Abstract of the chapter
Detailed argumentation in ukrainian version
The last "proof" of existence Princess Barbara gave the researcher of St. Michael's mosaics V.N.Lazarev:
Some confirmation of this marriage we find written no later than 1141 by Ortlib, monk of Zwiefalten monastery. It is told that at the time of Henry the 4th (1050 – 1106) and the Polish King Boleslaw 3rd (1102 – 1139) "one of noblest rulers of Greece gave his daughter to a Russian prince, except richest dowry consisting of excellent clothes, gold and silver vessels of marvelous work, gave the sacred relics, among which was the most precious hand st.Stephen, first martyr".
Nothing is impossible that Svjatopolk was married in his third marriage to relative of Alexis Comnenus, and that she had brought rich gifts, among other relics of great martyr Barbara, which were solemnly placed in the temple of Archangel Michael. [Lazarev V.N. Mikhailovskie mozayky. – Moscow: The Art, 1966, p. 15, all this passage quoted without any reservations in the book: Degtyarev M.G., Reutov A.V. St. Michael's Monastery. – K.: Technique, 1997, p. 21]
How do such "reasoning"? For those of worthlessness and insolvency not obvious – that for the vast majority of candidates and doctors of historical sciences – I take it in detail.
This news written in 1141, ie after 30-40 years after the events. It is written in Zwiefalten in southwestern Germany, 75 km south of Stuttgart. This – 1500 km west of Kyiv and 1700 kilometers north west of Constantinople. Author did not knew neither old russian nor Greek language and belonged to another denomination (Catholicism). He was not competent for Rus' and Byzantium. Therefore, the value of this spring is negligible and can not resist against Nestor and Anna Comnenus.
In terms of the content of the message we have every right to reject this chronicle as one that does not contain any specific information about the event to which it is trying pull up.
The purpose of this chapter of Ortlib's chronicles – in decent "justifying" the truth of Stephen's relics, and the version of Rus'–Byzantine origin must be regarded as fraud.
We reviewed the message of Ortlib's chronicles in three perspectives: formal value of source, internal content and trends (goal) of the author – and everywhere we come to one conclusion: this chronicle does not give any specific information on the history of Rus' and can not be the source of any question of this story.
This analysis would carried out V.N.Lazarev – in order to then erase all written as such, that not concern to "the princess Barbara". But he – doctor – for some reason did not make it, leaving this work theoretical physicists.
The need to attract a meaningless "source" proves just the opposite of what would prove Lazarev – that there is no better and more reliable sources of "Princess Barbara".