Ekaterini Mitsiou

Theodore the Stoudite and the construction of a monastic network

0. Introduction
Modern scholarship recognises monks as one of the most powerful groups in
Byzantine society. However, in spite of the extensive number of articles and studies
on Byzantine monasticism, we lack a sufficient explanation for their power. Before
proceeding to a new explanatory model based on the figure of Theodore the Stoudite,
it would be instructive to present briefly some path-breaking contributions to the role
of monks in Byzantium.
In his article “The monk as element of Byzantine Society”, Peter Charanis has
argued that: “The monk was an omnipresent ingredient of Byzantine society. Nothing
short of a thorough overhauling of that society, a complete change in its constituents
could have altered his position. He furnished the Church with its bishops and
patriarchs…In Byzantium, the populace respected and admired the monk and
frequently turned to him in time of need. Emperors loved him, shared their table with
him, sought his blessing, and when on the point of launching some important
undertaking, often consulted them.”1 The view of Charanis on the role of monks and
monasteries in Byzantine society was however in its core negative, since behind the
expansion of the great monasteries and the great numbers of monks he saw a reason
for the downfall of the Byzantine Empire. Charanis covered a broad spectrum of
Byzantine monasticism both geographically and chronologically, with all the
advantages and disadvantages of generalisations.
On the other hand, Peter Brown in his well-known article on the Holy Man in
Late Antiquity marked in various ways our understanding of the function of monks in
Byzantine society.2 Firstly, under the term “Holy man”, which derives from socio-


The final version of this paper was written within the framework of the Wittgenstein-Prize Project
“Mobility, Microstructures and Personal Agency in Byzantium” (headed by Prof. Claudia Rapp,
Vienna: http://rapp.univie.ac.at/).
1
P. Charanis, The monk as element of Byzantine Society, DOP, 1971, 53-118, here 159-160 (=idem,
Social, Economic and Political Life in the Byzantine Empire, Variorum Reprints, London 1973, no. 1).
2
P. Brown, The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity, The Journal of Roman Studies,
1971, 80-101; P. Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early
Christianity, New York 2008.

1
anthropological approaches, foremostly the saint monk is to be understood. The
element of sanctity is of enormous importance for understanding also the social role
of a coenobitical monk (social form of monasticism) and of an ascetic (a-social form
of monasticism) in the Syrian monastic space. Brown has argued that the holy man is
a powerful man. In Late Antiquity, he is usually a solitary, not easily detectable in
later centuries.
However, in the Middle Byzantine Period what prevails is the coenobitical
form of monasticism with the presence and action of strong advocates such as
Theodore the Stoudite. Rosemary Morris in her book “Monks and laymen in
Byzantium” emphasised and developed further the social, economic and political role
of monks and monasteries in the period 843-1118. According to Morris, their
contribution was not minimal: healing and protecting, giving shelter, offering of
prophecies and political advice, defending the poor and the needy, but foremostly
defending the Orthodoxy.3
Without doubt, monastics’ power was not based simply on their spiritual
influence upon all other social groups but especially on their political involvement in
ecclesiastic and political controversies. This phenomenon, attested since the
Christological controversies of the first centuries AD, reached a peak during the
Iconoclastic period.4 Following the terminology of Max Weber, this marked also
somehow a “Veralltäglichung” (routinization) of the Charisma, which meant the
conformity to the normal “everyday demands” and to the economic “everyday
conditions”.5 People were ready to support this “routinization” via donations and
gifts, while monasticism used a very powerful tool through which they influenced the
masses: “superstition” in form of icon worship. Sociology sees monasteries as a “state
within the state” with its own communities, its own rules and way of life and its own

3
R. Morris, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium, 843-1118, Cambridge 1995, 90-119.
4
On Iconoclasm, see L. Brubaker-J. Haldon, Byzantium in the iconoclast era (c.680–850): the sources.
An annotated survey, Aldershot 2001 (hereafter: Brubaker-Haldon, Iconoclast era); L. Brubaker,
Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm, Studies in Early Medieval History, London 2012 (hereafter: Brubaker,
Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm); A. Bryer-J. Herrin (eds.), Iconoclasm: Papers given at the Ninth
Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies University of Birmingham March 1975, Birmingham 1977; J.
Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, second edition, New York
1983, 42-53 (hereafter: Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology).
5
D. Savramis, Zur Soziologie des byzantinischen Mönchtums, Leiden-Köln 1962.

2
economy. These aspects have been studied extensively, especially the financial ones,
since they were regarded as paramount for the developments in Byzantium.6
The way monastic groups acted in the Iconoclastic period remains of great
interest for modern scholars. At the same time, prominent in the current research is
the notion of innovation in Byzantine monasticism by Theodore, abbot of Stoudios
monastery.

1. Theodore the Stoudite and a monastic reform

Theodore the Stoudite7 was born in 759 and died on Prince Islands November
11, 826. His family was wealthy and had connections to other aristocratic families and
to the court. In 780, Theodore entered the monastery of Sakkoudion in Bithynia8
whose abbot was his uncle Plato. He became its abbot in 794, but in 795/796, he was
exiled to Thessaloniki due to his opposition to Emperor Constantine VI and his
second marriage (Moechian controversy). During the reign of Empress Irene,
Theodore returned to Sakkoudion; later, the empress offered to him and his monks the

6
K. Smyrlis, La fortune des grands monastères byzantins (fin du Xe–milieu du XIVe siècle), Collège de
France-CNRS, Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 21, Paris
2006.
7
The literature on Theodore the Stoudite is vast. Since this paper does not focus on his biography, here
we mention indicatively the following: R.-J. Lilie-Cl. Ludwig-Th. Pratsch-B. Zielke, et al.,
Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, nach Vorarbeiten F. Winkelmanns erstellt, Abteilung 1:
641-867, Abteilung 2: 867-1025, Berlin-Boston 1998-2013, #7574 (hereafter: PMBZ); Th. Pratsch,
Theodoros Studites (759-826)- zwischen Dogma und Pragma, Berliner Byzantinische Studien 4,
Frankfurt am Main 1998 (hereafter: Pratsch, Theodoros Studites); R. Cholij, Theodore the Stoudite. The
Ordering of Holiness, paperback edition, Oxford 2009 (hereafter: Cholij, Theodore the Stoudite);
Brubaker-Haldon, Iconoclast era, 257-258.
8
On Sakkoudion see R. Janin, Les Églises et les Monastères des Grands Centres Byzantins, Paris 1975,
177-181 (hereafter: Janin, Grands Centres); M.-F. Auzépy- O. Delouis-J.-P. Grélois-M. Kaplan, À
propos des monastères de Médikion et de Sakkoukiôn, REB, 2005, 183-194, here 187-194; K. Belke,
Heilige Berge Bithyniens, in: P. Soustal (ed.), Heilige Berge und Wüsten. Byzanz und sein Umfeld,
Vienna 2009, 15-24, here 16 and 20 (hereafter: Belke, Heilige Berge).

3
Monastery of Stoudios in Constantinople.9 The relatively peaceful years up to 809
were the most flourishing and creative for the Stoudite community. Later, two more
times (809, 815) Theodore was sent to exile during the following years up to his death
(d. 826).
Theodore the Stoudite is regarded as the major figure in a reform of Byzantine
monasticism, which took place in the late 790s in Byzantium.10 His contribution has
been the subject of many studies among others by I. Hausherr,11 J. Leroy,12 O.
Delouis13 and P. Hatlie.14 Roman Cholij reflecting the Stoudite sources argued that:
“Monasticism was in a true state of decadence and needed a return to its authentic
sources” adding that “Theodore conceived his reform as a simple return to the
original spirit of coenobitism, rather than as an updating and adaption of the
monastic institution as such.”15 Nevertheless, as Peter Hatlie has demonstrated, more
accurate would have been to speak of “a spirit of reform, emerging from within
monastic ranks.”16

9
R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l‘ empire byzantin, vol. 3: Les églises et les monastères de
Constantinople, Paris 21969, 430-40; C. Mango, The Date of the Studius Basilica at Istanbul, BMGS,
1978, 115-22; Th. Mathews, The early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy,
University Park, Pa., 1971, 19-27; Th. Mathews, The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic
Survey, University Park, Pa., 1976, 143-158; W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie
Istanbuls, Tübingen 1977, 147-152. On Empress Irene, see R.-J. Lilie, Byzanz unter Eirene und
Konstantin VI.: (780-802), Frankfurt am Main-Vienna 1996.
10
Ch. Frazee, St. Theodore of Stoudios and Ninth Century Monasticism in Constantinople, Studia
Monastica, 1981, 27-58; P. Henry, Theodore of Stoudios: Byzantine Churchman, Ph.D. diss., Yale
University 1968; Cholij, Theodore the Stoudite, 29ff; Brubaker, Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm, 78-
79; J. M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, Oxford 2010, 339-341, here 341:
“Stoudite Constitution”; Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 56-58.
11
I. Hausherr, S. Théodore Studite, l’homme et l’ascète (d’après ses catéchèses), OC, 1926, 1-87.
12
J. Leroy, La réforme studite, OCA, 1958, 181-214 (=J. Leroy- O. Delouis, Études sur le monachisme
byzantin, Bégrolles-en-Mauges 2007, no. 7, 155-192).
13
O. Delouis, Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Stoudios à Constantinople: la contribution d'un monastère à
l'histoire de l'Empire byzantin (v. 454-1204) Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris 2005, 83-123
(hereafter: Delouis, Stoudios).
14
P. Hatlie, The Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople ca. 350–850, Cambridge 2007 (hereafter:
Hatlie, Monks and Monasteries).
15
Cholij, Theodore the Stoudite, 30.
16
Hatlie, Monks and monasteries, 312.

4
 To Theodore the Stoudite is also attached the notion of the Stoudios
congregation, according to which between its members existed economic and
administrative ties and an adoption of common standards of discipline and the
expectation of moral solidarity.17 It included many monasteries (Symbola,
Sakkoudion, Stoudios, ta Tripyliana, St. Christophoros, ta Kathara, St. Tryphon, kata
Sabba, St. George), as well as metochia.18
The terms “congregation” or “federation”19 have been used for monastic
communities of the Early Christianity such as the Pachomian. The idea of a
congregation is prominent in the work of Thomas Pratsch who apart from the Stoudite
one has identified also the congregation of Stephan the Younger and of Peter of
Atroa.20 However, the terms congregation or federation do not describe adequately the
achievement of Theodore the Stoudite on a monastic and (political) level.
Furthermore, the Stoudite does not use any term, which we could understand as
federation. Not even the terms adelphotes or tagma have this meaning in his works.21
Finally, Hatlie used correctly the term network for the circle and connections of the
Stoudite. More specifically, he speaks about the importance of family, spiritual
relationships, friendships and guardianships in the monastic social relations, tracing
important persons in creating a tight bond of connections.22

2. The network of Theodore the Stoudite: a first study

17
Hatlie, Monks and monasteries, 322.
18
On the monasteries in Bithynia see M.-F. Auzépy, Les monastères, in: B. Geyer-J. Lefort (eds.), La
Bithynie au Moyen Âge, Réalités Byzantines 9, Paris 2003, 431-458, here 453; Belke, Heilige Berge,
20; Janin, Grands Centres, 181-183 (Symbola), 187-188 (Tripyliana), 158-160 (Kathara), 179-181
(Christophoros), 55-56 (St Tryphon in Cap Akritas); Delouis, Stoudios, 207-218; Pratsch, Theodoros
Stoudites, 130, n. 90 (kata Sabba).
19
Delouis, Stoudios, 201-219 (fédération stoudite) and 225-229; Pratsch, Theodoros Studites, 123-134
(studitische Kongregation) and Th. Pratsch, Mönchsorden in Byzanz? – Zur Entstehung und
Entwicklung monastischer Verbände in Byzanz (8.–10. Jh.), Millennium, 2007, 261-277, especially
263-271 (hereafter: Pratsch, Mönchsorden).
20
Pratsch, Theodoros Studites, 123-134; Pratsch, Mönchsorden, 263-271.
21
Delouis, Stoudios, 203-229.
22
Hatlie, Monks and Monasteries, 289-307.

5
 Karlin Hayter described Theodore as a “byzantine politician in a monk’s
gown”.23 It is a generalisation, which we must reassert or at least test on the face of an
entire society and a political system in turmoil. Certainly, due to an extraordinary
talent he was able to create a network, which gave him and the Stoudios monastery
power during his lifetime.
In order to study the Stoudite network, we have turned to new tools, which
allow this type of analysis for historical data. One such tool is Social Network
Analysis (SNA), which has been used for the reconstruction of various networks of
Byzantium: economic, aristocratic, networks of kinship etc.24 Its major advantages
encompass the reconstruction of social entanglements, the detection of structural
holes and explanations for the importance specific nodes have in a social network.
Before continuing, it would be instructive to explain the meaning of a social
network within the framework of social network analysis.
According to Stanley Wassermann and Katherine Faust: “A social network
consists of a finite set or sets of actors and the relation or relations defined on them.
The presence of relational information is a critical and defining feature of a social
network”.25 The social network analysis is based on an assumption of the importance
of relationships among interacting units. The social network perspective encompasses
theories, models, and applications that are expressed in terms of relational concepts or
processes.26 That is, relations defined by linkages among units are a fundamental
component of network theories…The central principles besides the relational
concepts are the following:

23
P. Karlin-Hayter, A Byzantine politician monk, St Theodore Studite, JÖB, 1994, 217-232.
24
E. Mitsiou–J. Preiser-Kapeller, 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, Byz. Symm., 2010, 245-308; 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, 91-104; Ek. Mitsiou, Die Netzwerke einer kulturellen Begegnung: byzantinische
und lateinische Klöster in Konstantinopel im 13. und 14. Jh., in: L. Lieb-Kl. Oschema- J. Heil (eds.),
Abrahams Erbe: Konkurrenz, Konflikt und Koexistenz der Religionen im europäischen Mittelalter, Das
Mittelalter. Perspektiven mediävistischer Forschung. Beihefte, Berlin-Munich-Boston 2015, 359-374.
25
S. Wasserman-K. Faust, Social network analysis: Methods and applications, New York 1994 (17th
reprint 2008), 20 (hereafter: Wasserman-Faust, Social network analysis).
26
Cf. also the contribution of J. Preiser-Kapeller to this volume.

6
  Actors and their actions are viewed as interdependent rather than
independent, autonomous units
 Relational ties (linkages) between actors are channels for transfer or “flow”
of resources (either material or nonmaterial)
 Network models focusing on individuals view the network structural
environment as providing opportunities for or constraints on individual action
 Network models conceptualise structure (social, economic, political, and so
forth) as lasting patterns of relations among actors.27

Sufficient data is essential for Network Analysis. Information on the network

of Theodore the Stoudite offer his own works and other contemporary sources.28 His
literary production still generates many questions, partly due to its length and its
complexity and partly due to the lack of critical editions. For the purpose of this paper
we have selected his correspondence and more accurately the 564 surviving letters
(557 and 7 titles) recently published in a critical edition by George Fatouros; however,
we have excluded three –probably non-authentic– letters (nos. 557-559).29 The letter
corpus covers the period between 797 and 826. Over half of his letters is now lost
judging from references in the existing epistles, in various notices in the corpus of
letters and of later testimonies.

27
Wasserman-Faust, Social network analysis, 4.
28
On the works of Theodore the Stoudite exists abundant bibliography. We mention indicatively only
the following: G. Fatouros, Theodori Studitae Epistulae, CFHB 31/1-2, Berlin-New York 1992, 21*-
38* (hereafter: Theodore the Stoudite, Epistulae); PmBZ, Prolegoma I (641-867), 75-76; Pratsch,
Theodoros Studites, 7-16; D. Krausmüller, The Vitae B, C and A of Theodore the Stoudite: their
Interrelation, Dates, Authors and Significance for the History of the Stoudios Monastery in the Tenth
Century, AB, 2013, 280-298; J. Leroy-O. Delouis, Études sur les Grandes Catéchèses de S. Theodore
Studite, Città del Vaticano 2008; O. Delouis, La Vie métrique de Théodore Stoudite par Stéphane
Mélès (BHG 1755m), AB 2014, 21-54; O. Delouis, Le Testament de Théodore Stoudite est-il de
Théodore ?, REB, 2008, 173-190; O. Delouis, Le Testament de Théodore Stoudite: édition critique et
traduction, REB, 2009, 77-109.
29
Fatouros, Prolegomena, 141*-496*, in: Theodore the Stoudite, Epistulae; J. Gill, An Unpublished
Letter of St Theodore the Studite, OCP, 1968, 62-69; P. O’Connel, The Letters and Catecheses of St
Theodore Studites, OCP, 1972, 256-259; St. Efthymiadis, Notes on the correspondence of Theodore
the Studite, REB, 1995, 141-164, especially 153-155; P. Yannopoulos, Les destinataires de la lettre
„aux moniales“ de Theodore Stoudite, BZ, 2004, 819-822.

7
 Modern scholars have already realised the historical value of the letters and
their usefulness for statistical purposes.30 Moreover, they have detected the prominent
female presence (nuns and laywomen) among the recipients of Stoudites’ letters.31
Finally, M. Mullett and J. Preiser-Kapeller have demonstrated in their studies how
Network Analysis can help us study letter collections in Byzantium.32
The correspondence of Theodore Stoudites, this “closed” material, represents
actually his ego-network. An ego-network or “ego-centered network consists of a
focal actor, termed ego, and a set of alters who have ties to ego, and measurements on
the ties among these alters.” 33
In the present study, we have made a distinction
between two node classes (a set of nodes of one type): individuals and groups of
people depicted in different colours. For the reconstruction of the Stoudite network on

30
P. Hatlie, Abbot Theodore and the Stoudites: A case study in Monastic Social Groupings and
Religious Conflict in Constantinople (787-815), Ph. D. Diss., Fordham University 1993, Appendix I
(inaccessible to me); A. Dobroklonskii, Prepodobnii. Feodor‘, Ispovednik’i Igumen‘ Studiskii, vol. 1,
Odessa 1914, 52-528, esp. 146-148, 218-220; M. Mullett, Writing in Early Medieval Byzantium, in: R.
McKitterick (ed.), The uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe, Cambridge 1990, 156-185, here
172-173; M. Mullett, The detection of Relationship in Middle Byzantine Literary texts: the case of
letters and letter-networks, in: W. Hörandner-M. Grünbart (eds), L’épistolographie et la poésie
épigrammatique: projets actuels et questions de méthodologie, Paris 2003, 63-74.
31
A.-M. Talbot-A. Kazhdan, Women and Iconoclasm, BZ, 1991/92, 391-408; P. Hatlie, Women of
discipline during the second Iconoclast Age, BZ, 1996, 37-44; cf. A. Riehle, Theodore the Stoudite and
his Letters to Eirene the Patrician: An Introductory Essay, The Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 21,
2015, 154-161 and A. Adashinskaya-K. Gara-N. Gaul, et alii, English Translation of the Letters of
Theodore the Stoudite to Eirene the Patrician, The Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU, 2015, 162-176;
A. Riehle, Authorship and gender (and) identity. Women’s writing in the middle Byzantine period, in:
A. Pizzone (ed.), The Author in Middle Byzantine Literature: modes, functions, and identities, Berlin-
Boston 2014, 245-262.
32
M. Mullett, Theophylact of Ochrid: reading the letters of a Byzantine archbishop, Birmingham
Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 2, Aldershot 1997; 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 (forthcoming); A. M. Schor, Theodoret's people: social
networks and religious conflict in late Roman Syria, Berkeley 2011. Cicero’s letters have also analysed
as a network, s. M. C. Alexander-J. A. Danowski, Analysis of an ancient network: Personal
communication and the study of social structure in a past society, Social Networks 12, 1990, 313-335.
33
Wasserman-Faust, Social network analysis, 42. On ego-networks, see N. Crossley-E. Bellotti-G.
Edwards, Social Network Analysis for Ego-Nets, London-Thousand Oaks (California)-New Delhi-
Singapore 2015.

8
the base of his correspondence, we took into consideration all persons and groups
attested in the epistles (fig. 1). We approached at first the network model on the base
of qualitative elements, which in the network analysis denote specific attributes given
to the nodes. In this case, we divided the nodes in solid and unstable followers of
Theodore the Stoudite (fig. 2). We can identify a significant number of unstable
members, especially among the Stoudite monks (in green colour), who however did
not put in danger the coherence of the entire network.
At a second stage, we turned to a quantitative analysis of the ego-network of
Theodore the Stoudite in order to measure the importance of specific nodes for its
coherence. One of the most important structural measures is betweenness.
Betweenness is the extent to which a node lies between other nodes in the network.
This measure takes into account the connectivity of the node's neighbours, giving a
higher value for nodes, which bridge clusters. The measure reflects the number of
people whom a person is connecting indirectly through their direct links. A high
betweenness-degree indicates a potentially important node for bridging clusters
otherwise not connected. “Betweenness centralisation” furthermore indicates how
strong this possibility of connecting people is limited to a certain number of nodes. In
Stoudites’ case, the highest betweenness values apart from the focal actor hold
Naukratios, Joseph of Thessaloniki and other members of the Stoudite community
(fig. 3).
Another interesting approach to an ego-network is to probe its coherence
through the removal of the main node. When we remove Theodore the Stoudite, then
the entire network is divided in various components with the biggest one to be
visualised in fig. 4. It becomes clear that a considerable part of Theodore´s ego
network could still have functioned even without the presence of its central node;
however at a reduced scale. Some measures we have determined strengthen this
observation. Regarding the betweenness centrality, we see that nodes remain at the
highest positions even in this fragment. In this component, however, especially high is
the betweenness of the nun Anna, recipient of three letters (fig. 5) who in the entire
(unfragmented) network plays a smaller role.
Another important measure of SNA is “degree”, which indicates whether some
agents are significantly more strongly connected than other ones. In the network of
the biggest component, the highest degree measures hold well-known Stoudites, i.e.

9
Naukratios (recipient of 54 letters), Joseph of Thessaloniki (brother of Theodore), as
well as the Stoudite monks Dorotheos and Euodios34 (fig. 6).
Before closing this paper, I would like to emphasise that if Theodore the
Stoudite was one major figure of its time, this was not only based on constructing a
network but also on keeping it together. A tool for his accomplishment was a constant
letter exchange, a part of which we are lucky to have at our disposal. In an excellent
study, Paris Gounaridis analysed the cryptographic system used in the letter exchange
of the Stoudites.35 Each of the 24 letters of the alphabet represents an entrusted
member of the Stoudites whereas three numbers represent the ἀθετήσαντα μέλη, the
patriarch and the emperor. A well-structured hierarchy existed in order to diffuse the
information from the central actor (Theodore the Stoudite) to the entire
“congregation”. Gounaridis argues correctly that this encrypted communication
established the hierarchy as a communication network where “the leader signalises a
fight, his responders were the transporters and the subgroups are those who are
nourished with the ideological messages.” That means that Theodore the Stoudite
through this system was able to impose discipline upon the members of his
community and to keep it under his control.

Conclusions
Based only on Theodore’s letters we were able to demonstrate that his ability
to exert considerable influence on the ecclesiastical and social life of Byzantium
depended on his embedding in a dense network of individuals and groups, which he
could mobilise for his attempts to counter the iconoclastic politics of emperors as well
as to diffuse and defend his ideas. At the same time, this relational framework
constituted the basis for his position and identity as central figure of monasticism and
ecclesiastical life -also well after his death- when this network formed the
infrastructure for the emergence, establishment and diffusion of his status as figure of
sanctity.

34
Dorotheos was recipient of four letters, while he was connected to other Stoudites, see: Theodore the
Stoudite, Epistulae, nos. 124, 188, 239, 531. Euodios was the recipient of four letters and he is being
mentioned in various others, see Theodore the Stoudite, Epistulae, nos. 238, 254, 310, 367.
35
P. Gounaridis, Ο κώδικας συνεννόησης του Θεοδώρου Στουδίτη, in: N. G. Moschonas (ed.), Η
επικοινωνία στο Βυζάντιο, Athens 1993, 291‐302.

10
 Legends to the figures

Fig. 1. The network of Theodore the Stoudite on the base of his letter corpus
Fig. 2. The unstable members (in green colour) in the network of Theodore the
Stoudite
Fig. 3. The network based on the highest betweenness centrality
Fig. 4. The biggest component of the network after removing Theodore the Stoudite
Fig. 5. The biggest component of the network and its betweenness centrality
Fig. 6. The “degree” measures in the network of the biggest component

Ekaterini Mitsiou, Faculty of Historical and Cultural Studies, Department of Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies, University of Vienna (Postgasse 7/1/3, A-1010 Vienna)
W: https://univie.academia.edu/EkateriniMitsiou
E: ekaterini.mitsiou@univie.ac.at

11