And now, when the studies are completed and the origin of each episode in the each annals finded out – now with height of achieved understanding we can look at what is written predecessors. Special attention will be paid to their errors – for the following readers are not followed them.
It is not my purpose to consider all books, all the articles, all the reviews and all the passing mention – I’m going to confine myself to monographs and articles specifically dedicated to "Lithuanian" chronicles. Other works will be dealt with very selective.
1. Although a full set of texts needed for the study was published in 1907, still none of the researchers introduced a rational classification of texts and have not seen in these chronicles two Independent traditions.
2. Greatly exaggerates the role of Smolensk in chronicle writing 15 cent., but was ignored or belittled the role of Vilna.
3. Considerable attention was paid by the researchers to scholastic question authors chronicles – it can not be resolved positively due to lack of guidance in the texts.
4. A significant disadvantage (especially in the last century works) is ignoring or inadequate involvement of the Polish historical works of the 16th century, which were used by the authors of the 16th century in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
5. Therefore, I can assume that my work is relevant and represents a new (rational) clarification of the subject coverage.