Anastasia Irene Maria Monomachos of Byzantium MONOMAHINYA - Parents Identity of Anastasia Irene Maria Monomachos of Byzantium MONOMAHINYA

The spatharii or spatharioi (singular: Latin: spatharius; Greek: σπαθάριος, literally "spatha-bearer") were a class of Late Roman imperial bodyguards in the court in Constantinople in the 5th–6th centuries, later becoming a purely honorary dignity in the Byzantine Empire.

The award of the dignity also meant the entry of its holder in the Byzantine Senate.

Ælfric of Eynsham glosses spatharius as "sword-bearer": "swyrd-bora. Id est, Ensifer."

Greek σπάθη (spáthē),
Spata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatha

----

Archon (Greek: ἄρχων, romanized: árchōn, plural: ἄρχοντες, árchontes) is a Greek word that
means "ruler", frequently used as the title of a specific public office.
It is the masculine present participle of the verb stem αρχ-, meaning "to be first, to rule", derived from the same root as words such as monarch and hierarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon

Archon
generic term denoting a magnate or powerful official, a foreign ruler, and technical term for governor of a city/region or head of a department.
https://pbw2016.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/ref/glossary/

So I would guess Maria Skleraina’s 1st husband was a senator. It is clear from Psellos that all of Constantine’s loves were “high born”, even the last “barbarian” princess.

Kazdhan was a total iconoclast - great obituary. But Rus’ sounds actually fairly civilized & a possible threat to Byzantium, and one that needed to be managed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-alexander-kazhda...

He had all reasons to detest the country where he was born. I note that he used the index card system which is extremely efficient for taking notes and organizing facts. It was still widely used in the 80's. What happened to all these cards and boxes?

If they made it to America, I would think held at Dumbarton Oaks Library. And incorporated in his 1991 bibliography.

Laiou, Angeliki E., and Alice-Mary Talbot. “Alexander Petrovich Kazhdan. 1922-1997.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 51, 1997, pp. xiii-xvii. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1291758. Accessed 23 Jan. 2021.

The Skleroi and the Doukas and the Monomaks were related to the emperors. They would probably count as ’princely’ in their own right in a way.

Reidar Holmsen - exactly what I was thinking.

As I so far understand it, especially from Kazdhan, the Russian Primary Chronicle is the “origin story” of Rus’ Kiev. And Rus’ self consciously created itself as the heir to old Byzantium, just as Byzantium felt itself the true heir to the Roman Empire. The problem is that in Constantine lX’s time, Byzantium did not feel the same way. :). So they kept no record of which “princess” they sent to Kiev, as it was not an important alliance to them. The record on the Kiev side, if they had ever had one, doesn’t exist any more.

So when the PVL (I think that’s the right acronym) was compiled / stitched together, the “logical conclusion” was “she must have been Constantine’s daughter.” But she could have been a stepdaughter, niece, cousin ...

Notice that children seem to have often enough acquired their mothers surname, especially if the family was more prestigious. This is a Jewish custom also.

If we compare the relationship between the byzantinians an Kiev to the relationship between the byzantians and Bulgaria (and other neighbours), it becomes clear that it was very different.

(The help of Kiev was also needed to subjugate Bulgaria)

The bulgarian society seems ro have gone through a transformation towards beeing more integrated with Byzans.

http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_18...

"But she could have been a stepdaughter, niece, cousin ..." yet again all this, could have, what if, speculations with extra invented unlikely and unconvincing interpretations etc..etc.. according to the compilations made in the early 1700c monastery of older texts, original that now may have disappeared or been scattered to various private collectors, there is no mention of any adopted daughters, stapdaughters or what so ever.

I thought about how correct these chronicles may be, by comparing what they didn't have, a complete library, encyclopedias, todays INTERNET, or MedLands, http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CONTENTS.htm

What they wrote then, corresponds well with what we know today, and some of it have support in later archaeological findings, it would indeed be hard to completly ignore its value as an secondary reliable source, done from rewriting of original texts, copying them letter by letter and compiling it into something new that indeed survived into today which otherwise probably would not have happened, maybe done in the last minute to save the history. This monks needs to be remembered and praised, not blackened.

Certainly the monk - chroniclers (Nestor in our current study, I think - we need a profile!) are heroes of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_the_Chronicler

And notice - “ It is also speculated that he supported the reigning prince Svyatopolk II, and his pro-Scandinavian party disliked Greek influence in Kiev.[1]”

Since he lived close to the time of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vsevolod_I_of_Kiev that makes me wonder if he himself chose not to chronicle details of her origins.

More likely, it was not considered important, one way or another.

And Sylvester at Vydubychi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vydubychi_Monastery is also to be considered.
The church of Vladimir Monomakh.

(Likhachov, russian medievalist with a remarkable life https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Likhachov )

Academician Dmitry Sergeyevich Likhachov