Academic literature on the topic 'Principality of Galicia-Volhynia'

The article is aimed at introducing the brief recapitulation of the history of Polish Rus’. This history begins from Mieszko I of Poland (Red Ruthenia or Red Rus’ – that was as a matter of fact the residence of the Polish tribes). Gradually the Polish dominion (The Crown of the Kingdom of Poland) was stretched out on the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia (during the reign of Casimir the Great), and after the Union of Lublin – on the Volhynia and the rest of territories that nowadays belong to Ukraine. During the second Rzeczpospolita (The second Commonwealth of Poland) Polish Rus’ encompassed the Volhynia and the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia (Galicia – Eastern Małopolska, e.g. Lesser Poland). After 1945 the Polish Rus’ got separated from Poland (except Red Ruthenia or Red Rus’).

Purpose. The purpose of the study is to establish the authenticity and legal grounds for the application in relation to the state formation that existed in Galicia and Volhynia in the XIІ – XIII centuries. Names principality or kingdom. Methods. The methodological basis of the study was a set of general scientific, special scientific and philosophical methods, as well as the principles of historicism and objectivity. The key method was historical retrospective and comparative approach, which allowed determining the features and etymology of the concepts of «state», «kingdom», «principality». Results. It is established that there are approaches in the Ukrainian historical and legal nation to the name of the state formation that existed in Galicia and Volhynia in the XII-XIV centuries. – «principality», «kingdom», «state», is evidence that this issue is poorly understood and requires detailed attention of scientists. First, it is advisable to streamline both the terminology and approaches to understanding the key stage of nation building. It is stated that the established practice of simultaneous and parallel application of the terms Galicia-Volyn principality, Galicia-Volyn state and even the Kingdom of Rus, does not rely on existing legal, political and historical circumstances. Their use is usually in the form of synonyms, which is not entirely correct from a scientific point of view. In this case, the authoritative titles of «king» and «prince» are equivalent, and their formal difference is the symbol of power – the crown, because there is no reliable information about a similar element of power in Russia. Scientific novelty. The analysis of etymological and scientific approaches to the concepts «Galicia-Volyn principality», «Galicia-Volyn state» and «Kingdom of Russia» is given, the legal bases of application of each of them are defined. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in further historical and legal research, preparation of special courses.

The concept of “Western Ukraine” is not entirely a static one. As a valid unit of historical analysis it first appears in the late eighteenth century, when the Habsburg monarchy added Galicia (1772) and Bukovina (occupied 1774, annexed 1787) to its collection of territories; already part of the collection was the Ukrainian-inhabited region of Transcarpathia (depending on how one counts, it had been Habsburg since as early as 1526 or as late as the early eighteenth century). Of course, one can also read back certain features unifying Western Ukraine prior to the 1770s, such as the culturally formative influence on all three regions of the medieval Rus’ principality, later kingdom, of Galicia and Volhynia, as well as the presence of the Carpathian mountains, which was much more than a matter of mere geology (hence the Russophiles’ preferred name for Western Ukraine—Carpathian Rus'). Still, in the centuries prior to their incorporation into the Habsburg monarchy, the three regions had experienced such disparate political histories—Galicia as part of Poland, Bukovina of Moldavia, and Transcarpathia of Hungary—that there is little validity in treating them then as a historical unit.

Among valuable sources on the fourteenth-century Russian Church history are the records from the Vatican Greek miscellany described by V.N. Beneshevich. M.D. Priselkov, who published the records, entitled them “V.N. Beneshevich’s Fragments”. Record Nr. 10 mentions a golden metropolitan cross of a certain Pince Dmitry. Priselkov identifies this Prince Dmitry with Prince Gediminas’s son Liubartas, whose Christian name was Dmitry. According to the scholar, Liubartas kept the cross of Metropolitan Theophilus of Lithuania after his death, and that means the Metropolitanate of Lithuania was abolished not later than 1330. The author addresses some disputable questions concerning the origin of Liubartas-Dmitry, his kinship, and the early period of his life. The research aims at investigating the validity of the assumption that Liubartas-Dmitry could obtain the regalia of Metropolitan Theophilus of Lithuania to check whether the records confirm that the Metropolitanate of Lithuania was abolished by 1330. The author concludes that 1) the data regarding Liubartas-Dmitry’s kinship with the Romanovichi lineage are on the whole tentative, and the type of this relationship is not precisely established. However, the recognition he had as a legitimate ruler after the death of Boleslaw-Yuri II and his participation in the lengthy struggle over the succession in the Principality of Galicia – Volhynia testify to the existence of these ties; 2) Liubartas had no authority over the lands under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitanate of Lithuania, so there were no reasons why the cross of the metropolitan of Lithuania could be handed over to him. As an alternative hypothesis, the article points to the connections between Liubartas with the diocese of Lutsk, whose head Theodore was the only bishop to take part in the burial of Metropolitan Peter. The author assumes that the golden cross in question was given to Peter by Pince Yuri I of Galicia on the eve of Peter’s trip to Constantinople to be consecrated as metropolitan of Galicia. Later, Metropolitan Peter could hand the cross over to the Romanovichi successors through Bishop Theodore.

The aim of the article is to analyze V. Kuchabsky's historical views on the process of creation of the West Ukrainian People's Republic of 1918-1921. In his works of the first half of the 1930s the scientist highlighted the internal situation of Ukraine, in particular its political and military conditions, and at the same time revealed international relations that had a determinative influence on the future of Ukrainian statehood: Poland and Russia, the Bolsheviks and counterrevolution, the tendency for a new revival of the Russian Empire and the tendency for its collapse, the situation in Central Europe, the Paris Peace Conference and the Eastern European policy of the Western powers. The most significant work of V. Kuchabskyi, "Western Ukraine in the struggle against Poland and Bolshevism in 1918–1923," is a historical study, which objectively reflects the national history without a shadow of tenderness and political inspiration. More than eighty years have passed since its writing, but it still influences on the development of historical science in Ukraine, remains critical for the study of problems associated with the topic. V. Kuchabskyi tried to find out the reason for Ukrainians to lose their own statehood. For the first time in the 14th century, when the Principality of Galicia–Volhynia was conquered by Poland. And then in the 18th century when the Cossack state was annexed by Russia. The desire of Ukrainians to restore the united and independent state failed due to unjustified orientations to Moscow, then to Poland and Turkey. A similar situation, according to the historian, occurred in 1918–1921: while the Ukrainians fought against the Bolsheviks and the White Army, the Poles struck them back, capturing Galicia and Volyn. By signing the Treaty of Riga in 1921, they wanted to restore the division of Ukraine of 1667. The scientist called on the Galician to leave the inter-party controversy and unite for positive creativity and self-organization, to make a lasting peace between themselves, because external factors are often non-reliable and have their own aims, directly opposite to Ukrainian. V. Kuchabskyi warned not to rely on the rapid fall of Bolshevism, relying on the intervention of the capitalist world. On his thought, the damage of this view was disorienting citizens, turning their attention away from what actually was a question of life and death for Ukraine. Estimating the Ukrainian Galician Army, V. Kuchabskyi believed that it could be organized and turned into regular combat power only through significant victories in an actively waged war. But the Ukrainians did not have such commanders, which would turn the mechanically assembled army into a single military organism by their inspiration. According to V. Kuchabskyi, the political experience of the Ukrainian state of 1918–1921 remained undervalued, although it would have been enough to educate a new generation of state-oriented thinkers, creative people. That is why he put the realization of the state idea in direct dependence on the level of the political culture of the masses. This meant that the Galician intellectuals had to get rid of the conservative passivity, which manifested itself in a narrow worldview, the weakness of the will, and spiritual laziness. Only in this case, the national elite will build a democratic state, which will provide conditions for the cultural development of the people, will guarantee equal political and economic rights. Keywords Western Ukraine, Eastern Galicia, Lviv, National Revolution, November Action, ZUNR, UHA, Stanislav, Ukrainian National Council.

Стаття присвячена особливостям розвитку сакральної архітектури Галицько-Волинського князівства, яка, перебуваючи у руслі східнохристиянської традиції, використовувала романську будівельну техніку і сформувала систему декоративного оздоблення споруд із застосуванням білокам’яного різьблення, що є типовим для центрально- і західноєвропейської мистецької традиції. Висвітлено окремі аспекти наукової дискусії стосовно взаємовпливів галицько-волинської та володимиро-суздальської мурованої архітектури ХІІ–ХІІІ ст. Виявлено, що, незважаючи на виразні ознаки західноєвропейських впливів, середньовічні церкви на території Західної Русі свідчать про особливість місцевої архітектурної традиції, виражену в технології будівництва, тенденціях облаштування інтер’єрів в унікальному внутрішньому просторові храмових споруд. Ключові слова: Середньовіччя, архітектура, романська стилістика, Галич, Холм, Володимиро-Суздальське князівство. The paper considers peculiar development of sacral architecture of the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia which, while being congruent with the Eastern Christian tradition, still applied Romanesque building techniques and created building decoration system involving white-stone carvings typical of Central and Western European artistic tradition. It also covers some aspects of scholarly discussion concerning mutual influence of Galicia-Volhynia and Vladimir-Suzdal stone architecture of the ХІІ–ХІІІ centuries.We find that, despite abundant signs of Western European influences, medieval churches on the territory of West Rus testify to the local architectural tradition peculiarity, expressed in the technology, design and arrangement trends and unique temple interior decoration.Key words: Middle Ages, architecture, Romanesque style, Halych, Chelm, Vladimir-Suzdal Principality

Problem setting. Legal personality of Kyivan Rus’ is very complex issue, which contains elements such as contract law, law of war, ambassadorial law, general position of the state in the international relations sphere. The condition of Kyivan Rus’ in medieval history can be determined only after analyzing researches of well-known scientists, who had different opinions on this subject. In spite of the fact that a lot of researches were made on this topic, there is no clear and unambiguous answer to the question: “was Kyivan Rus’ independent and equal subject of international law?” In our opinion, this topic is actual even nowadays, because without an analysis of the issue it is impossible to form a modern understanding of Ukrainian statehood and its features in different periods. Analysis of recent researches and publications. Valuable contribution to the research of Kyivan Rus’ position in international relations sphere were made by lots of scientists in areas of Ukrainian history and history of international law such as O. Zadoroznyi, P. Tolochko, O. Butkevich, A. Dmitriev, Y. Dmitriev, M. Kotlyar, V. Pashuto, D. Feldman, V. Butkevich, I. Shekera, O. Pavlenko etc. Target of research is to analyze and compare opinions of different authors on the issue of determining Kyivan Rus’ as legal entity of international law. To achieve this target these tasks have to be solved: to research and analyze modern scientists’ studies about the position of Kyivan Rus’ in international law sphere in medieval period; to compare scientists’ views on legal personality of the state and come to a certain conclusion on this issue. Article’s main body. In this article author analyzes different periods of Kyivan Rus’ existence, general position of the state in international relations sphere and opinions of different scientists on this subject. Also, the article provides a comparison of scientists’ views on the topic of legal personality of international law of Kyivan Rus’. Conclusions. Kyivan state in different periods of its existence was in various international legal positions. Despite of the fact, that features of international law of Kyivan Rus’ is a topic for controversy, Ukrainian and foreign scientists came to the conclusion that Rus’ was full-fledged subject of international law and after its collapse it revived in the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, Zaporozhian Sich and the Cossack Hetmanate, Ukrainian People’s Republic, UkSSR (as independent UN member) and modern independent Ukraine.