1

Johannes Preiser-Kapeller*

From quantitative to qualitative and back again. The interplay between structure and culture

and the analysis of networks in pre-modern societies

Pre-Print, to be published in: E. MITSIOU – M. POPOVIĆ – J. PREISER-KAPELLER (eds.), Multiplying Middle

Ages. New methods and approaches for the study of the multiplicity of the Middle Ages in a global perspective

(3rd

–16th

CE). Proceedings of the Conference in Vienna in November 2012. Vienna 2014 (forthcoming).

“Most cultural theorists saw network analysis as located squarely in the positivist camp, reducing

cultural richness to 1s and 0s and lacking attention to processes of interpretation and meaning-

construction.”; thus Ann Mische in 2011 summed up attitudes towards network analysis which are still

strong also in many circles of historical studies.1 Of course, these verdicts were not entirely

unfounded, as Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin pointed out in 1994 in their influential paper on

„Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency“: “despite its powerful conceptualization of

social structure, network analysis as it has been developed to date has inadequately theorized the

causal role of ideals, beliefs, and values, and of the actors that strive to realize them; as a result, it has

neglected the cultural and symbolic moment in the very determination of social action.”2 Although

meanwhile various theoretical concepts and models of “relational sociology” have been developed3,

the cultural dimension is still underrepresented in many works of quantitatively oriented social and

also historical network analysis. In this paper, I will present the explanatory value of some of these

relational approaches to social reality for historical research and their combination with quantitative

network analysis. For various case studies, the actual interplay between the structural and the cultural

dimension of social, religious, economic, political or intellectual linkages between individuals, groups,

communities, but also cultural concepts will be demonstrated.4

Firstly, I want to demonstrate that basic decisions on the selection of nodes and the definition of ties in

(historical) quantitative networks models are always based on explicit or implicit considerations of the

qualitative aspects of these elements. For the decision on which nodes to include into a network, for

instance, E. Laumann, P. Marsden und D. Prensky in 1983 identified three basic approaches: a

position-based approach, including individuals in the network who are members of a specific

organisation or group or holding a specific position (also called the “nominalist approach”); an event-

based approach, including all those who had taken part in one or more specific events; and a relation-

based approach, starting from a “small set of nodes” connected through specific types of relations and

then including more and more actors also connected to the nodes in the original set (also called the

“snowball approach”).5 For historical network analysis, I would add a “Wolfgang Reinhard”-approach.

Wolfgang Reinhard, a pioneer of historical network analysis in Germany, wrote in his essential work

on “Freunde und Kreaturen” in 1979: “For where the social scientist is almost overwhelmed by the

amount of data of the totality of a "network" or even a fairly large section of the same and laboriously

has to select data, for the historian the selection is made by history itself, always biased, but quite

useful, as long as we ask for leadership groups. Not only that the sources have generally selected

relationships between upper-class families, certain types of relationships are preferred. (...) This

*Institut für Mittelalterforschung, Abteilung für Byzanzforschung, ÖAW; Email: Johannes.Preiser-Kapeller@oeaw.ac.at. 1 A. MISCHE, Relational sociology, culture, and agency, in: J. SCOTT – P. CARRINGTON (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social

Network Analysis. Los Angeles – London et. al. 2011, 80–97, here 81. 2 M. EMIRBAYER – J. GOODWIN, Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency. American Journal of Sociology 99/6

(1994) 1411–1454, here 1446. 3 Cf. for instance H. C. WHITE, Identity and Control. How Social Formations emerge. Princeton – Oxford ²2008, or J. FUHSE

– S. MÜTZEL (eds.), Relationale Soziologie. Zur kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden 2010. 4 Cf. also J. PREISER-KAPELLER, Luhmann in Byzantium. A systems theory approach for historical network analysis. Working

Paper for the International Conference “The Connected Past: people, networks and complexity in archaeology and history”,

Southampton, April 24-25th 2012, and IDEM, Visualising Communities. Möglichkeiten der Netzwerkanalyse und der

relationalen Soziologie für die Erfassung und Analyse mittelalterlicher Gemeinschaften. Working Paper for the SFB “Visions

of Community”, Vienna 2012 (both papers online: http://oeaw.academia.edu/JohannesPreiserKapeller/Papers). 5 E. LAUMANN – P. MARSDEN – D. PRENSKY, The boundary specification problem in network analysis, in: R. S. BURT – M. J.

MINOR (eds.), Applied Network Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA, 1983, 18–34.

2

selection provided in the sources is based on certain rules, for which the values and norms of that

historical society from which the sources come from are of major importance.”6 There is a very

pragmatic aspect of this statement: the existing stock of sources defines the boundaries of the network

– and what is beyond the scope of preserved sources can also not be included into the network. But at

the same time already Reinhard hinted at the relevance of the “values and norms” of the respective

society for the “selection” and description of actors as well as relations. Thus, Reinhard in 1979

applied his approach also to the various “types of relations” one could identify in the sources. More

than 20 years later, he developed a more elaborate categorisation of social relationships in his book

“Lebensformen Europas” (2006). Reinhard identified on the one hand “potential group solidarities” or

“dormant relations”, which he further divided in “ascribed forms of relationships”, which are

attributed to a dyad of individuals “congenitally” (this would be consanguinity or origin from the same

region or ethnic group), and in relationships acquired through and in acts of interaction or

communication, such as artificial or spiritual kinship, godparent-hood, relationship by marriage,

membership in an organisation or patronage-clientele relationship. On the other hand, he identified

“actual interactions” or “active relations” such as friendship, flows of resources or information in a

patronage-clientele relationship or nepotism.7 Of course, there exist feedback mechanism between

actual interactions and the emergence of “dormant relations”; through marriage kinship is established

which may in turn provide basis for the exchange of resources, etc.

Along similar lines, Clair Lemercier in 2012 indicated necessary differentiations between categories of

various qualitative and also quantitative character: “Aggregating all sorts of ties under general words

such as “bound” or "relationship" in order to get a more complex picture, superficially looking more

interesting, only leads to impoverish possible interpretations. On the contrary, any network study –

and it is in fact also true for the most qualitative ones – should begin with a careful definition of the

tie(s) to be studied, especially taking into account three dimensions that have sadly, up to now, been

scarcely discussed in the network literature and about which historians should have something to say:

the difference between interaction and potential for interaction; the awareness of relational patterns

among the actors; and the temporality of ties. It would often be useful, in order to produce more

meaningful interpretations of “network effects”, to better distinguish between two senses of the words

“tie”, “link” or “relationship”, referring either to an actually observed interaction at a given moment

(e.g. a sale of land) or to potential for exchange (e.g. being akin). Potential for exchange can of

course itself have been created by previous exchanges of the same type (as in the case of matrimonial

relinking), of another type (a kinship tie making an economic association easier), or by a pure

similarity (e.g. of religion) or a shared past experience (alumni, members of the same large

association).”8

Finally, the most elaborate categorisation of network ties has been developed by R. H. Atkin already

in 1974/1977 and also used by St. P. M. Borgatti et al. in 20099: they differentiate between the

“backcloth”, which provides the underlying infrastructure that enables and constrains the “traffic” and

“traffic, which consists of what flows through the network such as information” or resources. They

establish four categories of “dyadic phenomena” (see also fig. 1):

* Similarities: two nodes share attributes such as demographic characteristics, behaviours, attitudes,

beliefs, locations or group memberships; this “increases the probabilities of certain relations and

dyadic events”. 10

* Social relations, under which are subsumed “commonly defined role-based relations” such as

kinship relations or friendship and “ties of affection” (“liking”, “disliking”, “love”) or of “cognitive

awareness” (“knowing”). As Borgatti points out: “We use the term role-based because these relations

are usually institutionalized into rights and obligations, and are linguistically identified as, for

6 W. REINHARD, Freunde und Kreaturen. "Verflechtung" als Konzept zur Erforschung historischer Führungsgruppen.

Römische Oligarchie um 1600. Munich 1979, here 34–35. 7 W. REINHARD, Lebensformen Europas. Eine historische Kulturanthropologie. Munich 2006, 272–273; P. HERTNER, Das

Netzwerkkonzept in der historischen Forschung. Ein kurzer Überblick, in: M. BOMMES – V. TACKE (eds.), Netzwerke in der

funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden 2011, 67–88, here 74–75. 8 Cl. LEMERCIER, Formale Methoden der Netzwerkanalyse in den Geschichtswissenschaften: Warum und Wie?, in: A.

MÜLLER – W. NEURATH (eds.), Historische Netzwerkanalysen (Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften

23/1). Innsbruck – Vienna – Bozen 2012, 16–41, here 26–27. 9 St. P. M. BORGATTI – V. LOPEZ-KIDWELL, Network Theory, in: J. SCOTT – P. J. CARRINGTON (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of

Social Network Analysis. Los Angeles – London et. al. 2011, 44–45. 10 BORGATTI – LOPEZ-KIDWELL, Network Theory 44.

3

example, friend, boss, or uncle. (…) Another characteristic of role-based relations is that they are in a

weak sense public and objective – a researcher can ask a third party whether two people are friends

or have a teacher/student relationship.”11

* Interactions: these are “behaviour-based ties” in the context of social relations, such as day to day

interaction; as Borgatti writes, these are “discrete and separate events that may occur frequently but

then stop, such as talking with, fighting with, or having lunch with”

* Flows: these are relation-based exchanges or transfers of resources, information or influence

between nodes.

Again, as Borgatti points out, there is the assumption of a feedback between the various categories of

ties: “In Atkin´s view, the four dyadic phenomena all serve as backcloth for the phenomena to their

right [for the sequence of dyadic phenomena, cf. fig. 1]. Hence, physical proximity can facilitate the

development of certain relationships, and certain relationships permit certain interactions; these in

turn provide the vehicle for transmissions or flows. However, it is also clear that phenomena on the

right can transform the phenomena on the left, so that people with certain relationships tend to move

closer together, and certain interactions can change or institutionalize relationships.”12

Thus, although neither Reinhard was referring to Atkins nor Lemercier to Reinhard, we observe a

certain consensus for the qualitative differentiation between phenomena which provide the potential

and “infrastructure” for actual interaction (as does a transport system of roads and railways), and

actual interactions and flows of resources or information (the actual “traffic”), whose direction and

intensity may be directed by the “infrastructure” of existing similarities or role-based relations, but

which also in turn contribute to the re-production or modification of potentials of interaction in a

dynamic way (see fig. 2).13

In addition, one should take into consideration the practical advice of

Lemercier with regard to the duration of relations and the frequency or intensity of interactions as

derived from the sources in order to include or exclude them from a specific network or a specific

period of time; does the one-time exchange of a polite letter qualify for the inclusion into a network

mapping intimate ties of friendship?

This qualitative categorisation of network ties also hints at mechanisms for the explanation of the

emergence and dynamics of networks. Similarities do not only facilitate the establishment of actual

social relations between individuals (the concept of “social homophily”), but, as Granovetter has

highlighted already in 1973, people also tend to have “stronger ties [in the sense of frequency of

interaction and emotional intensity, JPK] with people who are similar to themselves”; thus, qualitative

characteristics should also influence the structure and density of ties in a network.14

Another

framework in which qualitative criteria influence network structure has been introduced by Robert

Gramsch with the theory of balanced triads developed by Heider et. al. in the present volume.15

As an actual example for the explanatory value of these concepts I use two networks of noble families

I created on the basis of sources from 14th century Venetian Crete.

16 441 documents from the Venetian

Cadastre for the region of Chania in the West of the island (see fig. 3) for the period between 1314

and 1396 provide information on the property and transfer of feuda among the 165 noble families of

the area; these families could be qualitatively differentiated according to their “Venetian” respectively

“Italian” (121 families) or “Greek” origin (44 families) (see fig. 7).17

To make a long story short: for

11 BORGATTI – LOPEZ-KIDWELL, Network Theory 44. 12 BORGATTI – LOPEZ-KIDWELL, Network Theory 45. 13 Cf. also A. MARIN – B. WELLMANN, Social Network Analysis: an introduction, in: J. SCOTT – P. J. CARRINGTON (eds.), The

SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Los Angeles – London et. al. 2011, 18. 14 M. GRANOVETTER, The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973) 1360–1380. 15 See also R. GRAMSCH, Das Reich als Netzwerk der Fürsten. Politische Strukturen unter dem Doppelkönigtum Friedrichs II.

und Heinrichs (VII.) 1225–1235 (Mittelalter-Forschungen 40). Ostfildern 2013, esp. 34–52. Cf. also M. HENNIG – St. KOHL,

Fundierung der Netzwerkperspektive durch die Habitus und Feldtheorie von Pierre Bourdieu, in: M. HENNIG – Ch.

STEGBAUER (eds.), Die Integration von Theorie und Methode in der Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden 2012, 13–32, for a most

interesting approach to integrate network theory and the theoretical framework of Bourdieu. 16 Cf. S. MCKEE, Uncommon Dominion. Venetian Crete and the Myth of Ethnic Purity. Philadelphia 2000, with further

literature; M. GALINA, Una società coloniale del Trecento. Creta fra Venezia e Bisanzio. Venice 1989. On the rebellion of

1363 cf. also J. JEGERLEHNER, Der Aufstand der kandiotischen Ritterschaft gegen das Mutterland Venedig 1363–1365.

Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12 (1903) 78–125. 17 Ch. GASPARIS, Catasticum Chanee, 1314–1396 (Catastici Feudorum Crete). Athens 2008. Cf. also Ch. GASPARIS,

Catastica Feudorum Crete. Landownership and political changes in Medieval Crete (13th–15th centuries), in: A. D.

4

three defined time periods (1314–1348 [the outbreak of the Black Death on Crete]; 1349–1367 [the

end of the Titus-Rebellion against the Venetian colonial regime, which since 1363 had united parts of

the nobilities of both backgrounds]; 1368–1396), I created firstly a neighbourhood network of families

holding property in the same villages (see fig. 4). Within the above-mentioned concept, these ties

constitute similarities or “potentials for relation”, possible pipelines for actual interaction and flows.

Secondly, I created a directed network of transfers of pieces of property between families, including

the exchange of feuda between families because of marriage (as dowry), sale or trade-off (see fig. 6).

In both cases, I used a benchmark for the frequency (transfer) and duration (neighbourhood) of ties. A

comparison of the actual dynamics of network ties very much indicated a feedback mechanisms along

the lines indicated above: geographical neighbourhood very often preceded the establishment of

transfer relations, which in turn brought about the establishment of even stronger or new

neighbourhood ties.

Even more interesting was of course how the broader qualitative differentiation of families along

ethnic (Venetian/Greek) and religious (Latin/Orthodox) markers of identity influenced the structuring

of the networks. According to the concept of homophily, groups differentiated along ethnic or other

markers of identity are linked internally more, they exhibit – quantitatively speaking – internally a

higher network density than in its external connections. Thus qualitative characteristics may influence

the structure of networks, in turn, by making certain relationships more likely than others. The

quantitative analysis of such structural patterns in turn informs us about the actual relevance of, for

example, ethnic differentiation for social life in a more systematic way.18

For the case of the region of

Chania, the significantly higher density of links within the “Venetian families” in our networks as

compared to both the overall network as well as to the network “within the Greek families” here fits

nicely into this general observation (fig. 8 and fig. 9). From a structural and quantitative overall view,

the two ethnic groups still differed from each other to a higher degree than it is suggested by recent,

purely qualitative studies such as the book by Sally McKee, who reflected on selected cases of a more

intensive trans-ethnic interaction.19

Yet at the same time, there is no doubt that emerging “similarities” beyond the ethnic-religious divide

such as geographical proximity and the mutual acknowledge of noble status (which the Greek

aristocrats had eked out in a series or rebellions in the later 13th century) very much contributed to the

establishment of social relations and interactions between Venetian and Greek families, even though to

a lesser degree than within the Venetian aristocracy. If we inspect the density of the networks of

neighbourhood and of transfer between “Venetian“ and “Greek” noble families, we equally observe an

increase (see fig. 10). This increase has also a purely mathematical aspect: the outbreak of the plague

in 1348 very much reduced the number of families documented in our sources (see fig. 7).

Quantitatively speaking, the number of nodes within the network declined from one time period to the

next one; at the same time, the overall number of “inter-ethnic” links between families remained

relatively stable. Thereby, the same number of links is distributed among a smaller number of nodes,

which leads to an increase of the overall density of connections within the network. The quantitative

phenomenon within our model could be connected to a process of “contracting together” of the Cretan

nobility, where “Venetians” and “Greeks” regarded each other as of the (more or less) same status and

therefore as fit for specific forms of “intra-aristocratic” interactions. Again, we can presume the

working of feedback processes (see fig. 11) which lead to an actual accommodation and assimilation

between Venetian and Greek elites in the course of the 14th and 15

th century. This process found a first

culmination in a common rebellion of some of the Venetian and Greek noble families against the

Venetian colonial regime in 1363 (the above-mentioned “Titus rebellion”), which, although ultimately

failing also due to a still very limited resilience of “trans-ethnic” aristocratic cohesion, very much

documents developments reaching their peak in the so-called Venetian Renaissance of the 15th and 16

th

century. Finally, this process of transformation as sketched here on the basis of a connection of

quantitative and qualitative research founds an interesting parallel in the description of the outbreak of

the rebellion of St. Titus (1363) in the eyes of a (hostile) chronicler from the Venetian imperial centre:

BEIHAMMER – M. G. PARANI – CH. D. SCHABEL (eds.), Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean. 1000–1500 (The Medieval

Mediterranean 74). Leiden 2008, 49–61; Ch. GASPARIS, To katasticho ton Chanion. E gaioktesia sto diamerisma ton Chanion

kata ton 14 ai., in: Pepragmena I´dieuthnous Kretologikou Synedriou (Chania, 1–8 Oktobriou 2006), Vol .I. Chania 2010,

61–70; Ch. GASPARIS, E ge kai oi agrotes ste mesaionike Krete, 13os–14os ai. Athens 1997. 18 Cf. also J. FUHSE, Ethnizität, Akkulturation und persönliche Netzwerke von italienischen Migranten. Opladen 2008, 78–80. 19 MCKEE, Uncommon Dominion.

5

„And in this time, it so happened that God sent a plague over the earth on account of man´s sins.

Because of the plague, all the old ones who lived on the island died. Gone was love, and faith came to

be lacking in the island. Hence, the youth remained, leaving the path of their elders (…). They broke

with good customs and abandoned sane things, giving themselves over to vice, not recognizing their

evil, like irrational animals, leaving aside their own nature and that of their ancestors to follow the

customs of the Greeks (seguitando li costumi de Greci).“20

Yet, various relational approaches do not consider qualitative and quantitative attributes as separate

entities, but view nodes and their identities, relations and their categorisations and interpretations as

“mutually generative”. In a meshwork of structure and culture, identities are created at the crossing

points of relations and networks emerge: ties create nodes create ties.21

The best-known theoretician of

relational sociology in the English-speaking world is Harrison C. White; for him “networks are

phenomenological realities as well as measurement constructs”.22

White understands social networks

as “socio-cultural formations”. Actors appear not only as embedded in social networks; their

cognitions and behaviours, their identity as an actor and the attribution of action are results of trans-

personal transaction processes in the network. Identities arise from efforts to support and position one-

self (“control”) alone and in interaction with other identities. By the positioning of an identity other

identities aspiring for footing can put themselves in relation to it. The control efforts of an identity

then provide social reality for others, who ascribe meaning to these efforts and thus to the identity. The

control projects of identities thus result in discursive interactions that in turn generate meanings. In

this way identities are linked to each other, but are defined and constructed on the social level only

through and within these links. Meanings are attributed to these links, and meanings form into stories;

these stories in turn construct the identities of actors participating in the respective context.23

In the last years several collections of papers have been published with the purpose of a combination

of Niklas Luhmann´s systems theory and network theory. As for White, in systems theory “persons”

are constructs of communication for the purpose of communication; they only emerge in the process

of communication. A “person”, an “actor”, an “identity” or a “social address” are “an artefact of

attribution, created in communication for communication, a more or less elaborate profile of

characteristics and behaviours, with which the personalised other is identified and provided with in

the communication and with which communication operates as supposition (…) Addresses attain an

individual profile of inclusion and exclusion, which refers back to stories and carriers of participation

in differentiated systemic contexts and anticipates to horizons of relevance for future

communication.”24

“Persons” or “identities” emerge in the process of communication and only gain

profile by their embedding in the web of communications, thereby being created also as point of

contact for further communication and source of actions, motives and intentions. “Thus, a network

consists of interconnected relationships, not of interconnected people.”25

Relationships include a

“history” of episodes of interaction and communication, thereby defining also the horizon of

20 Venice, Biblioteca Marciana Mss. Cl. VII, Cod. 519, fol. 115, A; cited after MCKEE, Uncommon Dominion 239 21 Cf. also B. HOLZER – J. F. K. SCHMIDT, Theorie der Netzwerke oder Netzwerk-Theorie?, in: B. HOLZER – J. F. K. SCHMIDT

(eds.) Theorie der Netzwerke oder Netzwerk-Theorie? (= Soziale Systeme. Zeitschrift für soziologische Theorie Jahrgang 15

[2009], Heft 2). Stuttgart 2009, 227–242, here, 234; St. FUCHS, The Behavior of Cultural Networks, in: B. HOLZER – J. F. K.

SCHMIDT (eds.) Theorie der Netzwerke oder Netzwerk-Theorie? (= Soziale Systeme. Zeitschrift für soziologische Theorie

Jahrgang 15 [2009], Heft 2). Stuttgart 2009, 345–366, here 346. 22 WHITE, Identity and Controll 36; cf. also J. FUHSE, Die kommunikative Konstruktion von Akteuren in Netzwerken, in: B.

HOLZER – J. F. K. SCHMIDT (eds.) Theorie der Netzwerke oder Netzwerk-Theorie? (= Soziale Systeme. Zeitschrift für

soziologische Theorie Jahrgang 15 [2009], Heft 2). Stuttgart 2009, 288–316, here 288; S. MÜTZEL – J. FUHSE, Einleitung: Zur

relationalen Soziologie. Grundgedanken, Entwicklungslinien und transatlantische Brückenschläge, in: J. FUHSE – S. MÜTZEL

(eds.), Relationale Soziologie. Zur kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden 2010, 7–36, here 12–13. 23 H. C. WHITE – F. C. GODART, Relational Language: The Example of Changes in Business Talk, in: J. FUHSE – S. MÜTZEL

(eds.), Relationale Soziologie. Zur kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden 2010, 273–290. Cf. also MÜTZEL –

FUHSE, Einleitung 14–15; J. FUHSE, Zu einer relationalen Ungleichheitssoziologie, in: J. FUHSE – S. MÜTZEL (eds.),

Relationale Soziologie. Zur kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden 2010, 179–206, here 198; cf. also HENNIG

– KOHL, Fundierung der Netzwerkperspektive 20–21. 24 M. BOMMES – V. TACKE, Das Allgemeine und das Besondere des Netzwerkes, in: M. BOMMES – V. TACKE (eds.),

Netzwerke in der funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden 2011, 25–50, here 31–32. Cf. also FUHSE, Die

kommunikative Konstruktion 297–298; B. HOLZER – J. FUHSE, Netzwerke aus systemtheoretischer Perspektive, in: Ch.

STEGBAUER – R. HÄUßLING (eds.), Handbuch Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden 2010, 313–323, here 314–315. 25 Cf. also HOLZER – SCHMIDT, Theorie der Netzwerke oder Netzwerk-Theorie 238; FUHSE, Die kommunikative Konstruktion

292, 295–297.

6

expectation for further interaction and communication. Relationships provide the context and the

relevant social environment in order to classify particular future interaction situation.26

For specific

relationships, specific cultural terms (such as “friendship”) can emerge which in turn influence the

perception of and expectations for a relationship.27

I have elaborated further aspects of this theoretical framework in a presentation at the “Connected

past”-Conference in Southampton in March 201228

, so I refer to this paper and try to exemplify these

concepts again for a relatively simple historical network and its contemporary, medieval interpretation:

for the period between May 1328 and November 1335 we can reconstruct the network of interaction

between the bishops of the Byzantine ecclesiastical province of Russia (fig. 12).29

We observe how the

Metropolitan of Kiev met with the bishops of a given region in order to elect and to ordain a new

hierarch, who in turn joined his brothers at the first opportunity to create another bishop. Structurally,

we recognise the emergence of two regional clusters of episcopal interaction in the Southwest and the

Northeast of the vast Russian province. A new bishop, a new node in the network is established by the

interaction between the bishops. He draws his identity from being embedded in the fabric of

interaction between and after his ordination with his “in the Holy Spirit beloved brothers”, as the

documents say. At the same time, episcopal identities reproduced themselves in joint synodal sessions

and actions. This context of interaction finds a corresponding interpretation in contemporary canon

law and theology: as it is repeatedly emphasized in the documents of the Byzantine church, through

the chain of apostolic succession these webs of election and ordination refer ultimately to Jesus Christ

himself.30

Drawing parallels to concepts of speech act theory, the common words of ordination at the

same time reproduce the existing web of bishops (who are re-affirmed in their “episcopal identity” by

making use of the privilege of ordination) and create a new node, thus co-constructing social reality.31

Such acts of historical communication are only accessible for us via artefacts of communication, such

as sources of historiography, letters, or documents which describe or define a specific act of

interaction or communication.32

In terms of relational sociology, such sources convey elements of

stories of relationships as defined by White.33

The rhetoric of classic epistolography for instance

provides a metaphorical, but not less impressive description of the “co-construction” of relationships

and identities within networks; in a letter to Peter, archbishop of Alexandria, the 4th century

Cappadocian Church Father Basil the Great wrote for instance: “Eyes are promoters of bodily

friendship, and the intimacy engendered through long association strengthens such friendship. But

true love is formed by the gift of the spirit, which brings together objects separated by a wide space

and causes loved ones to know each other, not through the features of the body, but through the

26 FUHSE, Die kommunikative Konstruktion 289, 297. 27 FUHSE, Die kommunikative Konstruktion 302; BOMMES –TACKE, Das Allgemeine und das Besondere 41–43; B. HOLZER,

Von der Beziehung zum System – und zurück? Relationale Soziologie und Systemtheorie, in: J. FUHSE – S. MÜTZEL (eds.),

Relationale Soziologie. Zur kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden 2010, 101–102, 112–113. 28 J. PREISER-KAPELLER, Luhmann in Byzantium. A systems theory approach for historical network analysis. Working paper

for the International Conference “The Connected Past: people, networks and complexity in archaeology and history”,

Southampton, April 24th–25th 2012 (online: http://oeaw.academia.edu/J.PreiserKapeller/Papers/). 29 On the sources and background for this network cf. 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 (Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 85),

Munich 2013, 203–227, esp. 221–226. 30 Cf. also 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, IX–XIII (in general) and 489–542 (for the

Russian bishoprics); PREISER-KAPELLER, Hē tōn pleionōn psēphos, and in general C. RAPP, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity.

The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 2005; B. MOULET, Évêques,

pouvoir et société à Byzance (VIIIe-XIe siècle). Territoires, communautés et individus dans la société provincial Byzantine

(Byzantina Sorbonensia 25). Paris 2011. 31 Cf. G. HINDELANG, Einführung in die Sprechakttheorie: Sprechakte, Äußerungsformen, Sprechaktsequenzen: Sprechakte,

Äußerungsformen, Sprechaktsequenzen (Germanistische Arbeitshefte). Berlin – New York 52010. For an application of

speech act theory on a medieval text cf. for instance Ch. GASTGEBER, Jacobus Campora, Bischof von Kaffa. Rede an Kaiser

Friedrich III. und an König Ladislaus Postumus nach der Eroberung Konstantinopels, in: F. N. ARDELEAN – Ch. NICHOLSON –

J. PREISER-KAPELLER (eds.), Between Worlds: The Age of the Jagiellonians (Eastern and Central European Studies 2).

Frankfurt am Main – Berlin et al. 2013, 93–120. 32 P. HERTNER, Das Netzwerkkonzept in der historischen Forschung. Ein kurzer Überblick, in M. BOMMES – V. TACKE (eds.),

Netzwerke in der funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden 2011, 67–88, here 69. 33 FUHSE, Die kommunikative Konstruktion 292, 301, 307.

7

peculiarities of the soul. This indeed the favour of the Lord has wrought in our case also, making it

possible for us to see you with the eyes of the soul, to embrace you with the true love and to grow one

with you, as it were, and to enter into a single union with you through communion according to

faith.”34

The most elaborate analysis of rhetorical constructions of identities and relationships in pre-

modern epistolography is without doubt Paul McLean´s magisterial study on “The Art of the

Network” in Renaissance Florence; there he demonstrates on the basis of thousands of letters how

“selves and relations are discursively constructed by patronage seekers”.35

Thus, there existed a large semantic pool for the interpretation and definition of network ties.

However, not every metaphor was appropriate or even permitted for every relationship. In April 1343,

the Synod of the metropolitans in Constantinople was concerned with a letter which one of their peers,

Metropolitan Matthaios of Ephesos, had sent to the Turkish Emir Umur I of Aydın, under whose

sovereignty Ephesos was at this time. The Synod was especially consternated about the way Matthaios

had addressed the Muslim potentate, because he had called Umur “his beloved son and himself the

father” of the Emir. Furthermore, he referred to the clergy in Pyrgion, the capital of Aydın, “as the

priests” of the Emir. The Synod declared: „This he [Matthaios] should not have done. For it befits high

dignitaries of the Church to observe (the appropriate form of address) for such persons and not to use

the same titles similarly for believers and for heathens and infidels. By all means, there must be a

differentiation in the form of address as well as in everything else.”36

The use of metaphors which

indicated spiritual kinship was common in the ecclesiastical correspondence of Late Byzantium, but

limited to addressees of orthodox belief. If even catholic rulers were excluded from the circle of

spiritual children of the Byzantine Church, the consternation of the Synod about Matthaios’ letter

becomes comprehensible.37

As this short example demonstrates, within communication systems

working within networks specific terms and “stories” are often confined to specific, communicatively

determined contexts, and thereby specific relationships (as defined by specific termini and “horizons

of expectation” connected with them) can be accepted or not.38

Finally, this leads us to the claim of Emirbayer and Goodwin that “cultural discourses, narratives, and

idioms are (…) analytically autonomous”.39

Paul DiMaggio in his most helpful introduction into

“cultural networks” in the SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis gives an overview how

scholars tried to come to terms with the interplay between culture and networks in the last decade.40

Closely related to many other social network studies is what one could call the “actor-orientated”

approach: in order to study the emergence of cultural phenomena, relations between artists or authors,

sometime connected via organisations, events or localities, are systematically mapped and analysed in

network models. Wendy Bottero and Nick Crossley for instance demonstrated how the high density of

pre-existing strong network ties served as structural pre-condition for the rise of Punk music in Great

34 Basil, ep. 133 (ed. R. J. DEFERRARI, Saint Basil, the Letters. Cambridge 1961, Vol. II, 302). Translation from: M.

MULLETT, Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman

Monographs 2). Aldershot 1997, 113. 35 P. D. MCLEAN, The Art of the Network. Strategic Interaction and Patronage in Renaissance Florence. Durham – London

2007, esp. 1–34 and 224–229; cf. also MISCHE, Relational Sociology, Culture, and Agency 88; P. S. BEARMAN, Relations into

Rhetorics: Local Elite Social Structure in Norfolk, England: 1540–1640. Piscataway, New Jersey 1993; J. PREISER-

KAPELLER, Letters and Network Analysis, in: A. RIEHLE (ed.), Companion to Byzantine Epistolography (Brill Companions to

the Byzantine World). Leiden – New York – Cologne 2015 [forthcoming]. 36 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 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XIX/2). Vienna

1995, Nr. 144, 322, 46–53 (April 1343); O. KRESTEN, Die Affäre des Metropoliten Symeon von Alania im Spiegel des

Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel. Anzeiger der philos.-histor. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften 137 (2002) 35–36; J. PREISER-KAPELLER, Conversion, Collaboration and Confrontation. Islam in the Register

of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (14th Century). International Review of Turkish Studies 1/4 (2011) 62–79. 37 Cf. J. PREISER-KAPELLER, Eine „Familie der Könige“? Anrede und Bezeichnung von sowie Verhandlungen mit

ausländischen Machthabern in den Urkunden des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel im 14. Jh., in: Ch. GASTGEBER et

al. (eds.) The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. A central source for the History and Church in Late Byzantium.

Vienna 2013, 253–285. 38 Cf. also F. BECKER, Einleitung: Geschichte und Systemtheorie – ein Annäherungsversuch, in: F. BECKER (ed.), Geschichte

und Systemtheorie. Exemplarische Fallstudien. Frankfurt – New York 2004, 7–28, here 16. 39 EMIRBAYER – GOODWIN, Network Analysis 1438. 40 P. DIMAGGIO, Cultural Networks, in: J. SCOTT – P. J. CARRINGTON (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network

Analysis. Los Angeles – London et. al. 2011, 286–300.

8

Britain in the 1979s and the bands and other actors promoting it.41

In an impressive way, Eiko Ikegami

(2005) in her volume on aesthetic networks in “late medieval” and “early modern” Japan has analysed

this relation between the modification and innovation of cultural patterns and the complexity and

structure of social networks: „The increasing density, scale, and complexity of various kinds of

network relationships in specific historical contexts – including Tokugawa Japan – create conditions

of possibility for new cultural emergent properties to arise. While such an increase in network

complexity in and of itself does not directly produce or formulate new cultural items, it may lead in

that direction. In each case, the increase in the density of intersections between networks intensifies

communication and in the process produces increasingly varied publics. These publics, in turn, can

provide opportunities for cultural innovation.” But she also stated: „Yet, once a culture has arisen as a

manifestation of complex network systems, the culture as an emerging property retains its own

qualitative distinctiveness and social dynamics that cannot be exhausted by or reduced to the network

relations that gave rise to it.“42

In order to analyse cultural phenomena such as concepts or narrative elements uncoupled from social

networks, again a relational approach has been adopted. Margaret Somers for instance explained:

“concepts cannot be defined on their own as single ontological entities; rather, the meaning of one

concept can be deciphered only in terms of its “place” in relation to other concepts in its web.”43

With

regard to language already the founding father of modern linguistics Ferdinand de Saussure (1916) had

“argued that linguistic meaning emerges from relations among words and phonemes”. Various studies

have made use of two-mode networks to graph the co-occurrence of terms in some set of texts. For the

analysis of narratives, DiMaggio highlights the value of network analytical approaches: “Because

narratives are sequential and because they often generate multiple forks, graphic representation is

natural. Moreover, the tendency for narratives within a speech community to become conventionalized

so that similar tropes or sequences appear within different narratives, renders SNA a natural way to

explore similarity and intertextuality”.44

Roberto Franzosi, a pioneer of quantitative narrative analysis,

mapped the frequency of violent interaction between groups of political actors in Italy between 1919

and 1922 as narrated in newspaper articles with help of directed and weighted network graphs,

highlighting how “the centre of violence has shifted from the police to the fascists” in this period.45

Peter Bearman and his co-authors started to analyse the relations between events in various narratives

with the help of networks; one of the graphs you see here depicts the network of events in the narrative

of a professional historian, the other one the network of events in an orally transmitted narrative of a

live story – which is which (fig. 13)? The complex graph on the left is the event network of the live

story of a Chinese villager in the years between 1920 and 1949, the graph to the right the chain of

events of the French revolution as ordered by an historian (event nr 60 is the storming of the Bastille,

for instance). This approach allowed Bearman et. al. to compare the actual structuring of events and

the construction of chains of causations across various genres and narrative techniques.46

But, as indicated above, neither can the structure of historical social networks be explained without

taking into account the interplay between quantitative and qualitative characteristics nor the networks

of cultural concepts and narratives without the actors selecting, re-producing and modifying them (as

well as their own identities, if we follow the approach of White et al.). Therefore, a combination of

cultural concepts and actors may be an appropriate starting point for analysing the emergence of

linkages between and within both categories of nodes for cultural phenomena. This approach refers to

the idea of “duality”, “the recognition that each mode in a two-mode network constitutes the identity

41 W. BOTTERO – N. CROSSLEY, Worlds, Fields and Networks: Becker, Bourdieu and the Structures of Social Relations.

Cultural Sociology 5/1 (2011) 99–119. See also J. PREISER-KAPELLER, Punk and Palamism: a comparison of modern and

medieval cultural networks. Online-presentation:

http://www.academia.edu/2764366/Punk_and_Palamism_a_comparison_of_modern_and_medieval_cultural_networks (I

intend to elaborate this comparison in a longer paper). 42 E. IKEGAMI, Bonds of Civility. Aesthetic Networks and the Political Origins of Japanese Culture. Cambridge 2005, 57. 43 M. SOMERS, What's Political or Cultural about Political Culture and the Public Sphere? Toward an Historical Sociology of

Concept Formation. Sociological Theory 13/2 (1995), 113–144, here 136. 44 DIMAGGIO, Cultural Networks 295. 45 R. FRANZOSI, Quantitative Narrative Analysis. Los Angeles – London 2010. For an example of the application of

Franzosi´s framework on a medieval narrative see the paper by H. FERNÁNDEZ-ACEVES in the present volume. 46 P. BEARMAN – R. FARIS – J. MOODY, Blocking the Future: New Solutions for Old Problems in Historical Social Science.

Social Science History 23/4 (Special Issue: What Is Social Science History?/1999) 501–533.

9

of the other. Initially, duality referred to the mutual constitution of groups (defined by persons who

join them) and persons (defined by the intersection of group affiliations). But we may also think of

cultural entities as constituted by and constituting the actors who share them”.47

For a experimental case study, I constructed such a network of concepts and actors for the genre of

imperial panegyrics in Byzantium between 1204 and 1328, relying on data from the excellent study by

Dimiter Angelov.48

Angelov systematically surveyed authors and addressees (the emperors, of course)

of imperial panegyrics for this period as well as the figures from the biblical as well as classical

tradition (such as King David or Alexander the Great) with which authors compared emperors in their

texts. I combined this data into a three-mode-network of Emperors (red), authors (blue) and

comparative figures (green) (fig. 14). With the visualisation of this network, we can map which figures

were used by which author to characterize which emperor, as for example for Niketas Choniates and

Emperor Theodore I Laskaris (fig. 15). We can also see how many authors used a specific figure for

how many emperors, as for King Solomon for instance (fig. 16). And we can also map with which

figures a figure co-occurs for the description of a specific emperor, as for King Solomon and Emperor

John III Vatatzes (fig. 17).

These techniques also allow us to map the semantic web of comparative figures which emerges

because of the artistic work of authors and the biases of addressees. I transformed the 3-mode-network

of authors, emperors and figures in a 1-mode-network of figures, in which two figures are connected if

they were used by the same author for the same emperor (fig. 18); as several figures were used by

several authors for the same emperors, some linkages between nodes are stronger than others (fig. 20).

As becomes obvious if we inspect the graph of this network with nodes sized according to their

number of ties (degree) (fig. 19), there is a densely connected core of nodes with a relatively high

number of connections and various less densely interconnected clusters at the periphery of this web of

comparative figures (see also fig. 25). The strong ties between frequently used figures such as Moses,

King David, King Solomon, Alexander the Great and Constantine the Great form the backbone of the

panegyrical web, while more choice figures such as Pompey, Hadrian or Urbicius form, albeit less

relevant semantic clusters.49

These differences are also clearly visible in the distribution of the

frequency of numbers of connections (degree), which shows a large number of less well connected

nodes and a “long tail” of hubs with many connections (fig. 22). Very much the same figures appear

on the top with regard to the centrality measure of betweenness; in our model, nodes with a higher

betweenness are figures, which co-occur with figures which are otherwise not used together to

describe the same emperor by the same author and therefore are not directly connected to each other

(fig. 21 and fig. 24). Figures of high betweenness are the “integrators” of the panegyrical web. For

betweenness, the distribution of the frequency of centrality values shows an even more unequal pattern

(fig. 23). These unequal distribution patterns have been identified as one “signature” of complexity

within networks. A model proposed as explanation for the emergence of such patterns is the one of

“preferential attachment”, implying that in a growing network newly accruing nodes would connect to

nodes already better connected than others within the network (the “Matthew principle”).50

In our case,

this would mean that authors in most cases span their panegyrical webs around an established

repertoire of central figures of comparison, to which they then connected their more “exquisite”, often

47 DIMAGGIO, Cultural Networks 291–292. 48 D. ANGELOV, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium (1204–1330). Cambridge 2007, esp. 86–90. For the

networks between Byzantine scholars in this period cf. especially N. GAUL, Thomas Magistros und die spätbyzantinische

Sophistik. Studien zum Humanismus urbaner Eliten in der frühen Palaiologenzeit (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur

Byzantinistik 10). Wiesbaden 2011, and Kl.-P. MATSCHKE – F. TINNEFELD, Die Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz. Gruppen,

Strukturen und Lebens-formen. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna 2001, esp. 297–300. For imperial ideology in the Later

Byzantine period see also: E. MITSIOU, Untersuchungen zur Wirtschaft und Ideologie im „Nizänischen Reich“. PhD-

Dissertation, Vienna 2006; F. LEONTE, Rhetoric in Purple: the Renewal of Imperial Ideology in the Texts of Emperor Manuel

II Palaiologos. PhD-Thesis, Central European University Budapest 2012, and in general: H. HUNGER, Prooimion. Elemente

der byzantinischen Kaiseridee in den Arengen der Urkunden. Wien 1964; S. A. TAKÁCS, The Construction of Authority in

Ancient Rome and Byzantium: The Rhetoric of Empire. Cambridge 2008. On panegyric cf. also now R. REES (ed.), Latin

Panegyric. Oxford 2012. 49 Also ANGELOV, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought 91, speaks about a “common core of imperial virtues and

ideological values”. 50 R. ALBERT – A.-L. BARABÁSI, Statistical Mechanics of Complex Networks. Reviews of Modern Physics 74 (2002) 48–97.

Cf. also T. BRUGHMANS, Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29

(3) (2010) 277–303.

10

more “remote” figures, which also could serve as indicators of their profound knowledge of the

classical or biblical heritage.51

Thus, also a modelling of the development of the network over time is of essential relevance. By

dividing the data in time steps for every panegyrical work from 1204 to 1328, we can also observe the

increase in size and complexity of the web of comparative figures respectively how authors selected

from and added to the inventory of nodes after the “cataclysm” of 1204 (fig. 26). This can also be

expressed in quantitative terms for the entire network (fig. 27, fig. 28) as well as for the relative

significance of single figures within the web expressed in their relative degree values (fig. 29): while

Constantine the Great, for instance, remained at the top of important figures during the entire period,

Zorobabel, the leader of the Jews from exile in Babylon back to the Holy Land, after the capture of

Constantinople in 1204 was a relatively powerful image for a Byzantine ruler in exile, but declined in

relevance during the following decades before rising again in popularity before and especially after the

successful re-conquest of Constantinople in 1261 before declining again since the end of the 14th

century.52

Thus, trends in this field of literary production within the political and ideological context of

Byzantine history can be made visible and quantifiable in a new way.53

To conclude: “Instead of viewing things as isolated units, they are better understood as being at the

intersections of particular relations and as deriving their defining characteristics from the

intersections of these relations”54

The application of the relational approach and network theory force

us to bring the existing source evidence in systematic order and in relation to each other; this alone

may provide a new and more complex picture of past social and cultural structures than other more

paratactic approaches. But the exploitation of the full potential of these concepts and tools, the

combination of qualitative and quantitative research allow us to observe interplays between culture

and structure, to go beyond the more or less systematic collection of single cases and to integrate a

vast variety of sources for purposes of analysis and visual mapping in order to receive at least a more

appropriate glimpse of the actual complexity of social and cultural patterns and dynamics in pre-

modern societies. The full potential of these tools has still to be tested.

51 ANGELOV, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought 78–115. Cf. also A. KALDELLIS, Hellenism in Byzantium: The

Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (Greek Culture in the Roman World).

Cambridge 2008, esp. 317–388. 52 Cf. also ANGELOV, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought 99–100. 53 For a “geographical matrix” emerging from a connection of the places of activity of these figures in a spatial network

model, cf. J. PREISER-KAPELLER, The geographical matrix of the imperial office:

a network of spatial relations between comparative figures in Byzantine imperial panegyrics, 1204–1328, online presentation:

http://www.academia.edu/4923236/The_geographical_matrix_of_the_imperial_office_in_Late_Byzantium. 54 MARIN –WELLMANN, Social Network Analysis: an introduction 14.

11

Figures (all figures with exception of nr. 13 have been created by the author with the help of the

software tools ORA*, Pajek* and QuantumGIS*):

Fig. 1: “Backcloth” and “traffic”: The categorisation of network ties by R. H. Atkin and St. P. M.

Borgatti.

Fig. 2: Feedbacks between the categories of network ties as developed by R. H. Atkin and St. P. M.

Borgatti.

Fig. 3: Villages in the region of Chania in Western Crete in which pieces of noble property (“feuda”)

are documented in the period 1314–1396.

12

Fig. 4: Visualisation of the network of localities (hexagons) and “Venetian” (red nodes) respectively

“Greek” (blue nodes) noble families possessing feuda in these villages in the region of Chania in

Western Crete for the periods 1314–1348/1349–1367/1368–1396.

Fig. 6: Visualisation of the network of transfer of pieces of property (feuda) between “Venetian” (red

nodes) respectively “Greek” (blue nodes) noble families in the region of Chania in Western Crete for

the periods 1314–1348/1349–1367/1368–1396.

13

Fig. 7: The number of “Venetian” and “Greek” noble families documented in the region of Chania in

Western Crete for the periods 1314–1348/1349–1367/1368–1396.

Fig. 8: The density of the network of neighbourhood ties between “Venetian” and “Greek” noble

families in the region of Chania in Western Crete for the periods 1314–1348/1349–1367/1368–1396.

Fig. 9: The density of the network of transfer of feuda between “Venetian“ and “Greek” noble families

in the region of Chania in Western Crete for the periods 1314–1348/1349–1367/1368–1396.

Fig. 10: The density of the networks of neighbourhood and of transfer between “Venetian“ and

“Greek” noble families in the region of Chania in Western Crete for the periods 1314–1348/1349–

1367/1368–1396.

14

Fig. 11: A model of feedbacks between categories of network ties (based on the categorisation

developed by R. H. Atkin and St. P. M. Borgatti) for Venetian Crete in the 14th and 15

th centuries.

Fig. 12: The “co-construction” of ties and nodes in a medieval ecclesiastical context: the network of

co-presence at synodal sessions and of ordination of new bishops among the bishops in the

ecclesiastical province of Russia, May 1328–November 1335.

15

Fig. 13: Network of events in the narrative of the life story of a Chinese villager in the years between

1920 and 1949 (left) and in the chain of events of the French revolution as ordered by an historian

(right; event nr 60 is the storming of the Bastille) (from: BEARMAN – R. FARIS – J. MOODY, Blocking

the Future; modified by the author)

Fig. 14: Three-mode-network of emperors (red), authors (blue) and comparative figures (green)

connected through works of imperial panegyrics in Byzantium between 1204 and 1328 (Data from:

ANGELOV, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium 86–90).

16

Fig. 15: The network of comparative figures span around Emperor Theodore I Laskaris by the author

Niketas Choniates.

Fig. 16: The usage of King Solomon as figure of comparison by authors of imperial panegyrics (red)

for Byzantine emperors (blue) between 1204 and 1328.

Fig. 17: The co-occurrence of King Solomon with other figures of classical or biblical tradition as

figures of comparison used for Emperor John III Vatatzes.

17

Fig. 18: One-mode network of comparative figures of classical (red) or biblical (blue) origin; two

figures are connected if used by the same author for the same emperor.

Fig. 19: One-mode network of comparative figures of classical (red) or biblical (blue) origin; two

figures are connected if used by the same author for the same emperor. Nodes are sized according to

their number of connections within the network (“degree”).

18

Fig. 20: One-mode network of comparative figures of classical or biblical origin; two figures are

connected if used by the same author for the same emperor. Lines between nodes are scaled according

to the strength of connection between them.

Fig. 21: One-mode network of comparative figures of classical or biblical origin; two figures are

connected if used by the same author for the same emperor. Nodes are sized according to their

betweenness-centrality.

19

Fig. 22: Frequency of degree values of nodes in the one-mode network of comparative figures in

imperial panegyrics (1204–1328).

Fig. 23: Frequency of betweenness values of nodes in the one-mode network of comparative figures in

imperial panegyrics (1204–1328).

Fig. 24: Comparison of degree values and of betweenness values of nodes in the one-mode network of

comparative figures in imperial panegyrics (1204–1328).

20

Fig. 25: One-mode network of comparative figures of classical or biblical origin; two figures are

connected if used by the same author for the same emperor. Within the network, we can differentiate

between a densely connected core of figures (purple nodes) and several clusters at the periphery.

21

Fig. 26: One-mode network of comparative figures of classical or biblical origin used in imperial

panegyrics; the network in time: time slices for 1250, 1270 and 1327.

Fig. 27: One-mode network of comparative figures of classical or biblical origin used in Byzantine

imperial panegyrics between 1204 and 1328; the network in time: the increase in the number of links.

Fig. 28: One-mode network of comparative figures of classical or biblical origin used in Byzantine

imperial panegyrics between 1204 and 1328; the network in time: the increase in the number of nodes.

Fig. 29: One-mode network of comparative figures of classical or biblical origin used in Byzantine

imperial panegyrics between 1204 and 1328; the network in time: the relative degree centrality of the

figures of John the Baptist (red), the Apostle Paul (blue), Zorobabel (green) and Constantine the Great

(black).