The opinion is circulating in the historical literature, as if in Kyiv in the second half of the 13th – 1st half of the 14th centuries had been ruled "the dynasty of Putivl princes". It rules are almost 90 years, until 1362.
Is this true? From what sources can one see the existence of such a "dynasty" and what are the value of these sources and this "dynasty"?
The text of the myth
The "source" of myth
The deal with this Novgorod-Seversky synodikon fell much simpler than one could imagine.
Now (after the aforementioned preparatory work), everything immediately became clear: Philaret used Novgorod-Seversky synodikon, that contained a copy of "The list of Prince Constantine", which comes from the Vvedensky synodikon.
What do we have in the Vvedensky synodikon? The following entries [4 entries].
we can not date these records. Point.
In the notes "The List of Prince Constantine" there are no genealogical ordering. One more point.
1. Any Putivl princedom was never existed as a separate inheritance; reasoning about it – improper exaggeration of source references about the temporary stay of the princes in Putivl.
2. In the absence of other, more specific information about the "Putivl princes", one should consider the "Putivl" records of the "List of Prince Constantine" as a result of the fantasy of the scribe of 1654.
3. This also applies to the "Kyiv Prince" Ioann Vladimir Ivanovich, who also should be considered fictitious.
4. No "dynasty" can be formed from these records, and it is impossible even to tentatively determine the lifetime of recorded persons. Belonging to "Ivan-Vladimir of Kyiv" to this "dynasty" is an ungrounded assumption.
Kyiv, July 25 – 28, 2018.