Conclusions

Nicholas Zharkikh

1. The development of chronicles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania can be represented in the following chronological table (yellow background highlight rewriting preserved texts):

Interaction of the two traditions chronicles
of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

2. "Vytautas" chronicle passed three stages of formation: the end of the 14th century, 1430-ies years and the middle of the 15th century. After the mid-15th century it is no longer replenished with new materials, and only experienced a few editorial changes.

3. "Belarusian" chronicle was created in Smolensk during the 1430-40-ies on the basis of "Epitome of Metropolitan Photius", that had been written in Moscow and brought to 1427. This epitome is often, but mistakenly called "all-Russian" chronicle, whereas its material is purely Moscow.

In the next time, "Belarusian" chronicle only was rewritten, but not replenished with new material. During the 16th century we have a number of cases of "invasion" Great-Russian chronicles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (in particular, we have already slightly touched Bil5L and Bil6L), but these facts do not constitute an independent line of development.

4. In 1430-40-ies "Vytautas" and "Belarusian" chronicles mutually enriched by articles written for one chronicle, and copied to another.

5. In 1520-30-ies the Vit6L copy was replenished: in front was added the article "Fabulous emergence of Lithuania"; the manuscript of this composition (Lit0L) became the basis for the "Lithuanian" chronicles.

6. In the 1560-ies Lit1L (Bychowiec chronicle) had been written, based on Lit0L and Vit4L. It was last work "Lithuanian" chronicle tradition, which features a large number of borrowings from other sources (including printed) and independent fantasies.

7. Style "Belarusian" chronicles – annual articles within which tells about unrelated events – is very different from the style of "Lithuanian" chronicles, in which there are no annual articles and any chronological designations at all, and the text is created from the individual tales, some of which are not even intended for the chronicle.

8. A characteristic feature of the work in question is the independent development of most of the articles. Therefore, it is impossible to obtain an overall stemma for those manuscripts. These manuscripts were formed of articles from various origins. This suggests that at least some of the articles at one time was common in separate copies (notebooks).

9. In terms of content, "Lithuanian" chronicles gone from actual chronicle genre (the collection of reliable information about the past) to the historical genre (a collection of interesting, exciting stories, perhaps with an educational value). The growth of art, fiction element denies all the source value for all works written in the 16th century. (With the small exception of current events records). But the works written in the late 14th – 1st half 15 cent., have a high source cost.

10. There was no own tradition kept in the "Lithuanian" chronicle about Gediminas (except the bare name) and Algirdas (except the episode plot against Jaunutis). All the stories about them – borrowing from Polish chronicles or pure fantasy. Even the deeds of Vytautas in 1397 – 1428 years did not form their own accounts in Lithuania and this gap had been filled with data from the Great-Russian and Polish sources.

11. Two traditions chronicles in the shortest review: