In the international scene, Hungarian historian Márta Font is one of the top experts on the history of Old Rus’ and might as well be considered the biggest contemporary expert on the relations between early medieval Rus’ and the medieval Kingdom of Hungary in the times of the Arpads.Professor Font’s exceptional position in today’s medieval East Slavic scholarly environment reflects in a long list of specialized works in Magyar, German, English, Russian, and more recently, Ukrainian (“Галич у системi русько угорських вiдносин XI–XIII ст.” [Halych in the System of Russian-Hungarian Relations in the XIth–XIIIth Centuries], in Галич: Збірник наукових праць, translated and edited by Мирослав Волощук [Івано Франківськ: Лілея НВ, 2021]).1Professor Font’s publication in Ukrainian is, together with the work under review, derived from her 2005 monograph by the same name in Magyar: Árpád-házi királyok és Rurikida fejedelmek (Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely). Needless to say, Márta Font has already expressed most of her main scientific theses in earlier works.Besides the mandatory introduction, the reviewed publication is divided into three main parts. The first one presents a critical overview of the sources. The second presents the political history of the relations between the Arpads and the Rurikids. In the third part, Font formulates her conclusions. The book is nicely complemented by illustrations and different indexes.The first part is divided into East Slavic chronicles and other Latin-language sources. Among the latter, Font includes some Hungarian charters. In this section she also puts some texts of a narrative character that originated in the Kingdom of Hungary and Poland and concern the period in question. Although the Hungarian charters form a genre-specific whole, putting them together with other narrative texts makes sense because of their specific character. In fact, their naratio also contains a brief description of the facts for which the grantor rewarded the beneficiary with the rights or privileges the document concerns. As for its extent, this section has eighty pages and accounts for about a quarter of the book. Although this chapter is clearly elaborated, it is not possible to agree with all of Márta Font’s conclusions. The major difference of opinion between Professor Font and me is probably the significance we give the Hungarian-Polish Chronicle for the interpretation of the earliest imagination concerning the history of the Kingdom of Hungary. Another relevant disagreement concerns the dating of Anonymous Notary P’s Gesta Hungarorum, which I have many reasons to believe did not originate at the court of King Bela III, as Font would like to have it, but at the court of his grandson, Bela IV, more exactly, at the time he reigned in Transylvania as rex junior (1227–1235). As for the bibliography, a substantial shortcoming can be found in the part concerning the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, which fails to mention the last Slovak translation and edition of this work, the Haličsko-volynská kronika: Neznáme rozprávanie o rodine kráľov a kniežat východo-strednej Európy v 13. stor [The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle: The Unknown Story of a Family of Kings and Princes of Eastern Central Europe in the 13th Century], edited and translated by Martin Homza and Nora Malinovská (Martin: Matica slovenská, 2019).The second and main part of the publication counts almost 140 pages, making it the largest one as well. In it, Font describes the marriages, alliances, and military campaigns of the Arpads and the Rurikids. This section is divided into five main chapters, each containing several subchapters, that provide a detailed description of the rise, prime, and gradual decline of the relations between these two key lineages of East and Central Europe between the late tenth century and the second half of the thirteenth century. Although the title of the book mentions the House of the Arpads as a whole, Font’s publication practically leaves out the last three members of the dynasty, namely, Stephen V, Ladislas IV the Cuman, and Andrew III, as well as their ties to Rus’.In her Conclusions (pp. 249–255), Professor Font summarizes her previous research and suggests other areas of the inter-dynastic relations of the Arpads and the Rurikids that await being researched and interpreted, as well as new ways to do so. Although highly significant aspects related to this topic—such as the reciprocal cultural interchange that can be seen in architecture, for example, or the effect the Kingdom of Hungary had on the West Russian society, and vice versa, including the mutual influence of the political, economic, and ecclesiastical structures of both monarchies—have been enumerated, they have not been developed at all, which is more than regrettable. On the other hand, one of the major strengths of the work is the different tables that clearly summarize Font’s main scholarly achievements, as well as maps illustrating the military campaigns and advance lines of different incursions into the Kingdom of Hungary led, mostly, by Daniel of Galicia.Much can be said about the concept of the book itself, the selection of its facts, and its formal processing. Due to the lack of space, I will focus only on the methodology of its translation. Note 1 on page 13 states the rules both the author and the translator of the work chose for the purpose of translating the original Magyar text into English: “In cases in which Hungarian kings and other dignitaries are already known to Western scholars by English variants of their names, Dr. Font and I [Jason Vincz] have decided to use these established forms (thus Szent István Király is discussed here as King Saint Stephen. . . . However, where lesser-known figures are mentioned in the sources, we have retained their traditional Hungarian spellings (Dénes rather than Denis . . .). Furthermore . . . we have used parenthetical notes to alert the reader to the present-day place-names of the locations under discussion here.”The results of this approach are confusing, though. Take the personal proper name whose Latin form is Ladislaus Rutenus. In the case of this name, it is crucial to emphasize its bithemathic Slavic character (V)Ladislav, that is, (v)ladi and slav. However, the approach the translator and Professor Font have chosen has resulted in László of Ruthenia (p. 89), which sounds as if it were of Magyar origin. Likewise, the Slavic name the thirteenth-century Galician–Volhynian Chronicle uses to refer to present-day Bardejov in the northeast of today’s Slovakia, which in the chronicle is used in the form of the possessive adjective “Bardoev” (Бардоев)—derived from the personal masculine name Bard/Bardo—has resulted in the Hungarian-English version Bártfa. Curiously, they did not put so much effort when translating another locality, which the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle describes as “Izvolin” (Изволинъ), a name of Slavic origin. In their translation, they decided to name it simply “Zólyom Castle” (p. 213). In this case, they forgot to include the promised “parenthetical note” providing the reader with the present-day name and location of the place. By the way, by Zólyom Castle, they mean Pustý hrad, which is located in the cadastre of the city of Zvolen in today’s Slovak Republic. This practice is, however, highly misleading and therefore regrettable. When writing these critical lines intended for the translator of Márta Font’s work, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that not all historians in today’s Hungary do the same when translating Hungarian texts into English. An eloquent example to illustrate this is the works published by the Central European University (CEU) Press.