Conclusions
Nicholas Zharkikh
From our review of various aspects of the source value of synodikons, it follows that the lack of previous attempts to evaluate it was a generalized, undifferentiated approach to "synodikons in general".
Meanwhile, there is almost no statement that would be unequivocally true for all synodikons, and for all the structural parts of a separate synodikon.
First of all, it is necessary to separate the Ukrainian and Belarusian synodikons, on the one hand, and the Great Russians ones on the other. There is very little common in their practice.
Further, it is necessary to distinguish between historical and current parts of synodikons, which require different methods of investigation and have different source value.
This can be shown in the following table.
Relative source value of synodikons
| Direction of research | Historical part of the synodikons | Current part of the synodikons |
| History of specific events | no | insignificant |
| Genealogy | no | insignificant |
| Demography | no | possible (development of a methodology is required) |
| Historical geography | insignificant | mean |
| Sociology | insignificant | insignificant |
| History of religious representations | is possible | is possible |
| Anthroponymics | significant | very significant |
| Historiography | large | no |
Further studios over synodikons require, in my opinion:
1, compiling a complete bibliography of synodikons, both handwritten and published;
2, the publication of all valuable manuscripts, the benefit of having scanners for this does not require great mental effort;
3, a systematic study of interesting texts (in the style of my studies of the Pechersky and Vvedensky synodikons, or in the best style)
4, conducting comparative analysis, revealing the general and special in synodikons of various regions of the Orthodox world, as well as a comparison with the Catholic tradition.