Sols afegirém per'acabar aquest punt, lo criteri que mereixal estudiós F. Darwin Swift, qui en son important estudi «The life and times of James the First the Conqueror» (Oxford: 1894) diu lo seguent (Appendix D. pl. 281:
«All of these objections speak for themselves. If they fail to prove that the king was not the author of the Cronicle they certainly show that Villarroya lacked not only a sense of humour, but also a critical spirit and a proper appreciation of James' character. As a matter of fact, in each case we have James of Aragon writ large and better samples of the internal evidence for the autenticity of the Chronicle could hardly have been adduced. Not one of these stories is in any way out of harmony with the cast of James' character — a character full of the romantic and the sensual, the humorous and the devout. On the contrary, it is this very minuteness of detail wich says so much for the genuineness of the Chronicle.»
Com indica acertadament lo Sr. Darwin Swift, les omisions ó defectes de la Cronica son sa mes gran penyora d'autenticitat.
Seguint lo mateix estudi, lo mes modern dels que s'han publicat sobre la Cronica del gran Rey, y de millor crítica, transcriurém sa opinió sobre l'época en que foren escrites quiscuna de les quatre parts en que's divideix la cronica, en totes les copies que se'n conserven. No es
