What is and what is not the list

Nicholas Zharkikh

Shortened text of the section. Full text in ukrainian version.

What is the "List of Prince Constantine",
or History of the text

Now we can answer all questions, pointed by us as the task of investigating the source:

1. When is the text written?

In the 1550s, with the additions of 1654.

2. What historical period does the text cover?

2 quarter 11 – 2 quarter of the 16th century (600 years), with additions up to 2 quarter 17th century.

3. Where is the text written?

In Moscow, the additions – in Kiev.

4. What geographical area does the text cover?

The main focus is on the territory of the ancient Chernigov princedom.

5. What sources are used to compose the text?

Undoubtedly, private genealogical records of the Moscow nobility mid-16th century were used; indisputably, was not used any chronicles from the number known to us.

6. How competent was the author in the questions about which he wrote?

Completely incompetent.

7. What was the purpose of writing the text?

Justification of the need to restore the Chernigov diocese within the framework of the Moscow state.

8. What methods of processing sources did the author use to achieve his goals?

The author invented with new, unknown "Chernigov" princes; modified the records of famous princes, transferring their rule to Chernigov; invented the princesses and the facts of the monastic vows of princes.

9. What are the structural parts of the text? (And further question 1 – 8 to each part.)

Based on doubling the records of one person, one can distinguish 5 parts. Of these, the first part is quite clearly distinguished against the background of others on various grounds. In the first part there is a distinct inset ("The List of Prince George"), made, presumably, in Kiev during the final processing of the PKK. On the origin of these parts, we can not at present understand anything.

What is not "The List of Prince Constantine,
or Historiography of the theme

The Chernigov-genealogical "Fantastic Symphony", written by R. Zotov, misled even such a predominantly sober researcher as Mikhail Grushevsky. In its 1895 Grushevsky "did not want to deny the scientific value of the work of Mr. Zotov," but all his remarks are directed to individual details. The reviewer did not even raise the question of origin and the authenticity of the text.