-KAPELLER, Der Episkopat…, op. cit, p. 110, for full references.
Cf. also PREISER-KAPELLER, « „Our in the Holy Spirit beloved Brothers and Co-Priests, … », cit.
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
13
Figures (all graphs and visualisations were calculated and created by the author; network graphs and analyses were created with the help of the software tools Pajek* and ORA*)30
Fig. 1: Number of dated patriarchal and synodal documents per year, 1315-1349 and number of fully documented synodal sessions (black line) per year
Fig. 2: Distribution of 65 dated synodal session for the period 1315 to 1349 over the 12 months of the year in comparison with the monthly maximal temperature (black line) in modern-day Istanbul
30
Cf. http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ and http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/projects/ora/. See also W. DE NOOY – A. MRVAR – V. BATAGELJ, Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek, Cambridge 2005
14
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 3: Number of participants in 82 synodal sessions (ordered after DARROUZÈS, Reg.), 1315-1349
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
15
Fig. 4: Frequency of numbers of synodal participants in 82 synodal sessions, 13151349
Fig. 5: Number of hierarchs from the various regions participating in the synod, 1315-1349
16
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 6: Average number of synodal sessions visited by the hierarchs from the various regions, 1315-1349
Fig. 7: Frequency of numbers of synodal sessions visited by the single hierarchs, 1315-1349
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
17
Fig. 8.: The network model of all participants in the Synod of Constantinople, 13151349; links are established on the basis of common participation of two individuals in at least one session of the synod. The four Patriarchs (Ioannes XIII Glykys, Esaias, Ioannes XIV Kalekas, Isidoros I) are marked as black nodes.
18
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 9.: Part of the sociomatrix of the network: for each individual exist a row and a column, at the intersections a figure indicates the number of synodal sessions two individuals took part in together.
Fig. 10.: Visualisation of the network for one synodal session (DARROUZÈS, Reg. 2032)
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
19
Fig. 11: The network of synodal interaction in the period of Ioannes XIII Glykys (1315-1319; 34 sessions; 48 hierarchs); nodes are scaled according to their degreevalues
20
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 12: The network of synodal interaction in the period of Esaias (1323-1327; 1328-1334; 21 sessions; 45 hierarchs) ); nodes are scaled according to their degreevalues
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
21
Fig. 13: The network of synodal interaction in the period of Ioannes XIV Kalekas (1334-1347; 15 sessions; 47 hierarchs); nodes are scaled according to their degreevalues
Fig. 14: The network of synodal interaction in the period of Isidoros I (1347-1349; 9 sessions; 33 hierarchs); nodes are scaled according to their degree-values
22
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 15: Number of participants and density of the networks of synodal interactions in the four patriarchal tenures 1315-1348.
Fig. 16: The network of the opposing hierarchs against Patriarch Ioannes XIV Kalekas (1346-1347; 15 hierarchs; network density = 0.72); nodes are scaled according to their degree-values
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
23
Fig. 17: The network of synodal interaction 1315-1349 (139 hierarchs); the four Patriarchs are marked with labels and white colour.
24
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 18: The network of synodal interaction 1315-1349 (139 hierarchs); nodes are scaled according to their degree-values
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
25
Fig. 19: The ego-network of Metropolitan Malachias of Methymna within the network of synodal interaction, 1315-1349
26
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 20: The network of synodal interaction 1315-1349 (139 hierarchs); nodes are scaled according to their betweenness-values
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
27
Fig. 21: The ego-network of Metropolitan Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos within the network of synodal interaction, 1315-1349; nodes are scaled according to their degree-values
28
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 22: Comparison of the number of visited synodal sessions and degree-values in the network model of synodal interaction (1315-1349) for all 139 participants
Fig. 23: Comparison of the number of visited synodal sessions and betweennessvalues in the network model of synodal interaction (1315-1349) for all 139 participants
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
29
Fig. 24: Comparison of the years of activity during the period and degree-values in the network model of synodal interaction (1315-1349) for the top 50 nodes in degree
Fig. 25: Comparison of the years of activity during the period and betweennessvalues in the network model of synodal interaction (1315-1349) for the top 50 nodes in degree
30
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 26: Comparison of the number of sessions Malachias of Methymna (1315-1347; 44 sessions in total) and Metropolitan Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos (1329-1351; 11 sessions in total) took part in during the four patriarchal tenures
Fig. 27: Comparison of the degree-values in all four network-models for the four patriarchal tenures for Metropolitan Malachias of Methymna (1315-1347) and for Metropolitan Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos (1329-1351)
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
31
Fig. 28: Comparison of the betweenness-values in all four network-models for the four patriarchal tenures for Metropolitan Malachias of Methymna (1315-1347) and for Metropolitan Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos (1329-1351)
32
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 29: The network of synodal interaction in the period of Ioannes XIII Glykys (1315-1319; 34 sessions; 48 hierarchs); the strength of links is scaled according to the number of sessions two hierarchs took part in together
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
33
Fig. 30: The network of synodal interaction in the period of Esaias (1323-1327; 1328-1334; 21 sessions; 45 hierarchs) ); the strength of links is scaled according to the number of sessions two hierarchs took part in together
34
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 31: The network of synodal interaction in the period of Ioannes XIV Kalekas (1334-1347; 15 sessions; 47 hierarchs); the strength of links is scaled according to the number of sessions two hierarchs took part in together
Calculating the Synod? (Working paper)
35
Fig. 32: The network of synodal interaction in the period of Isidoros I (1347-1349; 9 sessions; 33 hierarchs); the strength of links is scaled according to the number of sessions two hierarchs took part in together
36
Working Paper Johannes Preiser-
Kapeller
Fig. 33: A combination of the ego-network of Metropolitan Matthaios Gabalas of Ephesos (1329-1351) within the synodal interaction network for 1315-1349 with the network of his contacts beyond the synod (displayed are also all know contacts between these individuals; total number of nodes = 78).
