Discussion:
Maria or Anastasia, daughter/relative of Konstantinos Monomachos and moth...
(too old to reply)
W***@aol.com
2011-02-22 18:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In a message dated 2/21/2011 10:18:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
I suppose Anastasia
could be a religious name she adopted later. If her baptismal name was
Maria that would seem to preclude her mother being Maria Skleraina,
due to the Byzantine custom of not naming a child for one of its
parents.
The first problem is that this woman "given in marriage after a peace
treaty" "about 1046" is not "probably" a daughter of Konstantinos (d 1055), she
is only possibly his daughter. The possibility is certainly less than 50%.
Having a wife or mother who was a Byzantine princess is not likely to be
something forgotten so discarded from any note.

The second problem is that the wife of Konstantinos was named "Maria" is I
believe not attested in any credible source. That people later, have made
this name up and stuck it on her, is probably true.

W
Christopher Ingham
2011-02-22 20:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/21/2011 10:18:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
 I suppose Anastasia
could be a religious name she adopted later. If her baptismal name was
Maria that would seem to preclude her mother being Maria Skleraina,
due to the Byzantine custom of not naming a child for one of its
parents.
The first problem is that this woman "given in marriage after a peace
treaty" "about 1046" is not "probably" a daughter of Konstantinos (d 1055), she
is only possibly his daughter.  The possibility is certainly less than 50%.  
Having a wife or mother who was a Byzantine princess is not likely to be
something forgotten so discarded from any note.
The second problem is that the wife of Konstantinos was named "Maria" is I
believe not attested in any credible source.  That people later, have made
this name up and stuck it on her, is probably true.
That Vsevolod married a "close relative" of Constantine seems to be
beyond doubt, as that was one of the provisions of the peace
settlement (1046) of the Rus'-Byzantine War. D. Oblensky (_Byzantium
and the Slavs_, 1994, 140) says, "Peace was restored between Byzantium
and Russia, by the terms of which Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav of
Kiev, was to marry a close relative, probably the daughter, of the
Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus; the child of this marriage, the
future prince of Kiev Vladimir Monomakh, was born in 1053." He
provides the sources (which I have not seen) on which he bases these
statements in an endnote (163, n.153):
http://books.google.com/books?id=jv6jcwjW9WUC&pg=PA163

Sources (again, which I have not seen) cited in the Wikipedia article
on the Rus'-Byzantine War may provide more specifics on this matter:

George Vernadsky. "The Byzantine-Russian war of
1043."_Sudostforschungen_12. Munich., 1953, 47-67.

Andrzej Poppe. "La derniere expedition russe contre
Constantinople."_Byzantinoslavica_ 32.1 (1971): 1-29.

Брюсова В.Г. "Русско-византийские отношения середины XI века.
"_Вопросы истории_(1973), 3.51-62.

Christopher Ingham
W***@aol.com
2011-02-22 20:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In a message dated 2/22/2011 12:10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by Christopher Ingham
"Peace was restored between Byzantium
and Russia, by the terms of which Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav of
Kiev, was to marry a close relative, probably the daughter, of the
Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus; the child of this marriage, the
future prince of Kiev Vladimir Monomakh, was born in 1053."
The problem here, is not that some modern writer states "probably the
daughter", the problem is that no ancient authority said this.

And the silence on the further connection is immense. If a woman really
had this sort of close tie to Byzantium, I for one, would expect it to be
trumpeted, not ignored.
Christopher Ingham
2011-02-22 21:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/22/2011 12:10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by Christopher Ingham
"Peace was restored between Byzantium
and Russia, by the terms of which Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav of
Kiev, was to marry a close relative, probably the daughter, of the
Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus; the child of this marriage, the
future prince of Kiev Vladimir Monomakh, was born in 1053."
The problem here, is not that some modern writer states "probably the
daughter", the problem is that no ancient authority said this.
And the silence on the further connection is immense.  If a woman really
had this sort of close tie to Byzantium, I for one, would expect it to be
trumpeted, not ignored.
Well, it's more than one modern authority who states this, but the
fact that the earliest attestation is a seventeenth-century source is
problematic. The name of Vsevolod' son, "Vladimir Monomakh," would
seem to strongly imply that the connection to the Byzantine throne was
indeed very "close," although admittedly she might have been a niece
or something similar.

And who was supposed to be "trumpeting" this marriage, the press
corps? What percentage of the marriages of daughters of any one
monarch in this era are not even chronicled, much less trumpeted,
especially when they involve betrothal to someone in a peripheral (=
semi-civilized) region? Besides, the wife of Vsevolod, if she were the
daughter of Constantine, would have been probably by a first marriage;
and he was in his third marriage, IIRC, when he ascended the throne.

Christopher Ingham
W***@aol.com
2011-02-22 21:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In a message dated 2/22/2011 1:11:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by Christopher Ingham
And who was supposed to be "trumpeting" this marriage, the press
corps? What percentage of the marriages of daughters of any one
monarch in this era are not even chronicled, much less trumpeted,
especially when they involve betrothal to someone in a peripheral (=
semi-civilized) region? Besides, the wife of Vsevolod, if she were the
daughter of Constantine, would have been probably by a first marriage;
and he was in his third marriage, IIRC, when he ascended the throne.
Um you have it upside down.
There's Byzantium, and then there's Kiev.

That this connection is not even mentioned so directly until six hundred
years later is a pretty big red flag.
Christopher Ingham
2011-02-22 21:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/22/2011 1:11:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by Christopher Ingham
And who was supposed to be "trumpeting" this marriage, the press
corps? What percentage of the marriages of daughters of any one
monarch in this era are not even chronicled, much less trumpeted,
especially when they involve betrothal to someone in a peripheral (=
semi-civilized) region? Besides, the wife of Vsevolod, if she were the
daughter of Constantine, would have been probably by a first marriage;
and he was in his third marriage, IIRC, when he ascended the throne.
Um you have it upside down.
There's Byzantium, and then there's Kiev.
That this connection is not even mentioned so directly until six hundred
years later is a pretty big red flag.
Assuming that a greater than 50% possibilty is your criterion for
something to be probable, I would put this in the probable category,
given the points I just raised, and considering the considered
opinions of scholars who are more knowledgeable than you or me on
this particular topic. Regardless, establishing that something is
probable rather than just possible is insufficient for genealogical
purposes (for most genealogical historians, that is).

Christopher Ingham
W***@aol.com
2011-02-23 00:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In a message dated 2/22/2011 2:00:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by Christopher Ingham
Assuming that a greater than 50% possibilty is your criterion for
something to be probable, I would put this in the probable category,
given the points I just raised, and considering the considered
opinions of scholars who are more knowledgeable than you or me on
this particular topic. Regardless, establishing that something is
probable rather than just possible is insufficient for genealogical
purposes (for most genealogical historians, that is).
Um... what?
They call your paragraph above, the dance of vacuity I think.

As for me, I don't trust any authorities especially those who claim a
representation which no ancient authority even *mentions*, let alone claims.
You do.

That's why you're a Catholic :)
That's a joke.
N***@yahoo.com
2011-02-23 05:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In all fairness, however, who was there for Vladimir Monomakh to
trumpet his connections to? Konstantinos IX died when Vladimir was a
toddler, having failed to establish a dynasty, and the subsequent
Byzantine emperors were no kin to him. It's not like he had an
imperial cousin ruling Constantinople to try to call in favors from.
*If* his mother was Konstantinos' daughter, she was born to a first
wife who was a relative nobody, so obscure that we don't know her name
or her family.

As Mr. Ingham points out, we're still not sure of the identities of
all the imperial daughters and nieces of even later and better sourced
emperors. How many Komnenoi princesses are accounted for and we know
who fathered them and mothered them without any doubt or controversy?
It's not as if chroniclers kept a careful account of each and every
Byzantine princess except for this one.

Additionally, we know that Vladimir Monomakh's 'Christian', or
baptismal name was Vasili (from his own account, in the 'Pouchenie':
'I, wretched man that I am, named Vasili at my baptism by my pious and
glorious grandsire Iaroslav, but commonly known by my Russian name
Vladimir, and surnamed Monomakh by my beloved father and mother...').
Vasili is derived from basileios, the Greek word for king or emperor,
possibly in tribute to Konstantinos IX himself.

I personally think it's likely that Maria/Anastasia was Konstantinos
IX's daughter, but she could've been a niece or a cousin. We don't
know for sure yet.

As for Maria Skleraina, isn't she named in the vita of St. Lazaros of
Mt. Galesion? She was a benefactor of Lazaros and donated 720
nomismata to build the church of Pausolype. The monastery at Bessai
was constructed on land granted by Konstantinos IX for the
rememberance of himself and Maria Skleraina.
Christopher Ingham
2011-02-23 19:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/22/2011 2:00:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by Christopher Ingham
Assuming that a greater than 50% possibilty is your criterion for
something to be probable, I would put this in the probable category,
given the points I just raised, and considering the considered
opinions of scholars who are more knowledgeable than you or  me on
this particular topic. Regardless, establishing that something is
probable rather than just possible is insufficient for genealogical
purposes (for most genealogical historians, that is).
Um... what?
They call your paragraph above, the dance of vacuity I think.
Well, I was just trying to dance out of this dialogue with as neutral
a remark as I could make, given that, were there a useful distinction
to be made between “probable” and “possible,” as as you seemed to be
intimating in your OP, having established such a distinction would
still not help to make a substantive advance in what we can infer
about Vsevolod’s wife. Still, you keep insisting on having the last
word.
Post by W***@aol.com
As for me, I don't trust any authorities especially those who claim a
representation which no ancient authority even *mentions*, let alone claims.
You do.
Deferring to the authorities should be the normal course one follows,
unless one is an authority himself who has a divergent opinion. This
is more emphatically so when there is something approaching a
consensus among authorities. Their considered opinions can be proven
wrong, of course, which then of course results in adjustments of
opinions.

Trying to divine your idiosyncratic understanding of a whole slew of
basic words can be problematic in trying to maintain an intersecting
dialogue. By convention, an “ancient authority” is a source predating
ca. A.D. 500. So here I presume you mean “medieval” authority (or
source?), although maybe you really mean “High Medieval” (i.e.,
earlier than Late Medieval); certainly not Early Modern?

The eleventh century (High Medieval)_Rus’ Primary Chronicle_(_Povest’
vremennykh let_) employs the term “by the Greek Princess” (_ot
tsaritsě gr’ kÿne_). This and the “trumpeting” of the sobriquet
“Monomakh” by Vsevolod’s son Vladimir are the primary bases for the
assumptions of modern authorities that Vsevolod’s wife was probably a
daughter of the emperor, who as authorities presumably have also
considered other factors which we non-authorities are unaware of. So
you needn’t remind us that the earliest source that explicitly states
this is from the seventeenth century (Early Modern, not ancient).:-)

In the six quotations below modern authorities opine that Vsevolod’s
daughter either “was” (3), “almost certainly was” (1), or “probably
was” (2) the daughter of Constantine IX. On this basis, I have to
provisionally accept the high probability.

“The marriage itself was between Yaroslav’s son Vsevolod and an
unnamed daughter of the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomachus.”
-- Colin Wells,_Sailing from Byzantium_(New York: Delacorte, 2006),
244.

“Vladimir Monomakh was the son of Prince Vsevolod and of a Byzantine
princess, who was almost certainly the daughter of the Byzantine
Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus” -- D. Obolensky, “Early Russian
literature, 1000-1300,” in_An introduction to Russian language and
literature_, ed. R. Auty and D. Obolensky (New York_ Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1977), 72.

“Defeated by the Greeks, the Rus’ retreated, and the confrontation
ended with a younger son of Yaroslav marrying a Byzantine princess,
probably the daughter of Constantine IX Monomachus. A son, Vladimir,
born of this marriage and surnamed_Monomakh_, will play an eminent
political role in Kiev and, eventually, become a symbol of Byzantine
imperial inheritance in Russia.” -- J. Meyendorff, _Byzantium and the
rise of Russia_(New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981), 6.

"Peace was restored between Byzantium and Russia, by the terms of
which Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav of Kiev, was to marry a close
relative, probably the daughter, of the Emperor Constantine IX
Monomachus; the child of this marriage, the future prince of Kiev
Vladimir Monomakh, was born in 1053." -- D. Obolensky,_Byzantium and
the Slavs_(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994), 140
(see also endnote, 163 n.153).

“The Byzantine emperor Constantine IX did marry his daughter to one
of Grand Prince Yaroslav’s sons, Vsevolod, in 1046, probably hoping to
guarantee peace with Rus’; their child, Vladimir, eventually took the
Kievan throne and proudly used his mother’s family name, Monomach, as
his sobriquet.” -- G. Majeska, “Rus’ and the Byzantine empire,” in_A
companion to Russian studies_, ed. A. Gleason (Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2007), 58.

“In 1043, a fleet arrived to attack Constantinople, but after it was
defeated and burned by the Byzantine navy, Yaroslav I gratefully
accepted the illegitimate daughter of Constantine IX Monomakhos for
his son Vsevolod, the future prince of Kiev.” – E. N. Luttwak,_The
grand strategy of the Byzantine empire_(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Press, 2009), 219.
Post by W***@aol.com
[repeating:] As for me, I don't trust any authorities especially those who claim a
representation which no ancient authority even *mentions*, let alone claims.
You do.
That's why you're a Catholic :)
You have no idea what I am. In this regard are you suggesting that
Protestants and Orthodox Christians are different? And if perchance
you’re referring to the historical Jesus, there are a number of
“mentions” of him in the authentically “ancient” extra-biblical
sources.
Christopher Ingham
Post by W***@aol.com
That's a joke.
W***@aol.com
2011-02-23 06:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We do know, that there was a person writing, at the time, and in the court
of Konstantine, who did not mention any children at all.

It's fine to say something is *possible* it's quite another creature to say
it's probable.

It's actually not probable. That's the point.
All the hand waving in the world, can't turn a possibility into a
probability just on the point that's its possible. That's just nonsense.
Christopher Ingham
2011-02-23 19:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W***@aol.com
We do know, that there was a person writing, at the time, and in the court
of Konstantine, who did not mention any children at all.
It's fine to say something is *possible* it's quite another creature to say
it's probable.
It's actually not probable.  That's the point.
All the hand waving in the world, can't turn a possibility into a
probability just on the point that's its possible.  That's just nonsense.
But it seems you’re doing the handwaving here. As I just demonstrated,
a preponderance of medieval historians consider the word “princess” in
a contemporary Russian chronicle and the conspicuous advertising of
the Monomachus name by Vsevolod’s descendants to to be salient enough
factors to conclude that there is a significant probablity. I guess
I’ll just regard that because they have inexplicably ignored Will’s
“rule” that something must be mentioned by Psellus in order for it to
have existed or occurred in the mid-eleventh-century Byzantine court.

Chris Ingham
W***@aol.com
2011-02-23 19:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Defer to an authority?
What? What newsgroup are you a member of that you would suggest that we
should defer to anyone whatsoever?

This is so utterly at odds with everything I believe it's hard to even
respond evenly.

I defer to no one. No one. No one at all. Jesus himself could appear and
tell me I'm wrong, and I would say "How do you know?"

Now that we moved on from that point, let's address an actual authority,
instead of these "I just happened to have this book lying around" fake
Wikipoopian "authorities" who are not so.

John Julius Norwich who wrote the definitive history of Byzantium, thinks
this arrangement was of such little account, that he doesn't even mention it.
That's pretty startling, considering what dynastic meaning could be read
into the Emperor's joining his "daughter" to Rus.

I find the complete lack in Psellus, an "ancient" (I don't care about your
definition mister piggie toes) authority to be startling. Alarming. And
definitive.

It's clear to me, that the Byzantine's did not see this link as anything at
all.

I don't care what five thousand authors in the last hundred years thought
or didn't think about it. By the way, the Monomachus family was an ancient
one, there is no need for a "Princess" or whatever the russians thought she
was (which apparently no one else did) to be a daughter at all. She could be
a sisters daughter or even a first cousin or similar. I'm sure he wasn't
the first Emperor to marry off the extras in his court to satisfy a barbarian
warlord.

W
W***@aol.com
2011-02-23 21:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In a message dated 2/23/2011 12:20:07 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by Christopher Ingham
But it seems you’re doing the handwaving here. As I just demonstrated,
a preponderance of medieval historians consider the word “princess” in
a contemporary Russian chronicle and the conspicuous advertising of
the Monomachus name by Vsevolod’s descendants to to be salient enough
factors to conclude that there is a significant probablity. I guess
I’ll just regard that because they have inexplicably ignored Will’s
“rule” that something must be mentioned by Psellus in order for it to
have existed or occurred in the mid-eleventh-century Byzantine court.
No it's you.
You demonstrated that a few picked modern people who claim to be, or who
someone has claimed to be "medieval historians" (of which fact we are not
cognizant), consider, without regard to a word "Princess" or "kinswoman", that
this woman, which is not referred to in any "contemporary" Russian chronicle
at all, was a daughter of the Emperor.

That's hardly probative is it? Monomachus as I've said, applies to many
people, as the family was ancient. That the Emperor might have had a niece or
cousin who also was of this family is hardly a surprise, he probably had
many such. What does "a significant probability" even mean, by the way?

I never made a "rule" that something had to be mentioned by Psellus. That
a particular connection is not mentioned, by a Byzantine source... at all.
Any source... whatsoever, ever.. zero. Is pretty significant to my mind.
That a Rus source might create a higher significance than an event actually
deserved is eminently logical.

You have demonstrated not at all that "a preponderance" as opposed to a
"gaggle" of anyone has declared anything.
The first step in this would be to create a platform upon which we can
array the modern historians who speak with authority of this period.
Wikipedia is not the tool to use in such an argument. Having lived in it,
for seven years, I think I can speak to that point.
Wikipedia, in the vast majority of cases, presents a set of picked sources,
without regard to authority, but only to citability.
W***@aol.com
2011-02-23 22:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In a message dated 2/23/2011 1:49:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by W***@aol.com
consider, without regard to a word "Princess" or "kinswoman", that
this woman, which is not referred to in any "contemporary" Russian
chronicle
at all, was a daughter of the Emperor.
Just to point this nail a little more. The Primary Chronicle was first put
together, in some fashion, about 70 years after this arranged marriage is
supposed to have taken place. We do not have that version, we have a few
version many *centuries* later, which have been edited. We cannot tell how
much or how they've been edited.

To my mind, that's not a contemporary document at all. Not even the first
version.
n***@gmail.com
2017-06-13 14:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/23/2011 1:49:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by W***@aol.com
consider, without regard to a word "Princess" or "kinswoman", that
this woman, which is not referred to in any "contemporary" Russian
chronicle
at all, was a daughter of the Emperor.
Just to point this nail a little more. The Primary Chronicle was first put
together, in some fashion, about 70 years after this arranged marriage is
supposed to have taken place. We do not have that version, we have a few
version many *centuries* later, which have been edited. We cannot tell how
much or how they've been edited.
To my mind, that's not a contemporary document at all. Not even the first
version.
https://books.google.lt/books?id=1BXlXAkBKs0C&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=Anastasia+is+believed+to+be+related+to+the+family+of+the+Byzantine+Emperor+Constantine+IX&source=bl&ots=r45YHieivT&sig=kLTuYdng0ezGU2CSsDBATLO1D60&hl=lt&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH0Y73-brUAhXnYpoKHQa1D9oQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&q=Anastasia%20is%20believed%20to%20be%20related%20to%20the%20family%20of%20the%20Byzantine%20Emperor%20Constantine%20IX&f=false
Peter Stewart
2017-06-13 22:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/23/2011 1:49:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by W***@aol.com
consider, without regard to a word "Princess" or "kinswoman", that
this woman, which is not referred to in any "contemporary" Russian
chronicle
at all, was a daughter of the Emperor.
Just to point this nail a little more. The Primary Chronicle was first put
together, in some fashion, about 70 years after this arranged marriage is
supposed to have taken place. We do not have that version, we have a few
version many *centuries* later, which have been edited. We cannot tell how
much or how they've been edited.
To my mind, that's not a contemporary document at all. Not even the first
version.
https://books.google.lt/books?id=1BXlXAkBKs0C&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=Anastasia+is+believed+to+be+related+to+the+family+of+the+Byzantine+Emperor+Constantine+IX&source=bl&ots=r45YHieivT&sig=kLTuYdng0ezGU2CSsDBATLO1D60&hl=lt&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH0Y73-brUAhXnYpoKHQa1D9oQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&q=Anastasia%20is%20believed%20to%20be%20related%20to%20the%20family%20of%20the%20Byzantine%20Emperor%20Constantine%20IX&f=false
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by dredging yup an old
thread, since the link you have provided is to a page of Christian
Raffersperger's book that is not viewable to most readers.

Anyone wanting to find out what the author thinks about the mother of
Vladimir Monomakh can start here:

http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=monomakhina

Peter Stewart
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
2017-06-15 04:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by dredging yup an old
thread, since the link you have provided is to a page of Christian
Raffersperger's book that is not viewable to most readers.
Anyone wanting to find out what the author thinks about the mother of
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=monomakhina
Peter Stewart
Thanks for the link, Peter. At a quick glance, it looks like is quite well researched. Needless to say, I haven't had any time to go in deep with it...other projects are holding me back but this is one area (among so many others...) I just happen to really love.
Peter Stewart
2017-06-15 10:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by dredging yup an old
thread, since the link you have provided is to a page of Christian
Raffersperger's book that is not viewable to most readers.
Anyone wanting to find out what the author thinks about the mother of
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=monomakhina
Peter Stewart
Thanks for the link, Peter. At a quick glance, it looks like is quite well researched. Needless to say, I haven't had any time to go in deep with it...other projects are holding me back but this is one area (among so many others...) I just happen to really love.
The usual caution applies - for instance, on the page for Vladimir
Monomakh himself
(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=vladimir3) he is
shown as marrying his second wife in 1108. She was the mother of Yuri
Dolgoruki, who is shown on his own page
(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iurii) as marrying
for the first time in 1107. A pre-natal prodigy...

If you follow the link to Vladimir's first wife, Harold Godwinson's
daughter Gyda
(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=gyda), you can
find where this problem arises - she is mistakenly identified as the
wife who, according to the primary chronicle, died on 7 May 1107.
However, we know that this was actually the second wife, Yuri's mother -
Vladimir's "pouchenie" (instruction), evidently written shortly before
he died in 1125 and inserted in the chronicle under 1096, tells us that
Yuri's mother died after Easter in 1107, before he took a Polovstian
girl as wife for Yuri after the following Christmas (in the chronicle on
12 January 1107 March style, 1108 new style).

We know from the necrology of St Pantaleon abbey at Cologne that Gyda
died on a 10 March, that was before any possible date for Easter. The
year of her death is unknown - it may have been after 1107, if she was
repudiated as Vladimir Kuchkin plausibly suggested in 1999.

Peter Stewart
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
2017-06-15 23:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by dredging yup an old
thread, since the link you have provided is to a page of Christian
Raffersperger's book that is not viewable to most readers.
Anyone wanting to find out what the author thinks about the mother of
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=monomakhina
Peter Stewart
Thanks for the link, Peter. At a quick glance, it looks like is quite well researched. Needless to say, I haven't had any time to go in deep with it...other projects are holding me back but this is one area (among so many others...) I just happen to really love.
The usual caution applies - for instance, on the page for Vladimir
Monomakh himself
(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=vladimir3) he is
shown as marrying his second wife in 1108. She was the mother of Yuri
Dolgoruki, who is shown on his own page
(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iurii) as marrying
for the first time in 1107. A pre-natal prodigy...
If you follow the link to Vladimir's first wife, Harold Godwinson's
daughter Gyda
(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=gyda), you can
find where this problem arises - she is mistakenly identified as the
wife who, according to the primary chronicle, died on 7 May 1107.
However, we know that this was actually the second wife, Yuri's mother -
Vladimir's "pouchenie" (instruction), evidently written shortly before
he died in 1125 and inserted in the chronicle under 1096, tells us that
Yuri's mother died after Easter in 1107, before he took a Polovstian
girl as wife for Yuri after the following Christmas (in the chronicle on
12 January 1107 March style, 1108 new style).
We know from the necrology of St Pantaleon abbey at Cologne that Gyda
died on a 10 March, that was before any possible date for Easter. The
year of her death is unknown - it may have been after 1107, if she was
repudiated as Vladimir Kuchkin plausibly suggested in 1999.
Peter Stewart
Thanks for the caveat and information. I only saved the link for perusing later...who knows when!
Cheers!

Peter Stewart
2017-06-15 00:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/23/2011 1:49:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by W***@aol.com
consider, without regard to a word "Princess" or "kinswoman", that
this woman, which is not referred to in any "contemporary" Russian
chronicle
at all, was a daughter of the Emperor.
Just to point this nail a little more. The Primary Chronicle was first put
together, in some fashion, about 70 years after this arranged marriage is
supposed to have taken place. We do not have that version, we have a few
version many *centuries* later, which have been edited. We cannot tell how
much or how they've been edited.
To my mind, that's not a contemporary document at all. Not even the first
version.
https://books.google.lt/books?id=1BXlXAkBKs0C&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=Anastasia+is+believed+to+be+related+to+the+family+of+the+Byzantine+Emperor+Constantine+IX&source=bl&ots=r45YHieivT&sig=kLTuYdng0ezGU2CSsDBATLO1D60&hl=lt&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH0Y73-brUAhXnYpoKHQa1D9oQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&q=Anastasia%20is%20believed%20to%20be%20related%20to%20the%20family%20of%20the%20Byzantine%20Emperor%20Constantine%20IX&f=false
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by dredging yup an old
thread, since the link you have provided is to a page of Christian
Raffersperger's book that is not viewable to most readers.
Anyone wanting to find out what the author thinks about the mother of
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=monomakhina
Anyone wanting to see the entry identifying Vladimir's mother as a Greek
imperial daughter (o[t] tsaritse gr'kyne) under AD 1053 (AM 6561) in the
Laurentian manuscript of the Russian primary chronicle (St Petersburg,
National Library of Russia, F.p.IV.2, fol. 54v) can view it here (line
13 in the left column):

Loading Image...

The corresponding annal in the standard PSRL edition can be viewed here
(column 160, last entry):

Loading Image...

Peter Stewart
Loading...