The Halych-Volynian Chronicle (HVL), covering the years 1201–1292 and subject to extensive analysis for well over a century, has recently undergone republication in a magnificent critical edition employing all known manuscripts, appending A. A. Shakhmatov's 1909 reconstruction of the original conclusion, plus a brief continuation from 1651 edited by Dariusz Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović, Chronica Galiciana-Voliniana (Chronica Romanoviciana), Monumenta Historiae Polonica, New Series 16 (Cracow-Warsaw, 2017). Enriched with copious notes and a detailed introduction, this edition, fronted also with Ukrainian and Polish title pages, now constitutes a must-consult gold standard.
Jusupović followed with a splendid gap-filling monograph—Kronika halicko-wołynska (Kronika Romanowiczow) w latopisarskiej kolekcji historycznej (Warsaw-Cracow: Avalon, 2019)—on HVL's sources, construction, chronological, and narrative strategies, cui bono authorship location and patronage of various passages, and precise or likely historical evidence therein, all capped with a detailed compositional chronological chart and an extensive bibliography. Under review here is a translation, supplemented by a foreword containing an abridgment of the 2017 Introduction concerning the chronicle's name (preferred: Romanovichi), annalistic genre (preferred: “collection”), and manuscript stemma, plus a new footnote questioning Christian Raffensperger's use of “king” for the Rus΄ kniaz΄ (viiin3). The English version adds translations from HVL (92–93, 95/83–84) with both text and explanatory notes taken from the 2017 publication (69n244, 107–8n335, 84n31, 157n452, 85nn35, 37/159nn456–57, 86n47, 166n468), and, as if aware of North American readership, a long footnote dialoguing with Charles Halperin regarding the Mongol period Rus΄ chronicles (119n74) plus new material concerning HVL's Lithuanian prince—monk Vaišvilkas (137–43), referencing, among others, this reviewer.
An informed reading is an unmitigated delight as Jusupović takes us step by step through all of HVL and elucidates how its authors retained chronological continuity centered on a given ruler, yet included pertinent inserts, especially concerning neighboring lands. Scrupulously crediting other scholars, he carefully advances his own hypotheses, whether micro concerning individual passages, events, and loci of scriptoria and chanceries, or complex—that the later Hypatian Chronicle redactor did not understand HVL's approach to chronology. Viewing a hypothetical Danilo's, (Romanovich, d. 1264) Chronicle (Pol. zwód), first undertaken in 1246–47, as the initial phase of HVL composition, Jusupović sees it commencing with an encomium to Danilo's father Roman Mstislavich (d. 1205). This stretches from 1201, when he briefly occupied Kiev, until his death, and replaces text from what Jusupović calls the (now lost) Kievan Chronicle (Pol. Latopis) of the (Smolensk-based) Rostislavichi. Since (Rostislavich) Mstislav Mstislavich ruled in Halych during much of 1215–28, that lost chronicle continued as a substratum of Danilo's, which comes into its own as fully Romanovichi-oriented as of 1229. The period 1244–59 within HVL appears as a focused “dynastic chronicle devoid of an annalistic layout, consisting of various types of stories gathered under various themes” (129). Finally, in the last, Volynian-centered phase of composition, likely very early 1300s, the 1259–60 response of Danilo's brother Vasil΄ko of Volodimir (d. 1269) to Mongol demands that local fortresses be razed prompted self-serving editing of the foregoing concerning Danilo by the chronicler of the latter's relatively erudite nephew Volodimer Vasil΄kovich (d. 1289).
Miłka Stępień's translation is eminently readable and sometimes eloquent but allows several unfortunate aspects for the neophyte. With Jusupović's employing cognate Polish words, gród (for HVL's elastic term городъ), for example, becomes “grod” (65), but never so explained in text or note. Captured Polish czeladzi (челѧди) are “serfs” (157: that early?) or “servants” (189: all of them?), as can be substantial łudzie (153, referencing HVL: съ людми з добрыми), while a “knight” (rycerі: best term here for an undifferentiated swordsman?) can also be a prince's “servant” (85: sługa/слуга). HVL's office of соцкый (centurian, hundredman) remains the Polish “setnik” (85), and where włość (волость) is a prince's domain it becomes “estate” (21). The rendering of place and personal names is inconsistent: Russian forms of Ukraine's Volodimir and Belarus's Navahrudak, while Ukrainian Halych, Belarusian Vawkavysk, and Polish for formerly Rus΄ Przemyśl, Chełm, and Bełz; also Lithuanian names for native princes except two in mixed HVL/Russian form with Polish orthography: Budykid, Budywid. Among the few outright mistakes: inland Poland's wielkim morze from HVL's “моръ великъ,” becomes “great sea” not pestilence (161); pascha is both “Easter” and “Passover” (187); twice Nicea is “Nice” (76, 113); thrice “Romanovichi” is plural (107, 110, 112) where the Polish singular denotes one prince; and HVL's землю ракоушкоу as ziemię rakuszka becomes “Land of Rakushkaia” (never identified), not Austria (117). Do such minor defects negate the book's overall value for researchers? Hardly. But pedagogues need such alerting if advising students who may consult this most excellent contribution to our scholarship on medieval Rus΄.
