Rusian genealogy

Maintained by: Christian Raffensperger ( and David J. Birnbaum ( [Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 Unported License] Last modified: 2021-03-01T12:09:18-0500 About this site:

Introduction | About | Browse | Query | Sources | Maps

Henry IV of the German Empire

b. ca. 1050 – d. 1106 [1]



One of the most interesting marital alliances made in the eleventh century was between Rus´ and the German Empire. This marriage is a showpiece in the history of Rusian dynastic marriage, as there are numerous sources that discuss Evpraksia as well as the incredible fame of her second husband and the accord she received in Rus´. This entry is thus longer than the majority to account for both the importance of this marriage as well as the fact that there is so much information available.

The alliance between Rus´ and the German Empire was made through the union of three people, not the usual two. On the Rusian side was the daughter of Vsevolod Iaroslavich of Kyiv, Evpraksia, and on the side of the German Empire was the emperor himself, Henry IV. The first marriage arranged was brokered by Henry IV, but as he was married at the time, Evpraksia was married to the young Henry III “the Long” of Stade, margrave of the Saxon Nordmark. [7] Upon the death of both Margrave Henry of Stade and Henry IV’s wife, Henry IV renewed his alliance with Rus´ by marrying Evpraksia himself. [8] Many reasons have been put forward for the strategy behind such a marriage. German historians, focusing on internal concerns, concluded that the marriage of Henry IV to Evpraksia was meant to placate the Saxon nobles, who, as was often the case, were nearing revolt. [9] However, despite the fact that she was the widow of a Saxon margrave, because of her foreign origins and childless marriage to Margrave Henry it is highly doubtful that the Saxons would have looked upon her as one of their own. To understand this marriage, one must look outside of the boundaries of the German Empire and examine the world of interkingdom politics that spawned most of these marriages. The most convincing rationale for the marriage alliance has been proposed by Nazarenko, [10] who posits a complex theory in which Henry IV’s goal was to increase the power of his newly elected antipope, Clement III, as well as to cause trouble for the Poles (a consistent interest for the German emperors). For Vsevolod the alliance was important not only for prestige, but also to combat domestic problems. The Izjaslaviči had closely allied themselves with the Poles, both through marriage and through their territorial associations on the western fringes of Rus´. [11] Throughout Vsevolod’s reign, various Izjaslaviči attempted to take back their father’s throne and received Polish assistance. An alliance between the German Empire and Rus´, specifically with Vsevolod, who was ruling Kyiv at the time, would put Poland between allies, and allow those allies to put pressure on both Poland’s eastern and western borders. This alliance would limit the support that the Poles could give to any Rusian usurpers—chiefly the Izjaslaviči. The alliance would also allow Clement III a chance to draw Rus´ into his fold, thus increasing his own political and ecclesiastical power. [12]

In the early 1080s Henry IV was still married and thus could not conclude a marriage for himself. Instead, he married the Rusian princess to the young margrave, Henry of Stade. The rank and prestige of the margrave of the Saxon Nordmark would have shown Vsevolod that Henry IV was serious about the alliance, and this match may have been kind to both parties, as Henry of Stade was not much older than Evpraksia. However, when Henry of Stade died, the bond holding the alliance together was in danger, and it was only with the death of Empress Bertha that Henry IV saw the way to reaffirm the alliance— he would marry Evpraksia himself. This theory seems the most reasonable for this discussion, as it places the marriages in the context of the European political scheme as a whole and reflects the importance and even necessity of dynastic marriages as a key component of politics.

Evpraksia's life in Rus´ before her marriage is a mystery. When her marriage to Henry of Stade took place is not known, but it is believed that she was still quite young. The first mention of it is in Annalista Saxo under the year 1082. [13] This is the year that Henry of Stade inherited the Nordmark after the death of his father, and his wife is listed as “Evpraksija, daughter of the king of Rus´,70 [14] who in our language is called Adelheid,” [15] though the chronicle was written later and may possibly backdate the marriage to Henry of Stade’s inheritance of the mark. The dating is further complicated by issues of the proper age of marriage, whether or not this was observed, and many other details that are specific to the era of the marriage and not generally relevant here for the purposes of discussing the marriage as a whole. [16]

Though the exact date of the marriage is not recorded, Evpraksia’s arrival in the German Empire is; she “arrived in this country with much pomp, with camels burdened with precious clothes and stones, and also with countless riches.” [17] This brief account of her arrival gives the historian an invaluable piece of evidence regarding the manner of travel, not just of Rusian princesses but generally of princesses in the medieval world. [18] The Rusian princess did not arrive alone and unheralded, but rather with ceremony and a rich entourage emphasizing her royal position and the honor that the Rusians expected would be paid to her. With her came also many riches, some surely as dowry, but some also perhaps to maintain Evpraksia in her marriage. It was a tradition in the Ottonian and Salian royal houses to gift their wives with land (often the same land generation after generation) so that they could use that income for their own purposes. [19] Women in the middle ages often had their own means. This money would allow her to maintain her own household staff, who were undoubtedly part of the entourage she brought with her from Rus´. [20]

The marriage did not last long, as Henry of Stade died in 1087. [21] Upon his death, Evpraksia was left an approximately sixteen-year-old widow with no children. Key to her well-being, or lack thereof, was her childless state. With a son, Evpraksia would have inherited the mark on his behalf and been his regent or part of the regency in general. [22] However, with no children, Henry of Stade’s brother inherited the mark and forced Evpraksia to leave. [23]

Evpraksia took refuge in the Abbey of Quedlinburg, [24] where the abbess was Adelheid, sister to Emperor Henry IV. Evpraksia is mentioned as being there in the summer of 1088, at which time she was already engaged to the the emperor. [25] At this point, it had been a year since the death of Henry of Stade and six months since the death of Henry IV’s wife, Empress Bertha. Evpraksia’s reasons for remarrying are clear-cut: although women in this period exercised their influence and held power, it was more accepted that they would do this through men or through a lack of men as nuns in nunneries. Thus, without a son and with no monastic desire as yet, she was virtually obligated to remarry. [26] The reasons for her family to encourage, or force, such a remarriage are discussed elsewhere. [27]

Widely discussed in relation to this marriage is the Canonical Responses of Metropolitan Ioann II, written in the second half of the 1080s. In article 13, Ioann II scolds the Rusian rulers for marrying their daughters outside of the faith. [28] Though he does not explicitly name the Latins, it is the most common inference. [29] Volodimeroviči men themselves married either Latins, or more rarely Polovcians (presumably Christianized), and they married their daughters chiefly to Latin nobles. [30] Ioann II certainly had knowledge of the German marriages of Evpraksia, as antipope Clement III contacted him at Henry IV’s behest about a union of the churches under the auspices of Clement III. Ioann II, however, rebuked him in a letter that is extant, and directed Clement III to discuss the matter with the patriarch of Constantinople. [31] Though the initiative failed, the contact served as one of the reasons behind Henry IV’s desired alliance with Rus´. The attempt itself shows Rus´ as a viable player in the European political situation of the eleventh century, and that the dynastic marriage connection did breed further connections, or at least attempts at them.

Henry IV and Evpraksia were married in the summer of 1089 in Cologne by Archbishop Hartwig of Magdeburg. As the chronicler Ekkehard records, “The Emperor celebrated, in Cologne, his wedding, taking to wife the widow of Margrave Udo [Henry III] [32] the daughter of the king of the Rusians.” [33] After the marriage ceremony, Evpraksia Vsevolodovna was crowned empress of the German Empire under the name Adelheid.90 [34] This was momentous for Rus´ as well as for Evpraksia. In the generation before her, Rusian women had been the queens of France, Poland, Hungary, and Norway. [35] However, by the time of her coronation Evpraksia was the only Rusian queen in Europe outside of Rus´, and she was not only queen, but empress. This made her the most visible Rusian, male or female, for the majority of Europe. It is impossible to say from this remove whether or not this was how she thought of herself, but it can be safely assumed that this was how she was seen by many of the nobility of Europe. In nearly every chronicle entry in which she appears, she is listed as the daughter of the king of the Rusians. Thus, irrespective of their familiarity with Evpraksia, the chroniclers, and perhaps the nobles, constantly remembered Evpraksia’s kingdom of origin. This made Evpraksia the chief ambassador for Rus´ in the West in the late eleventh century.

Due to lingering frustration with Henry IV and Archbishop Hartwig, some of the German nobles evinced discontent with Evpraksia. This discontent was more directed at Henry IV and his style of rule, but when considered along with their later marital discord, has led some historians to conclude that Henry IV and Evpraksia’s marriage was rocky from the start. [36] There is no evidence to make this claim, but it is clear that within a few years the marriage effectively dissolved. The reasons for this dissolution are also unclear despite the fact that extant are Evpraksia’s stated reasons for ending the marriage with Henry IV. It is unlikely that these stories are true, however, as they were crafted by pro-papacy (anti–Henry IV) polemicists in the pay of Duke Welf of Swabia and Countess Mathilda of Tuscany, with whom Evpraksia would later ally herself. [37]

These stories describe Henry IV, with references to the book of Revelation, as a Nicoletian, [38] a member of a sect that practiced sexually “deviant” acts and held orgies. This was not the first time such charges had been brought against Henry IV; in the 1070s he briefly separated from his first wife, Bertha, and she, also in the company of propapacy forces, brought such charges against him. [39] In Evpraksia’s version, she at first participated in such rites out of naïveté and love for her husband. However, once she found herself pregnant and unable to determine who was the father of the baby, she was filled with disgust and a resolve to do something. [40] This resolve translated into leaving her husband and joining the propapacy side of Mathilda of Tuscany. [41]

The pregnancy aspect of the story may have been true and may thus account for the estrangement between Henry IV and Evpraksia. In Mathilda’s Vita, it is recorded that in 1092 the son of Henry IV died during the siege of the castle of Montebelle. [42] As the deaths of HHenry IV’s children by Bertha are all reliably attested elsewhere and generally occurred much later, this could only be a child by Evpraksia (or by a mistress). But as the only reference to the child exists in Mathilda’s Vita, it is unsure whether this was corroborating evidence added for the polemical attack on Henry IV, or the truth.

Evpraksia’s tale of victimization at the hands of her emperor–husband is a sad story of the mistreatment of a young woman by a powerful man. Even though it is widely regarded as false now, [43] the story sold wonderfully to the bishops of Europe, whom the pope was attempting to woo to his side in his ongoing struggles with Henry IV. The first venue for this story was at a council of bishops in Swabia in 1094. After hearing Evpraksia’s story (whether Evpraksija read it herself or it was read on her behalf is unknown) [44] the attendant bishops found enry IV guilty, and placed themselves firmly on the pope’s side. [45] It is also on this occasion that Evpraksia first met Pope Urban II. Urban II then asked her to speak at his first papal synod, which he was convening in Piacenza the following year. 1095 found Evpraksia in Piacenza personally telling her story to the assembled bishops. [46] This was a major coup for the pope—he had garnered emperor’s own wife to testify against him at the first papal synod of Urban II’s pontificate

Modern historians, those of Rus´ in particular, must share the pope’s excitement, though for different reasons. In the modern era, the common picture of Rus´ is still one of a northern province of Byzantium, generally cut off from the rest of Europe. However, in 1095, a Rusian princess was the main event at a papal synod held in Italy, at which she addressed a crowd of Latin bishops from France, the German Empire, Italy, and Burgundy. [47] Moreover, she was not even the only Rusian on the synod’s agenda. During their week of meetings, they also dealt with Evpraksia’s first cousin, King Philip I of France, and his marital foibles. [48] This occurrence must add more than a footnote to our understanding of Rusian and European history of this period. Like other events in the life of Evpraksia, it demonstrates the continuing presence of Rusians throughout Europe.

After the synod, the papal side was momentarily victorious in their battle with Henry IV and they felt that they had no more need for Evpraksia. She managed to stay another two years in Italy, living with her stepson King Conrad of Lombardy, [49] who had himself joined the papal side soon after Evpraksia. [50] But in approximately 1097, she decided to return to Rus´. [51]

At this point, Evpraksia generally drops out of the chronicles for a few years as she journeys back to Rus´ and gets settled there. Gerhoha, who had chronicled Evpraksia’s anti-Henry polemics, states that she went first to Hungary to stay with relatives. [52] She would have found family in Hungary had she gone there, first cousins who she had most likely never met and also possibly her aunt, Anastasia Jaroslavna (if she were still living). But Rusian-Hungarian ties were well developed at the end of the eleventh century, and it made sense for her to pass that way on her route back to Rus´.

Two particular assumptions need to be made and stated about this trip. The first is that Evpraksia was not alone. Evpraksia was born a Rusian princess and had most recently been the German empress. She most assuredly had attendants with whom she would travel. Therefore, despite the fact that she is spoken of in the singular, she represents her entire party, as would be the case with other European nobility of the time. The second assumption is that Evpraksia had money. To travel one requires it, and she had a long way to travel to return to Kyiv. Thus, our picture is not of a destitute woman traveling alone through Europe, but of an empress returning to her homeland.

S. P. Rozanov peppers his account of Evpraksia’s return to Rus´ with interesting anecdotes and theories about her reception and a possible foray into political life, none of which is recorded in the sources. [53] The first mention of Evpraksia in the PVL is under the year 1106, where on “6 December, Evpraksia, daughter of Vsevolod, took monastic vows.” [54] As this was approximately four months after her husband Emperor Henry IV died (7 August), it seems clear that Evpraksia was awaiting the death of her husband to take her next step in life and join a nunnery. This may show Evpraksia’s devotion to her marital vows. She never married again and waited to enter into monastic life until after the death of her husband. Despite her entry into a nunnery in Rus´, she did not pass out of the purview of the Latin chroniclers who recorded her entrance into the nunnery. [55] Interestingly enough, they also recorded that she became the abbess there, but as the Rusian sources do not record which abbey she joined, it is impossible to say whether she was the abbess or not. [56]

Evpraksia served in the nunnery for three years until her death in 1109. Her death was recorded in the PVL, and she was buried in the Caves Monastery. [57] At her death, multiple honors were bestowed upon Evpraksia. The first is historical. Few women are mentioned by name in the Rusian chronicles of this period. For instance, neither Evpraksia’s birth nor her marriages were recorded. Yet her taking monastic vows and her death merited a place for her in the chronicle under her own name. [58] This is a singular honor, as the majority of women who do get mentioned in the Rusian chronicles are identified only as “daughter of ” or “sister of.” The other honor was contemporary. Both Evpraksia’s mother and her sister Janka were buried in the Andreevskij nunnery, [59] while Evpraksia was awarded a burial and the erection of her own chapel in the premier monastery in Rus´—the Caves Monastery. The few records extant from this time do not record numerous burials in the Caves Monastery and very few of those are women. Thus, the honor bestowed upon Evpraksia was significant.

To what, or whom, should these honors be attributed? The easiest assumption is that it was the doing of her brother Volodimer Monomax, but there are multiple problems with this association. The first is that he was not ruler in Kyiv until four years after Evpraksia’s death, thus he may not have had the political might to arrange Evpraksia’s burial. If he did have that kind of power, why did he not use it for the burial of his other sister Janka, or for his stepmother? [60] He may have been responsible for the chronicle entries, as his chronicle writing had begun by this period, but it seems unlikely that he was responsible for Evpraksia’s chapel. Another suspect is the ruler of Kyiv, Svjatopolk II Izjaslavič. He was, however, no friend to the line of Vsevolod, and Evpraksia’s whole sojourn in the West might have been arranged to thwart his plans to achieve the throne of Kyiv. The final candidates for motivating force are the monks of the Caves Monastery. The Caves Monastery was the most venerated monastery in Rus´ in this period, which allowed the monks to occasionally flout the will of the Volodimeroviči knjazja and the Byzantine Church. [61] That they would choose to honor Evpraksia in such a manner shows that she was honored in Rus´ and received a fitting burial for an empress. This honorable burial, and her monastic commitment, would also indicate that the monks had no problem with her stay in Latin lands, her two marriages to Latin men, or her participation in a papal synod.

The story of Evpraksia’s life highlights many of the problems inherent with examining the stories of Rusian women in this period. As far as the Rusian sources show, she only appears in 1106, three years before her death as a princess taking monastic vows, and then in 1109 as a dead nun who receives an honorable burial in the Caves Monastery.118 [62] There is no context for understanding anything about her life as the empress of the German Empire, or any other aspect of her life, for that matter. It is only by combining the Latin sources with the Rusian that the historian achieves a more complete understanding of her life. She arrived in the German Empire with pomp and circumstance119 [63] and she left the world in the same way.120 [64] But only by looking at a variety of sources from across Europe can one begin to get a true picture of her life. That picture is then fleshed out with the help of contemporary portraits of European princesses, brides, widows, and nuns to understand more of what Evpraksia experienced. Her life and marriages are not typical of the dynastic marriage tradition, but they are well illustrated and very relevant to our picture of what was going on in Rusian interkingdom relations in the later eleventh century.


  1. Birth/Death: Herman of Reichnau, s.a. 1051, referencing Henry's baptism.; Berthold of Reichenau, s.a. 1056, who references Henry's age as 7.; Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1106.; Cosmas of Prague, 3.18.; Orderic Vitalis, Bk. X, ch. 1.[↑]
  2. Father: [↑]
  3. Mother: [↑]
  4. King of the German Empire: Bernold of St. Blasien, s.a. 1057.; Berthold of Reichenau, s.a. 1056.; Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1056.; Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1106.; Cosmas of Prague, 3.18.; Orderic Vitalis, Bk. X, ch. 1.[↑]
  5. Emperor of the German Empire: Bernold of St. Blasien, s.a. 1084.; Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1084.; Robinson. Henry IV of Germany, 230–31.; Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1106.; Cosmas of Prague, 3.18.; Orderic Vitalis, Bk. X, ch. 1.[↑]
  6. Marriage to Evpraksia Vsevolodovna Adelheid: Monumenta Germaniae historiae: Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae. Tomus VI. Heinrici IV. Diplomata., (Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1953), 407.; Walram, Liber de unitate ecclesiae conservanda, lib. II.26, 100.[↑]
  7. Pertz, ed., Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1082. [↑]
  8. Ibid., s.a. 1089.[↑]
  9. See Robinson, Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106, 269.[↑]
  10. Nazarenko, Drevniaia Rus’ na mezhdunarodnykh putiakh, 540–46, 553. See also A. B. Golovko, Drevniaia Rus' i Pol'sha v politicheskikh vzaimo-otnosheniiakh X-pervoi treti XIII vv. (Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1988), 58, who discusses a similar theory.[↑]
  11. Even non-Iziaslavichi occupants of the western principalities were more closely tied to the Poles than other Rusians, as shown by David Igorevich, who after he inherited Volhynia upon the death of Iaropolk Iziaslavich made an alliance with Władysław Hermann. Golovko, Drevniaia Rus' i Pol'sha, 59.[↑]
  12. For more on this idea, see Raffensperger, Reimagining Europe, ch. 5.[↑]
  13. Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1082.[↑]
  14. Rusian rulers are generally referred to as rex in the Latin chronicles.[↑]
  15. Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1082.[↑]
  16. These issues are discussed briefly, with references, in the introduction.[↑]
  17. J. Vogt, Monumenta inedita rerum Germanicarum praecipue Bremensium, (Bremen 1740), 1. bd. 125, cited in Rozanov, “"Evpraksija–Adel′geida Vsevolodovna, (1071–1109),"” 623.[↑]
  18. Another such record is the book created for a French queen who was coming to Byzantium. The book depicts her arrival. For details, see Hilsdale, “"Diplomacy by Design",” chapter beginning p. 87.[↑]
  19. Carolyn Edwards, “"Dynastic Sanctity in Two Early Medieval Women's Lives,"” in Medieval Family Roles: A Book of Essays, ed. Cathy Jorgensen Itnyre (New York: Garland Publishing, 1996), 13–14.[↑]
  20. For more discussion of these entourages, see Raffensperger, Reimagining Europe.[↑]
  21. Annales Stadenses, s.a. 1144, in listing of history of the family dates Henry of Stade’s death to 1087.[↑]
  22. As had occurred with her aunt Anna in France some years before. See Anna Jaroslavna’s entry in this section.[↑]
  23. This expulsion also shows that the Saxons would not have accepted her as one of their own in a marriage to Henry IV, as has been posited by some historians.[↑]
  24. S. P. Rozanov suggested that Quedlinburg had been Evpraksia’s initial home upon her arrival in Germany. Rozanov, “"Evpraksija–Adel′geida Vsevolodovna, (1071–1109)."” She would have lived there learning the local languages, German and Latin, and customs, and waiting to come of age for a legal marriage (approximately fifteen).[↑]
  25. Walram, Bishop of Naumburg, Liber de unitate ecclesiae conservanda, ed. Wilhelm Schwenkenbecher, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 39 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1883), bk. 2, ch. 35, 114.[↑]
  26. Levin, Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900–1700, 132–35.[↑]
  27. Christian Raffensperger. ““Evpraksia Vsevolodovna between East and West.”” Russian History/Histoire Russe 30:1–2 (2003), pp. 23–34.[↑]
  28. “"Kanoničeskie otvety mitropolita Ioanna II,"” Russkaja istoricheskaja biblioteka 6 (1908): art. 13, p. 7.[↑]
  29. Many historians make this claim, beginning with N. M. Karamzin, Istorija gosudarstva Rossiiskogo, vol. 2 (Moscow: Kniga, 1988), 60. The only other explanation would be marriages to Jews or Muslims, both of which would have been extraordinary enough to preserve mention of it elsewhere.[↑]
  30. The only exception to this policy that I have found in this period is the second marriage of the daughter of Vsevolodko Davydich to Baškord of the Polovtsy, discussed below under Volodimer Davydich (her first husband).[↑]
  31. D. S. Lixačev and N. V. Ponyrko, eds., Epistoljarnoe nasledie Drevnej Rusi XI–XIII: issledovanija, teksty, perevody (Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 1992), 30–35.[↑]
  32. The chronicler makes the mistake of confusing son and father, a common mistake in medieval chronicles that modern editors correct automatically.[↑]
  33. Ekkehardi Chronicon, vol. 6, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Avlici Hahniani, 1844), s.a. 1089; also listed in Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1089.; and Frutolf of Michelsburg, Chronica, ed. F.–J. Schmale and I. Schmale–Ott (Darmstadt: Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschiste des Mittelalters, 1972), s.a. 1089.[↑]
  34. Walram, Bishop of Naumburg, lib. II.26, 100. Her enthronement is also recorded in one of Henry’s diplomata from 1089. onumenta Germaniae historiae: Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae. Tomus VI. Heinrici IV. Diplomata.M, (Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1953), 407.[↑]
  35. Anna Jaroslavna, Dobronega Volodimerovna, Anastasia Jaroslavna, and Elisabeth Jaroslavna (both Norway and Sweden), respectively.[↑]
  36. Rozanov, "Evpraksija–Adel′geida Vsevolodovna, (1071–1109)," 627, among others.[↑]
  37. Robinson, Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106, 289–90.[↑]
  38. Revelation 2:6, 2:15.[↑]
  39. Helmold, The Chronicle of the Slavs by Helmold, Priest of Bosau, 108.[↑]
  40. Gerhoh of Reichersburg, De Investigatione Antichristi, Monumenta Germaniae Historica. (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Avlici Hahniani, 1897), t. 3, cap. VII, lib. I, 324.[↑]
  41. As it is recorded in Mathilda’s Vita, Evpraksia arranged to send a message to Mathilda from where Henry had her imprisoned in Verona. Mathilda then led some soldiers to free her in 1092/3. L. Bethmann, ed., Donizonis vita Mathildis, vol. 12, Monumenta Germaniae historica Scriptores (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Avlici Hahniani, 1861), 394.[↑]
  42. Ibid., 392.[↑]
  43. Though it was accepted as fact in George Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1948), 340–42.[↑]
  44. Robinson, Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106, 290. Robinson suggests that Welf may have written the deposition, and there is an implication that he read it, though Robinson also says that Evpraksia made a public appearance there.[↑]
  45. Gerhoh of Reichersburg,De Investigatione Antichristi, 324.[↑]
  46. Bernoldi Chronicon, publ. George Pertz, in “Annales et chronica aevi Salici, 385–467” , Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores 5 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Avlici Hahniani, 1844), s.a. 1095. [↑]
  47. Ibid.[↑]
  48. Ibid.[↑]
  49. The Pope had crowned emperor soon after the papal synod at Piacenza, though it was never widely recognized. Robinson,Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106, 292.[↑]
  50. [↑]
  51. Or just before Evpraksia did, the accounts are varied. Rozanov, "Evpraksija–Adel′geida Vsevolodovna, (1071–1109)," 642. Robinson, Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106, 289.[↑]
  52. Gerhoh of Reichersburg, De Investigatione Antichristi, 324.[↑]
  53. Rozanov, “"Evpraksija–Adel′geida Vsevolodovna, (1071–1109)."” [↑]
  54. PVL, s.a. 1106.[↑]
  55. Annales Sancti Disibodi, publ. G. Waitz, in Annales aevi Suevici, 4–30, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores 17 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Avlici Hahniani, 1861), 14; Annales Stadenses auctore M. Alberto, s.a. 1093; Cesare Baronio, Annales ecclesiastici Caesaris Baronii (Barri-Ducis: Guerin, 1864), 17:606. It should be noted that it is likely that this last source is reliant upon at least one of the earlier sources.[↑]
  56. Rozanov theorizes that she joined the Andreevskii nunnery, where her half sister Janka was the abbess, though there is no evidence for or against this theory. Rozanov, “"Evpraksija–Adel′geida Vsevolodovna, (1071–1109),"” 645. The Church of St. Andrew was founded in 1086 by Vsevolod, as was the convent next door for Janka. Hypatian Chronicle, s.a. 1086.[↑]
  57. PVL, s.a. 1109.[↑]
  58. PVL, s.a. 1106, 1109.[↑]
  59. Hypatian Chronicle, s.a. 1111; Laurentian Chronicle, s.a. 1113. Janka’s death is recorded here, also by name as with other of her entries.[↑]
  60. Keeping in mind the supposition that Vsevolod had two wives and that Volodimer and Janka may have been from one mother, while Evpraksija was from another. See Vsevolod Izjaslavič for more information on this topic.[↑]
  61. The creation of the cult of Boris and Gleb, for instance, may have been done in opposition to the will of the Byzantine Church, or its officers in Rus´. Ja. N. Ščapov, Gosudarstvo i cerkov´: Drevnej Rusi X–XIII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1989), 177–78. Admittedly, others have differing opinions: Jonathan Shepard, “Byzantium and Russia in the Eleventh Century: A Study in Political and Ecclesiastical Relations” (PhD dissertation, Oxford, 1973), chap. 3; and The Hagiography of Kievan Rus´, trans. and introd. Paul Hollingsworth, Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature: Translations 2 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 1992), introduction. Also of note would be possible Byzantine opposition to the translation of the relics of Theodosius. PVL, s.a. 1091; and for the idea of Byzantine opposition, Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, eds., Russian Primary Chronicle, 274–75, n273. Dissent with the rulers of Rus´ is more unambigious, as the abbot of the monastery refused to eat with the usurpers Svjatoslav and Vsevolod and condemned their usurpation. The Paterik of the Kievan Caves Monastery, trans. Muriel Heppell, Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature: Translations 1 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 1989), 74–75.[↑]
  62. Raffensperger, ““Missing Rusian Woman.”” [↑]
  63. J. Vogt, Monumenta inedita rerum Germanicarum praecipue Bremensium (Bremen 1740), 1. bd. 125, cited in Rozanov, “"Evpraksija–Adel′geida Vsevolodovna, (1071–1109),"” 623.[↑]
  64. PVL, s.a. 1109.[↑]