Galician–Volhynian Chronicle

The Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (GVC) (Галицько-Волинський літопис, called "Halicz-Wolyn Chronicle" in Polish historiography), also known as Chronicle of Halych–Volhynia and The Dynastic Chronicle of the Romanovichi, is a prominent work of Old Ruthenian literature and historiography covering 1201–1292 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. 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 (c. 1425) – contains a faulty chronology inserted by a later copyist
 * Khlebnikov Codex (c. 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

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.

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 Mykola F. Kotlyar (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.