Conclusions

Nicholas Zharkikh

Vvedensky synodikon (VS) was written at the Church of the of Presentation of Mary at the Near Caves of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in the second half of the 17th century. The study of it showed the following:

1. VS is clearly divided into two parts – historical (sections 1 – 255 on our numbering) and current (sections 256 – 1435). In the historical part about 3 thousand names had been written, in the current – about 14 thousand names.

2. The historical part of VS was written roughly in the first half of 1654. It is ordered according to the social hierarchy, in which the clergy are placed above the laity, including the rulers. Sections dedicated to the clergy are ordered: the patriarchs – the metropolitans – the bishops (but definitely there are no Moscow patriarchs!). The sections devoted to laity are ordered: rulers – princes – gentlemen.

3. Many written sources have been used to write the historical part:

- a list of the Patriarch of Constantinople, compiled in 1622 (presumably by Zacharias Kopystensky for his essay "Palinodia") and based on Western European studios of the late 16th century;

- lists of metropolitans and bishops, which are added as reference articles to chronicles;

- lists of representatives of the Moscow ruling house, allegedly received from Moscow in 1654;

- "The list of Prince Constantine" with the names of alleged Chernigov princes, created, presumably, in Moscow in the middle of the 16th century. (Conclusions from the detailed analysis of this section formulated separately)

- other smaller sources.

4. A very important source for the historical part of VS was the Pechersky synodikon (PS, 1483 – 1530). All the princely and gentry sections have been carefully rewritten from it, with skip of non-titled persons. This provides a rich material for comparing synodikon texts and conclusions (generally disappointing) on the degree of preservation of the ancient text in rewriting.

5. Also in the historical part of VS there are princely and lordly sections, which were not borrowed from the PS. Chronologically, they cover the period from 1530s to 1640s. It can be assumed that these sections are also the result of rewriting (and filtering at the same time) the ancient synodikon of the Pechersky Monastery, which has not yet been discovered.

6. Later, in the 1720s, small additions were made in the historical part of VS in the lists of Chernigov and Pereyaslav bishops and in the list of Russian monarchs.

7. The general composition of the historical part suggests that VS was conceived as a broad overview of the Orthodox society of the entire Kyiv Metropolitanate in its ancient boundaries (the times of Kievan Rus). But at the filling of the current part this principle was not observed, and in it we have a usual memorial list, where there are not enough references even to the archimandrites of the Pechersky monastery itself, and even more so about other outstanding persons. The monks did not collected these persons on their own initiative, only on the initiative of their relatives.

8. The current part of VS was written, according to the firm dates in the text, from 1654 to 1694 years. The active filling of VS lasted until 1691, and in the period 1692 (?) – 1694 only random data was entered. A considerable part of the sections has more recent additions, but in those rare cases when it is possible to determine their dates, they do not go beyond the limits of 1691. A series of separate memorial records from the first half of the 17th century were used for it compilation.

9. The distribution of geographical names in the historical part does not differ significantly from the PS – Volyn and Belarus are also predominant. But in the current part of VS the geography is radically different: Kiev region and Left-bank Ukraine strongly prevail, with a significant decrease in references from the territory of modern Belarus and Russia.

10. It is significant that almost all the regions of modern Ukraine, inhabited in the 2nd half of the 17th century, are represented in VS. Thus, the synodikon reflects the formation of a modern Ukrainian nation with center in Kiev.

11. The social structure of society, reflected in VS, is also different for the historical and current parts. In the historical part, due to the principle of filtering records, accepted for the preparation, only groups of princes and gentlemen are reflected. In the current part of the princes there is practically no (0.5% of the total number of princes in VS), and the title pan (lord) occasionally used in relation to the Cossack officers.

12. Any family, known from the historical events of 16 – 1 half 17 century, is not represented in the current part of VS, and vice versa, any family, known by the events of the 2nd half 17th c. and inscribed in VS – is not known in earlier times. The synodikon demonstrates the picture of a complete change of the elite as a result of the Khmelnitsky events, which can be safely called a revolution in terms of the social structure of society.

13. In the current part of VS there is a clear dislike for the Cossacks, which, it is possible to think, are largely inscribed in the synodikon without any mention of the social situation and are therefore "dissolved" in the mass of untitled names. There is only one telling mention of the Cossack hetman, Eustace Gogol, appointed by the Polish king. The name of Bogdan Khmelnitsky appears in the synodikon disguised, other hetmans are not mentioned at all. Mentioned with titles – both Cossack officers and rank Cossacks – are single and in did not reflect the composition of even the officers.

14. But in VS there is a certain commitment to Western – Polish – Catholic (but not Uniate). The fanatical Catholic and the sworn enemy of Orthodoxy, Prince Jeremiah Vishnevetsky, is clearly mentioned, and other names of Catholics are also recorded. Even among Orthodox monks (including the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra) there are names from the Catholic namespace, which did not used neither earlier nor later. Among the monks of Lavra, there is a certain fashion for the Catholic title lawyer. All this can be considered a consequence of the romanization of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, initiated by Peter Mogila.

15. Records of the current part of VS contain some details about the life of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra itself, the Pechersky Town, the Pechersky women Monastery, other towns and villages of Ukraine. In particular, quite often there are memorial records of people from the possessions of the Pechersk Lavra.

16. In general, the Vvedensky synodikon can serve as a source for historiography (ascertaining the level of historical knowledge of the time), onomastics and everyday history; at the same time, it provides practically nothing for the genealogy and history of specific events.