|
Jack Roskilly
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France;
jackroskilly2@gmail.com
Reconstituer le réseau d’un évêque :
Michel Chôniatès, métropolite d’Athènes (1182-1205). Sources et problèmes
L’analyse réseau demeure un paradigme relativement nouveau dans les études byzantines. Il
est surtout utilisé depuis l’étude pionnière de M. Mullet sur le réseau de Théophylacte de Bulgarie
et a contribué à renouveler l’intérêt de l’étude des lettres byzantines dans une perspective d’histoire
sociale. Plusieurs corpus ont ainsi été étudiés mais certains, bien que conséquents, n’ont pas
fait l’objet d’une analyse réseau détaillée. C’est le cas des textes du métropolite d’Athènes Michel
Chôniatès, dont la quantité en fait un corpus satisfaisant pour mener une telle étude.
Nous proposons une reconstitution du réseau relationnel du métropolite à partir de l’étude de
ses lettres et discours. Cela nous amène à nous interroger d’abord sur les conditions de reconstitution,
les intérêts d’une telle analyse, mais aussi sur les limites que présentent les sources. Notre objectif
consiste en une présentation générale de ce réseau par la prise en compte des principales
données statistiques d’analyse réseau, des types de relations nouées entre Michel Chôniatès et ses
contemporains et de l’évolution diachronique du réseau au cours de son épiscopat.
Michel Chôniatès a vécu une période de basculement de l’Empire byzantin qui se conclut par
la prise de Constantinople par les Croisés en 1204. Il est donc particulièrement propice d’étudier son
réseau et son évolution, voire de le comparer à d’autres réseaux plus anciens ou plus récents. Pour
comprendre les dynamiques de changement à Byzance, l’application d’un paradigme encore neuf
paraît tout à fait approprié.
540
Angelina Volkoff
Lomonosov Moscow State University, History Department, Moscow, Russian Federation;
angelinavolkoff@gmail.com
The Figure of Alexios III Angelos Komnenos in History and Historiography.
A Reassessment
The figure of emperor Alexios III Angelos Komennos (1195-1203) has been defined in history
and historiography by his seemingly shaky and ultimately disastrous reign leading up to the capture
of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in April 1204. Even more detrimental to his reputation
was his dismal and scheming attempts to return to the throne in the following years. The main
source for his reign, the History of Niketas Choniates, in many ways determined his historical
image. Although the work of Choniates is a notoriously biased source, it is difficult to argue against
the idea that emperor Alexios III was far from a competent ruler. Nonetheless, this paper aims
to substantiate the reasons why the reign of this emperor should be revisited and his figure re-
evaluated with the aim of nuancing the existing historical perception.
Alexios Angelos Komnenos had led an eventful life: starting with his participation in the
unsuccessful conspiracy against Andronikos I Komnenos (1183-1185), to his exile in the court of
Salah ad-Din, to becoming the sebastrokrator of his brother Isaac II (1185-1195). In dethroning
emperor Isaac, Alexios had been aided, if not instigated, by the most prominent Byzantine families.
His wife Euphrosyne crucially supported Alexios in reigning, being a competent manager and
bringing with her the invaluable backing of the Kamateros clan. The relations of the Byzantine
emperor with the Holy Roman emperor Henry VI and the pope Innocent III, though delicate,
were generally productive. The internal strains of the Empire and the faltering relations with some
allies cannot be considered solely Alexios III’s responsibility as he had obtained a state already well
advanced into a political crisis. Indeed, upon examination, it can be said that emperor Alexios was
not as inactive as Choniates had painted him to be, as he had undertaken a series of initiatives, albeit
little effective, to fortify the Byzantine state. Alexios III introduced new families into the imperial
circle, sought to stabilise the practical-bureaucratic functioning of the government and to secure
political loyalties. Although his military and economic policies were indecisive, he certainly did not
ignore these problematic spheres. Nor can it be said that he had had any real alternative to “quick
fixing”: considering the urgency of the issues it was impossible to organise longer-term solutions.
Furthermore, Alexios III actively worked on his public image. The changes in his name and patron
saint can be considered as a deliberate adjustment to the geopolitical situation occurring in the
Byzantine Empire, aiming to bolster the authority of the sovereign.
Consequently, although Alexios III had not been a particularly efficient ruler of the already ailing
Byzantine state, he cannot be said to have been unaware of the Empire’s critical situation nor inactive
in alleviating its problems. Some of his political decisions were inventive, though appearing against his
interest, and he was able to surround himself with talented allies. And, after all, the appearance of the
Fourth Crusade at the door of Constantinople was accompanied by a complicated and circumstantial
series of events over which Alexios III had little power of influence. This is why the reign of this emperor
should be re-examined, especially without the hindsight of the subsequent loss of the Byzantine capital
and Niketas Choniates’ bias. The rule of Alexios III is an interesting case of internal and external political
dynamics and like in no other period exposes the complexity of the Byzantine government system.
541
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
