83

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 retained the right 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 the first part, the paper examines the sources available. It initially deals with the Chronicle of the Tocco, an opus written in honor of Carlo, which was the most detailed source, but not the most objective, nor the most trustworthy. The relevant excerpt of the Chronicle has been translated and commented, showing a number of logical and chronological incoherencies, thus leading the careful reader to be wary. The second source is the Chronicle of Ioannina, which provides fewer than sparse details but nevertheless supplies us with three vital pieces of information, namely the date of Esau’s death, on the February 6, the date of the exile of Eudocia and George, on February 26, and finally the date that Carlo Tocco entered the city, on April 1. 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 expelling 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 behind the revolution, questioning on the one hand the version of the Chronicle, according to which Eudocia was expelled because of her tyrannical personality, and on the other hand the version of modern historians, according to whom ethnic criteria—assuming the Greek people of Ioannina preferred the Italians (such as Carlo) to the Serbians (such as Eudocia)—could be applied to this specific case. The actual reasons were probably strategic ones: while Eudocia, originating from the then declining Lordship of Valona in present-day 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 city elite as more capable of defending it. Nevertheless, these reasons could not officially justify a coup that contravened the principle of hereditary succession. Carlo Tocco and his partisans therefore constituted a more or less underground network that facilitated the change of regime. Carlo maintained a double discourse, sending a messenger in order to officially support the independence of Ioannina from the Albanians, and secretly having talks with the archons about a possible change of ruler. The archons themselves also engaged in 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 expelled 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 good character of Carlo and the evil nature 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 favorably 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 brought about in two phases: first during the events by concealing the conspiring network and its final objective of installing the count of Cephalonia on the throne, and then after the events through the writing of 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 political life and networks in Epirus at that time, thus shedding light upon some similar events in the cities of Arta and Ioannina during the late fourteenth and early fifteenth 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 epilog, 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 lives in exile, never coming back to Ioannina.