| Titre | La révolution de 1411 à Iôannina : comment interpréter la Chronique des Tocco ? | |
|---|---|---|
| Auteur | Brendan Osswald | |
 |
Revue | Revue historique |
| Numéro | no 685, 2018/1 | |
| Page | 23-58 | |
| Résumé |
La cité byzantine de Iôannina constitua de 1367 à 1430 un État indépendant gouverné par un souverain portant le titre de despote. La succession, théoriquement héréditaire, était en pratique élective. C'est ainsi qu'en 1411, peu après la mort du despote Esau Buondelmonti, son jeune fils Georges et sa veuve Eudocie Balšić furent proclamés respectivement despote et régente, avant d'être chassés au profit de Carlo Tocco, comte de Céphalonie et neveu d'Esau. Cette révolution s'explique par des raisons politiques et stratégiques : originaire de la seigneurie de Valona, alors en déclin, Eudocie ne bénéficiait ni de soutiens au sein de Iôannina contre ses ennemis politiques, ni d'alliés stratégiques contre les chefs albanais qui menaçaient la ville, tandis que Carlo, qui disposait de troupes puissantes et avait fait ses preuves en tant que chef de guerre, était considéré par l'élite de la ville comme mieux à même de la défendre. Or, ces raisons étaient officiellement inavouables, puisqu'elles contrevenaient au principe de succession héréditaire. L'article utilise les informations fournies par la Chronique des Tocco, ouvrage à la gloire du nouveau souverain, afin de déterminer les véritables raisons de la révolution, de mettre au jour le réseau plus ou moins clandestin qui permit le changement de régime et enfin de montrer en quoi cette source partisane ne se contente pas de raconter ce dernier mais cherche à le justifier, en évitant soigneusement de comparer les légitimités respectives de Georges et de Carlo, au profit d'un récit opposant les mérites de Carlo aux turpitudes de la régente Eudocie. Source : Éditeur (via Cairn.info) |
|
| Résumé anglais |
From 1367 to 1430 the Byzantine city of Ioannina was an independent State governed by a sovereign bearing the title of Despot. The succession was theoretically hereditary but in fact elective: the class of the archons, who constituted the political and social elite of the city, effectively detained the power to choose the ruler. Thus, in 1411, soon after the death of Despot Esau Buondelmonti, his young son George and his widow Eudocia Balšić were proclaimed respectively Despot and Regent, but were quickly expelled to the benefit of Carlo Tocco, count of Cephalonia and nephew of Esau.
In a first part, the paper examines the sources. At first, it deals with the Chronicle of the Tocco, an opus redacted to the glory of Carlo, which is the most detailed source, but not the most objective nor the most trustworthy. The relevant excerpt of the Chronicle is translated and commented, showing a number of logical and chronological incoherences, thus leading the careful reader to defiance. The second source is the Chronicle of Ioannina, which gives less than little details but nevertheless supplies us with three capital pieces of information, namely the date of Esau's death, on the 6th of February, the date of the exile of Eudocia and George, on the 26th of February, and finally the date of the entrance of Carlo Tocco in the city, on the 1st of April. The paper subsequently examines the succession of events as provided by the Chronicle, proposing to invert some of them in order to obtain a far more logical narrative. In any case, the rapidity of the chasing of Eudocia, which occurred only twenty days after the death of Esau, leads to the conclusion that it was not improvised nor spontaneous but organized by the ruling class of Ioannina as soon as Esau was dead, if not earlier. The paper tries to find out the reasons of the revolution, questioning on the one hand the version of the Chronicle, according to which Eudocia was chased because of her tyrannical personality, and on the other hand the version of modern historians, according to whom an ethnic grid of lecture, supposing the Greek people of Ioannina preferred the Italians like Carlo to the Serbians like Eudocia, could be applied to the specific case. The actual reasons were probably strategical: while Eudocia, originating from the then decaying Lordship of Valona, in nowadays Southern Albania, could not benefit from strategic allies against the Albanian lord of Arta who was threatening the city, Carlo had powerful troops at his disposal and had proved himself as a warlord, and therefore was considered by the elite of the city as more capable of defending it. Nevertheless, these reasons could not officially justify a coup which contravened the principle of hereditary succession. Carlo Tocco and his partisans therefore constituted a more or less underground network which allowed the change of regime. Carlo held a double discourse, sending a messenger officially in order to support the independence of Ioannina from the Albanians, secretly having talks with the archons about a possible change of ruler. The archons themselves held such a double discourse, since they officially supported George and Eudocia. As a result, the candidature of Carlo Tocco was never publicly announced to the people before the latter chased Eudocia. The paper then deals with the writing of the relevant passage of the Chronicle itself and shows how this biased source not only narrates the change of regime but moreover tries to legitimate it. Indeed, it carefully avoids comparing the respective legitimacies of George and Carlo, preferring a storytelling opposing the goods of Carlo and the evils of Regent Eudocia. The paper therefore studies some literary aspects of the text, specifically about the figures of speech and the sophisms used in an argumentative way in order to justify the revolution and the accession of Carlo Tocco. It also favourably examines the possibility that the anonymous messenger of Carlo Tocco was also the anonymous author of the narrative and that after being in charge of the underground aspects of the change of regime, he was also in charge of the storytelling. In its conclusion, the paper recalls that the legitimation of the coup was made in two times: first during the events by hiding the conspiring network and its final objective of installing the count of Cephalonia on the throne, then, after the events, by redacting a narrative defaming Eudocia Balšić and lauding Carlo Tocco. Then it underlines the fact that the relevant excerpt of the Chronicle gives us information not only about the specific events dealt with in this article, but also about the political ways and networks in Epirus at that time, thus putting some kind of light upon some similar events in the cities of Arta and Ioannina during the late 14th and early 15th centuries, showing that the ruling class were fully aware of the strategic evolutions and quickly reacted to them, that both persons and news were circulating rather quickly, and that, despite the political fragmentation of Epirus, members of the ruling class knew each other, communicated and concluded agreements according to the circumstances. Finally, as an epilogue, it evokes the fate of the main protagonists: Carlo Tocco successfully led the war against the Albanians and took Arta in 1416 and then ruled most of Epirus until his death in 1429, while Eudocia and George probably fled to Valona, and lived the rest of their life in exile, never coming back to Ioannina. Source : Éditeur (via Cairn.info) |
|
| Article en ligne | http://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_ARTICLE=RHIS_181_0023 |
