Textual witnesses
The original chronicle completed in the late 13th century did not survive. The oldest known copy is part of the early 15th-century '' Hypatian Codex'', discovered in the Hypatian Monastery of Kostroma by the Russian historian and essayist Nikolay Karamzin. He also found the second codex of the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle, the 16th-century '' Khlebnikov Codex'' (which is considered the principal one). In 1973, five copies were known: Hypatian (Ipatiev), Khlebnikov (X), Pogodin (P), Cracow (C), and Ermolaev (E). As of 2022, seven codices/manuscripts that have been preserved are known to contain a paper copy of the ''Galician–Volhynian Chronicle''. * '' Hypatian Codex'' ( 1425) – contains a faulty chronology inserted by a later copyist * '' Khlebnikov Codex'' ( 1575) / Ostroz'kyj – contains no chronology * Pogodin/Chetvertyns'kyj text – contains no chronology * Cracow text (late 18th century in Latin script) – poorly copied from the Pogodin text * Bundur/Iarocki text * Ermolaev (Yermolayev) text – similar to Khlebnikov, but greatly abbreviated and distorted 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''.Contents
The ''Galician–Volhynian Chronicle'' has two parts: * The Galician section (1201–1260) * The Volynian section (1261–1292) The compiler of the ''Galician–Volhynian Chronicle'' explained Galicia's claim to the Principality of Kiev. The first part of the chronicle (Daniel of Galicia chronicle) was written in Kholm, possibly by a boyar named Dionisiy Pavlovich. 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. 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. Ultimately, the boundary between the two is somewhat arbitrary.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. The first linguistic studies of the entire ''Hypatian Codex'' were published by Makarushka (1896) and Nikolskij (1899). 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. Hrushevsky established the first reliable chronology of events in the GVC. He demonstrated that the faulty chronology found in the ''Hypatian'' GVC text was inserted by a later copyist. 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. In addition, Hrushevsky translated certain passages from it with historical and literary commentary. Panov published a modern Russian translation of the ''Galician–Volhynian Chronicle'' in 1936, which according to Daniel Clarke Waugh (1974) contained "occasional blunders". 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. 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. 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). Perfecky sought to establish a "free (but faithful) rather than a literal interpretation of the chronicle." 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". Waugh reviewed this edition, pointing out some flaws in translation, saying it "will need revision", and suggesting "that its publication was a bit premature." In 2006, Bulgarian historical linguist Daniela S. Hristova (1962–2010) 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). She concluded that this was where the Galician part ended, and the Volhynian part began. She and Petro Tolochko (2003) also supported the hypothesis of (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.See also
* IzbornykNotes
References
Bibliography
Primary sources
* – critical edition * – 1973 English translation ** – review of Perfecky's 1973 English translation * — A modern annotated Ukrainian translation of the ''Galician–Volhynian Chronicle'', based on the Hypatian Codex with comments from the Khlebnikov Codex.Literature
* * * * * * (e-book) ** "The Galician–Volhynian Chronicle as a Historical Source", pp. 148–150. {{DEFAULTSORT:Galician-Volhynian Chronicle 13th-century history books Old East Slavic chronicles Halych Volhynia Ruthenian-language literature