Galician–Volhynian Chronicle

File:Галицько-Волинський літопис (2002).djvu

Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (in Ukrainian Cyrillic script), 2002 critical edition by Mykola Kotlyar

The Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (GVCTemplate:Sfn) (Template:Langx, called "Halicz-Wolyn Chronicle" in Polish historiography), also known as Chronicle of Halych–VolhyniaTemplate:Sfn and by other namesTemplate:Efn is a prominent work of Old Ruthenian literature and historiography<ref name=eohou>Kotlyar, M. Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (ГАЛИЦЬКО-ВОЛИНСЬКИЙ ЛІТОПИС). Encyclopedia of History of Ukraine. 2004</ref> covering 1201–1292Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn in the history of the Principality of Galicia–Volhynia (in modern Ukraine).

Textual witnesses

The original chronicle completed in the late 13th century did not survive.Template:Sfn The oldest known copy is part of the early 15th-century Hypatian Codex,Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn discovered in the Hypatian Monastery of Kostroma by the Russian historian and essayist Nikolay Karamzin.Template:Sfn He also found the second codex of the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle, the 16th-century Khlebnikov Codex (which is considered the principal one).<ref name=eohou/>

In 1973, five copies were known: Hypatian (Ipatiev), Khlebnikov (X), Pogodin (P), Cracow (C), and Ermolaev (E).Template:Sfn As of 2022, seven codices/manuscripts that have been preserved are known to contain a paper copy of the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle.Template:Sfn

• Hypatian Codex (Template:Circa 1425)Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn – contains a faulty chronology inserted by a later copyistTemplate:Sfn
• Khlebnikov Codex (Template:Circa 1575) / Ostroz'kyjTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn – contains no chronologyTemplate:Sfn
• Pogodin/Chetvertyns'kyj textTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn – contains no chronologyTemplate:Sfn
• Cracow text (late 18th century in Latin script) – poorly copied from the Pogodin textTemplate:Sfn
• Bundur/Iarocki textTemplate:Sfn
• Ermolaev (Yermolayev) textTemplate:Sfn – similar to Khlebnikov, but greatly abbreviated and distortedTemplate:Sfn

According to Raffensperger & Ostrowski (2023), there were only four copies of the GVC; only the Hypatian and Khlebnikov were independent of each other, while the other two derived from Khlebnikov.Template:Sfn

Contents

Template:See also The Galician–Volhynian Chronicle has two parts:Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

• The Galician section (1201–1260)Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn
• The Volynian section (1261–1292)Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

The compiler of the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle explained Galicia's claim to the Principality of Kiev.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The first part of the chronicle (Daniel of Galicia chronicle) was written in Kholm, possibly by a boyar named Dionisiy Pavlovich.<ref>Literature of the late Middle Ages. Izbornik.</ref> Several scholars think that the entire GVC could have been written by eleven unique authors, after which it was compiled together into a single text.Template:Sfn

There is some disagreement between scholars where the Kievan Chronicle ends and the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle begins, as the texts themselves provide no such indication.Template:Sfn Ultimately, the boundary between the two is somewhat arbitrary.Template:Sfn

Studies and translations

While the 1843, 1908 and 1962 editions of the GVC published in the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (PSRL) and the 1871 Archaeographical Commission edition were still primarily based on the Hypatian text and only included Khlebnikov for variant readings, A. Klevanov's 1871 Russian paraphrase was the first work – albeit a very flawed one – to take the Khlebnikov text as the foundation for reconstructing the GVC.Template:Sfn The first linguistic studies of the entire Hypatian Codex were published by Makarushka (1896) and Nikolskij (1899).Template:Sfn Compared to the Primary Chronicle and Kievan Chronicle, relatively little attention was given to the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle until the 1890s, when Ukrainian historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky stimulated historical and literary interest in it.Template:Sfn Hrushevsky established the first reliable chronology of events in the GVC.Template:Sfn He demonstrated that the faulty chronology found in the Hypatian GVC text was inserted by a later copyist.Template:Sfn Although it was clear that the original author had intended to write his text in imitation of the events-based – rather than years-based (annalistic) – Greek chronographs, he never got around to dating the events he had been writing about, and so a later copyist inserted dates, albeit incorrectly.Template:Sfn In addition, Hrushevsky translated certain passages from it with historical and literary commentary.Template:Sfn

Panov published a modern Russian translation of the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle in 1936, which according to Daniel Clarke Waugh (1974) contained "occasional blunders".Template:Sfn Waugh suggested that Teofil Kostrub's modern Ukrainian translation, also released in 1936, was "more faithful to the original" than the English one produced by Perfecky in 1973.Template:Sfn

The first English translation of the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle was published with an index and annotations by La Salle professor George A. Perfecky in 1973.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn It was part of a large-scale project to produce critical editions of the entire Hypatian Codex in modern English under the guidance of professor Omeljan Pritsak (who founded the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute that same year).Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Perfecky sought to establish a "free (but faithful) rather than a literal interpretation of the chronicle."Template:Sfn Pritsak cautioned the reader "that these are pioneer steps toward a comprehensive study of this work", and that a revised edition would be prepared "upon the completion of the whole project, which is estimated to take at least ten years".Template:Sfn Waugh reviewed this edition, pointing out some flaws in translation, saying it "will need revision", and suggesting "that its publication was a bit premature."Template:Sfn

In 2006, Bulgarian historical linguist Daniela S. Hristova (1962–2010<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>) demonstrated that there was a clear linguistic and stylistic boundary in the middle of column 848, between the end of the entry for the year 1260 (6768) and the year 1261 (6769).Template:Sfn She concluded that this was where the Galician part ended, and the Volhynian part began.Template:Sfn She and Petro Tolochko (2003) also supported the hypothesis of Template:Ill (1993) that the Galician part consisted of six different narratives by separate authors, and that the Volhynian part compiled five different narratives into one, so that the whole GVC was probably written by eleven different people.Template:Sfn

See also

• Izbornyk

Bibliography

Primary sources

• Template:Cite book – critical edition
• Template:Cite book – 1973 English translation
  • Template:Cite journal – review of Perfecky's 1973 English translation
• Template:Cite book — A modern annotated Ukrainian translation of the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle, based on the Hypatian Codex with comments from the Khlebnikov Codex.

Literature

• Template:Cite journal
• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite book (e-book)
  • "The Galician–Volhynian Chronicle as a Historical Source", pp. 148–150.