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

The last of the line of the 'Macedonaian' dynasty were, as we know, the childless sisters Theodora and Zoe. In order to preserve stability Constantine Monomachos was wed to Zoe. Constantines partner, and according to some also his wife, Maria Skleraina was installed as having imperial status with titles like Despoina, Sebaste and Basilissa. Maria Skleraina was not just a 'maitress' as has been proposed by some. She was a part of the imperial family machine.

Among the main sources for byzantic history are of course Psellos, Skylizes and Attaleiatos and later Anna Komemna.

When using facts from Psellos it is vital to understand that he was himself also one of the most important political players in Constantinople (Alf Henriksson, Byzantinsk Historia, 1971). Psellos had had important functions under earlier emperors and was for a while exiled. It is true that Psellos was a very well educated person and his work is a well for knowledge of the history of Byzans.

But Psellos was also involved in the coming power-play for creating future rulers for Byzans as he had been involved in the circus with lovers/favourites rulers around Theodora and Zoe.

If there is missing information about offspring from Constantin it may very well be for political reasons. The byzantine elite would hardly encourage other parties interfering in politics after the death och Theodora, Zoe and Constantin.

So Psellos role was not just to record historical events for a chronicle. He was one of the players in the very intricate intrigues regarding the power in Constantinople.

Garland writes: "... It is even possible that Skleraina had borne a daughter to Constantine prior to his accession, which woulld have made her position at court even more prestigious; this princess was to marry Vsevold of Kiev at some point after 1046 and to give birth to Vladimir II Monomachos in 1053. (81 ..." Garland, Byzantine Empresses p 151

Markku Sarubin above quotes Lutwak and Malden Blackwell whom all have the same interpretation of facts and historic context:

“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.

Togeher with what other historians have written and the fact that lead seals from Michael Skleros have been found in Smolensk and Novgorod.

" Die kontakte des Michael Skleros zur Rus' kann seine Verwandtschaft mit Vladimir Monomach erklären. Wie russische quellen berichten, heiratete der Vater von Vladimir, Furst Vsevold Jarosavlic, nach dem vertrag zwischen der Rus' und Byzanz von 1046 eine byzantinische Prinzezzin [Poucenie 108, 153]. Es wird angenommen, Dass es sich bei der Braut um die Tochter von Konstantinos IX. Monomachus aus seiner zweiten Ehe mit der Tochter von Basileos Skleros, Maria Skleraina, handelt. [Mosin, 1947-1948, s. 73; Janin/Litavrin, 1962, S. 221]. Bezeichnend ist, dass die Datierung der Siegel von Michael Skleros, die in Smolensk und Novgorod gufunden worde, mit der Chronologie der Regierungen des Vsevoldovici und Monomachovici in diesen altrussischen Zentren ubereinstimmt...." Bulgakova, Byzantinische Siegel aus Grabungen und Zufallsfunden, page 130

Translation of the german text: "Michael Scleros' contacts with Rus' can explain his kinship with Vladimir Monomakh. According to Russian sources, Vladimir's father, Furst Vsevold Jarosavlic, married a Byzantine princess according to the treaty between the Rus' and Byzantium of 1046 [Poucenie 108, 153]. It is assumed that the bride is the daughter of Constantine IX Monomachus from his second marriage to the daughter of Basileos Skleros, Maria Skleraina. [Mosin, 1947-1948, p. 73; Janin / Litavrin, 1962, p. 221]. It is significant that the dating of the seals of Michael Skleros, which were found in Smolensk and Novgorod, coincides with the chronology of the governments of the Vsevoldovici and Monomachovici in these old Russian centers .... "Bulgakova, Byzantine seals from excavations and findings, page 130

Commenting on some remarks from above:

"keeping every fake line " -

This is not the case here obviously. There is absolutely NO proof that it was a fake line. NO historian has had any proof or argument backed by facts against the line.

"greek princess"

In the Kievan empire greek was the word often used when reffering to people from Byzans.

"the Byzantines referred to themselves as Romans, not Greeks"

The Byzantines considered themselves as romans. But in fact they spoke greek better then latin. Even Psellos made mistakes reading latin texts. Confusing Cicero with Cicero at one time.

Yes Reidar, that is true, they still considered themself as romans until the end of the 1900c. They spoke and wrote in greece, but was indeed by soul and mind the decendants of the last romans empire.

Reidar Holmsen Can you (or anyone) provide URLs and - or upload scan pages to the profiles, please, and also, URLs to the bios of the historians making the interpretation?

Love the point about Psellos. “He was also involved in the coming power-play for creating future rulers for Byzans as he had been involved in the circus with lovers/favourites rulers around Theodora and Zoe. If there is missing information about offspring from Constantin it may very well be for political reasons. The byzantine elite would hardly encourage other parties interfering in politics after the death och Theodora, Zoe and Constantin.“

I would be especially interested in what historians of Kiev made of this marriage.

From Lynda Garland’s “Zoe” article:

http://www.roman-emperors.org/zoep.htm#N_74_

Prior to his accession Scleraina appears to have borne to Constantine a daughter, who would also have been received at court and been acknowledged as his illegitimate daughter; this princess apparently married Vsevolod of Kiev after 1046 and gave birth to Vladimir II Monomachus in 1053.

For the identity of this bride, see A. Poppé, 'La dernière expédition russe contre Constantinople,' Byzantinoslavica 32.2 (1971) 267 n. 181, who believe her to be Scleraina's daughter; Seibt, Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie, 71 n. 250; A. Kazhdan, 'Rus'-Byzantine Princely Marriages in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,' Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12-13 (1988/89), 414--29, esp. 416-17.

—-

So among the uploads / links should be the pages cited if possible.

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vxii_xiii_1988_198... Page 416-417, I will upload. Conclusion is [paraphrase] “we don’t know for sure” partly based on translation uncertainty of the seal. We already know she’s not mentioned in the Byzantium sources.

Can someone look into the reputation of the journal and author?

https://archive.org/details/byz-slav-30-1969/ByzSlav%2032%20%281971... Is uploaded, as is a google translate from the French.

A. Poppé, 'La dernière expédition russe contre Constantinople,' Byzantinoslavica 32.2 (1971) 267 n. 181, who believe her to be Scleraina's daughter.

https://media.geni.com/p13/1d/b4/ce/d5/5344485d857baad7/daughter_of...

We cannot therefore exclude the possibility that the daughter of the emperor destined for Vsevolod, was the fruit of the emperor's bond with Skleraina. As follows from the epigram of Christophore of Mytilene, the imperial concubine was called Marie. Cf Die Gedichte des Christophoros Mitylenaios, 70; cf. Enrica Follieri, Le poesie di Cristojoro Mitileneo, 137—138. Whatever either, Vladimir Monomaque's mother was from the Skleros family, which seem to explain the close links existing between the Russian princes and the line des Diogenes related to the Skleros.

Does it not stand to pure logic that if Constantine IX was himself of the family of Monomachos -- then it is safe enough to assume that Monomakhina of Byzantium was his daughter? In "Reimagining Europe" (2012), p.108, Christian Raffensperger, PhD (professor of History at Wittenberg University):

"Vsevolod's firstborn son...acquired the surname Monomakh (194) as a reference to his mother's Byzantine family, the Monomachos clan. This was a powerful family in Byzantium, a son of which became emperor as Constantine IX (195)...It can be safely assumed that he was called Monomakh in a reference to his maternal family...The Monomachos family never again rose to the heights of the empire after the death of Constantine IX in 1055, though the Byzantine name itself may have been appeal enough for those who used it, for Vladimir's mother, or for Vladimir himself."

I can't understand why she was disconnected from her father.

Please pardon the interject, but I'm loving being a witness to this discussion.
As a matter of fact, I find myself being completely fascinated, and I'm learning so much simply by following and watching the dynamics.
So far, from what I've traced, Anastasia Irene Maria Monomachos of Byzantium MONOMAHINYA is my 31st Great grandmother.
Personally, I'd love to know that the lines I'm tracing are accurate. As such, I am pleased to see such passion displayed by the curators and pros, as well as the processes you all use to track down sources and citations.
I can also appreciate the questioning from other members on this site as to the accuracies.
Thank you all for the work you are all doing!

Constantine's family name Monomachos ("one who fights alone") was inherited by his Kievan grandson, Vladimir II Monomakh.

Family

By his first wife (who is anonymous), Constantine Monomachos is not known to have had children.

His second wife, a member of the Skleros clan, and the niece of Emperor Romanos III, was probably the mother of:

Anastasia, who married Vsevolod I of Kiev.

Constantine IX had no children by his third wife, the aging Zoe, or by his mistress Maria Skleraine, the niece of his second wife.

References

The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, 1991

http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Byzantium/Person/en/ConstantineIX.html

She was disconnected because no primary source names “any” children of Constantine lX, “nor” does any primary source name the wife or family of Vsevolod.

Therefore prominent genealogists (and Wikipedia - pay close attention to Russian Wikipedia) “do not” link her to parents.

It has now emerged that the so called iconic information may be translated differently.

On Geni we try to do a due diligence and examine “all” the views. Load them to the sources and read why her identity is not certain.

https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000170073194093

* A. Kazhdan, 'Rus'-Byzantine Princely Marriages in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,' Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12-13 (1988/89), 414--29, esp. 416-17.

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vxii_xiii_1988_198...

A fun take on Empress Zoe.

https://www.pallasweb.com/deesis/constantine-zoe-hagia-sophia.html

“ Zoe would have had all of these fragrances and more at her disposal. She was really an expert at the making if perfumes and lotions, this would have been a talent the Byzantines would have appreciated. Unfortunately for her immortal soul, Zoe also seems to have known her poisons, too! ...”

"The chronicle calls Vsevolod's wife "Greek queen", "Monomachina", "Greek" [4]...Undoubtedly, she belonged to the family of the Monomakhs, since she was able to confer this name to her son, and also because it was the representative of this family who ruled the empire in the year of her marriage [5]...It is pointed out that the emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (c1000-1055) was her relative, perhaps the father, since he did not have a big family. Constantine was the only representative of the Monomakh family on the Byzantine throne..."

https://familypedia.wikia.org/wiki/Anastasia_Monomachos_(c1035-1067)

I checked the perimeter to assess how the area has been preserved, and I must tell you that you have been badly advised on a detail to fix with a note, by those who have not noticed all the real pruning needed all around here. (back there are still all the clones to be cut)

I have already found myself in an imperial knot where ML (as here) says they are related but doesn't know how, (there was also @ULF:) in the end, the study of the best relationship indicated for a royal political marriage also comes into play. (naturally it was possible to risk the grafting only after cleaning the entire extended node;)

The analysis then, which I read above from Reidar Holmsen leaves me no doubt, hastily misguided.

I suggest continuing to clean up the perimeter and we find together a nice synthetic (C) note to leave at the top after reconnecting.

I cannot do as much of the tech fixing as has been requested. My priority is source Notes and documents. So source first, and perhaps pros can help with cuts and so on.

I can supply probably dozens of sources, but it is futile to argue with sources that are clearly politically and religiously biased.

"Monomakhovichi or House of Monomakh was a major princely branch of the Rurik dynasty, descendants of which managed to inherit practically all princely titles in the Grand Duchy of Kiev. The progenitor of the house is Vladimir II Monomakh (son of Vsevolod). The name derived from the grandfather of Vladimir, Constantine IX Monomachos...The Monomakhovichi were in conflict also with other branches of the Rurik Dynasty such as the Olgovichi, Rostialvichi (Galicia) and Polotsk line."

The Harvard paper simply appeals to ignorance in an effort to discredit the Monomakhonvichi claim to the throne. I will not waste my breath here.

Debra, I’m lost at the political assessment. The doubt is lack of primary source, not which “house” she came from. So in that absence I am looking for the scholarly assessments; what the Encyclopedia article conclusions see based on.

By the way, the author of the Harvard article:

Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991), Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6

I read his point as a critique of Baumgarten’s analysis of Kiev - Byzantium intermarriage, and a conclusion that the truth is in Kiev sources, not Byzantine.

Here’s his biography:

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

So far I feel most comfortable with his work and with Lynda Garland, and the French source is also impressive.

More about the Monomachos family here:

Browne, Stanford (2006). "Monomachos, Tornikes and an Uncharted Caucasian Ancestry". Foundations. Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. 2 (2): 158–62. eISSN 1479-5086. ISSN 1479-5078. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 2, 2020, citing Psellos. [https://fmg.ac/phocadownload/userupload/foundations2/JN-02-02/158Mo... PDF]

You will note profiles are missing from Geni.

There’s a comment in it I don’t understand - that Psellos says Constantine lX was the last male Monomakh. Yet his nephew tried to usurp the throne, so that can’t be quite right,

My 31st grt grandmother. Wonder if my 12 % Greek atDNA points towards her ?
Debra Denham is right, too often a religious or political bias for a persons ancestry.
Propaganda and attempts to prove or disprove what one decides is the truth instead of finding the truth.
Clever semantics and superfluous language does not make something right.
Access to information now possible for most no longer only the few ; that try to feed others what they believe the common people should know or not.

Which?

Because this comment “ The Harvard paper simply appeals to ignorance in an effort to discredit the Monomakhonvichi claim to the throne. ...”

Is not what I read. So I’m really confused.

The contemporary historian Psellos certainly had political agendas but he was a friend of Constantine lX’s, and his portrait of him seems about his good & his bad - not his origins (which he describes as very good) - or his descent - which he doesn’t mention. Which is what we find puzzling.

Psellos on Constantine is here:

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/psellus-chrono06.asp

Erica writes: ”- that Psellos says Constantine lX was the last male Monomakh. Yet his nephew tried to usurp the throne, so that can’t be quite right,”

The situation in Byzans was a constant strive for power by some and a constant fight for maintaining power. The classes were the very rich landowning families, the rich and influential functionaries at court and city, the inhabitants of Constantinople and the military of which the väringa-guard was a special force.

During Theodora and Zoe, emperors were created to maintain a stability. The people on top wanted to ’protect their piece of meat’. It was important to manipulate the citizens to ensure their support.

If an emperor or official didn’t fit or started to be a threat they were murdered (drowned or poisoned) or forced to be exiled or put in monastry. A variation was blinded and then exiled.

Zoes lovers as emperors were murdered. The emperor after Theodora was not from the imperial family. He was asked to step down.

If you observe there was for a period no long reigns. One emperorh was quickly succeded by the other.

Psellos was part in the politics in the power struggle, he was part in the intrigues for creating or disposing of emperors or officials.

So what he may write about a ruling person is a mix of observation and ’buttering’ . What he writes or not about a person who is a threat or a disposed threat is something else. It all has political meaning.

Intrigues, plots and treason as well as manipulating facts to control the masses was vital to the players in Byzans. A very toxic environment. All of this is well described and studied for centuries.

Incredible, the profile of Anastasia Irene Maria Monomachos of Byzantium & Monomach Constantine IX was touched again. To make theese changes concerning the parents cause a lot of trouble in the medieval tree.

Yes, this will continue as long as our American curators believes that MedLands is a Bible. If not mentioned in a contemporary source in there, they just cut, despite other facts, sources, archeolgy findings etc. that supports the relation.

I feel bad about it, they should only do modern genealogy where the result is easy to find in a good church record, a neatly written name of the child, paired with equally neatly confirmed parents beside the child with a day, month and a year simple to see. Nothing to get confused about, all in order. Please.