Facial vault. Facial vault of Ivan IV Facial chronicle vault

The “Makaryev school” of painting, the “school of Grozny” are concepts that cover a little more than three decades in the life of Russian art of the second half (or, more precisely, the third quarter) of the 16th century. These years are full of facts, rich in works of art, characterized by a new attitude to the tasks of art, its role in the general structure of the young centralized state, and, finally, they are notable for their attitude towards the creative personality of the artist and attempts to regulate his activities, more than ever to subordinate them to the tasks polemical, to involve in participation in the intense dramatic action of state life. For the first time in the history of Russian artistic culture, issues of art became the subject of debate at two church councils (1551 and 1554). For the first time, a pre-developed plan for the creation of numerous works of different types of art (monumental and easel painting, book illustration and applied art, in particular wood carving) predetermined themes, plots, emotional interpretation and, to a large extent, served as the basis for a complex set of images designed to reinforce, to justify and glorify the rule and deeds of the first “crowned autocrat” who ascended the throne of the centralized Russian state. And it was at this time that a grandiose artistic project was being carried out: the front chronicle of Ivan the Terrible, the Tsar-Book - a chronicle of events in world and especially Russian history, written, probably in 1568-1576, especially for the royal library in a single copy. The word “facial” in the title of the Code means illustrated, with images “in faces”. Consists of 10 volumes containing about 10 thousand sheets of rag paper, decorated with more than 16 thousand miniatures. Covers the period “from the creation of the world” to 1567. A grandiose “paper” project of Ivan the Terrible!

Face chronograph. RNB.

The chronological framework of these phenomena in the artistic life of the Russian centralized state in the second half of the 16th century. determined by one of the most significant events of that time - the crowning of Ivan IV. The wedding of Ivan IV (January 16, 1547) opened a new period of establishment of autocratic power, being a kind of result of a long process of formation of a centralized state and the struggle for the unity of Rus', subordinate to the power of the Moscow autocrat. That is why the very act of crowning Ivan IV, which served as the subject of repeated discussions among the future participants of the “elected council”, as well as among the inner circle of Metropolitan Macarius, was, as historians have already said more than once, furnished with exceptional pomp. Based on literary sources from the end of the previous century, Macarius developed the very ritual of the royal wedding, introducing the necessary symbolism into it. A convinced ideologist of autocratic power, Macarius did everything possible to emphasize the exclusivity (“God’s chosenness”) of the power of the Moscow autocrat, the original rights of the Moscow sovereign, with references to historical analogies in the field of civil history and, above all, the history of Byzantium, Kievan and Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'.

Royal book.

The ideology of autocracy should, according to Macarius’s plan, be reflected in the written sources of the era and, first of all, the chronicle, books of the royal genealogy, the circle of annual reading, which were the Chetya Menaion compiled under his leadership, and also, apparently, it was intended to turn to the creation of appropriate works of fine art. That the plans for addressing all types of artistic culture were grandiose from the very beginning is shown by the scope of literary works of that time. It is difficult, however, to imagine what forms the implementation of these plans in the field of fine art would have taken and in what time frame they would have been realized, if not for the fire in June 1547, which devastated the vast territory of the city. As the chronicle says, on Tuesday, June 21, “at 10 o’clock on the third week of Peter’s Lent, the Church of the Exaltation of the Honorable Cross behind Neglimnaya on Arbatskaya Street caught fire... And a great storm came, and fire began to flow, like lightning, and the fire was intense... And the storm turned into a larger hail, and the cathedral church of the Most Pure Top caught fire in the city, and in the royal courtyard of the Grand Duke on the roof sheets, and the wooden huts, and the sheets decorated with gold, and the Treasury courtyard and with the royal treasury, and the church in the royal courtyard royal treasuries The Annunciation is golden-topped, Andreev's Deesis of Rublev's letters, overlaid with gold, and images decorated with gold and beads of the valuable Greek letters of his ancestors collected from many years... And in many stone churches, Deesis and images, and church vessels, and many human bellies were burnt out , and the Metropolitan's courtyard." “...And in the city all the courtyards and roofs are burning, and the Chudovsky monastery is all burning, the only relics of the great holy miracle worker Alexei were quickly preserved by the mercy of God... And the Ascension Monastery is also all burning, ...and the Church of the Ascension is burning, images and vessels Church and human lives are many, only the archpriest brought out one image of the Most Pure One. And all the courtyards in the city were burnt, and in the city the roof of the city, and the cannon potion, wherever in the city, and those places where the city walls were torn apart... In one hour, a lot of people burned, 1,700 men and women and babies, a lot of people burned people along Tferskaya Street, and along Dmitrovka, and on Bolshoy Posad, along Ilyinskaya Street, in Gardens.” The fire on June 21, 1547, which began in the first half of the day, continued until night: “And in the third hour of the night the fiery flame ceased.” As is clear from the above chronicle evidence, buildings in the royal court were severely damaged, numerous works of art were destroyed and partly damaged.

Battle on the Ice. Chronicle miniature from the Front Vault of the 16th century.

But Moscow residents suffered even more. On the second day, the tsar and the boyars gathered at the bedside of Metropolitan Macarius, who was injured in the fire, “to think” - the state of mind of the masses was discussed, and the tsar’s confessor, Fyodor Barmin, reported on the spread of rumors about the cause of the fire, which black people explained by the witchcraft of Anna Glinskaya. Ivan IV was forced to order an investigation. In addition to F. Barmin, Prince Fyodor Skopin Shuisky, Prince Yuri Temkin, I. P. Fedorov, G. Yu. Zakharyin, F. Nagoy and “many others” took part in it. Alarmed by the fire, the Moscow black people, as the course of further events explains in the Continuation of the Chronograph of 1512 and the Chronicler Nikolsky, gathered at a meeting and on Sunday morning, June 26, entered the Kremlin’s Cathedral Square “to the sovereign’s court,” seeking trial of the perpetrators of the fire (the perpetrators of the fire , as stated above, the Glinskys were revered). Yuri Glinsky tried to hide in the Dmitrovsky chapel of the Assumption Cathedral. The rebels entered the cathedral, despite the ongoing divine service, and during the “cherubic song” they extracted Yuri and killed him in front of the metropolitan seat, dragged him outside the city and threw him at the place of execution of the criminals. The Glinsky people were “beaten countless times and their stomachs were razed by the princess.” One might have thought that the murder of Yuri Glinsky was an “execution” dressed in a “traditional” and “legal” form.

Mityai (Mikhail) and St. Dionysius before the leader. book Dimitry Donskoy.

Miniature from the Facial Chronicle. 70s XVI century

This is evidenced by the fact that Glinsky’s body was taken out for auction and thrown “before the stake, where they would be executed.” The black people's protest did not end there. On June 29, armed and in battle formation, they (at the “cry of the executioner” or “birich”) moved to the royal residence in Vorobyovo. Their ranks were so formidable (they were with shields and spears) that Ivan IV was “surprised and horrified.” Black people demanded the extradition of Anna Glinskaya and her son Mikhail. The scale of the action of black people turned out to be quite large; the readiness for military action testified to the strength of the people's anger. This uprising was preceded by protests of the dissatisfied in the cities (in the summer of 1546, the Novgorod pishchalniks spoke out, and on June 3, 1547, the Pskovites, complaining about the royal governor Turuntai), and it is clear that the size of the popular unrest should have made a formidable impression not only on Ivan IV. The inner circle of the young tsar, who determined the policy of the 30s - 50s, had to take them into account. The organized uprising of the Moscow lower classes was mainly directed against boyar autocracy and arbitrariness, which was especially painfully reflected in the destinies of the broad masses during the youth of Ivan IV, and had a certain impact on the further development of domestic politics.

One of the books of the Front Vault of the 16th century.

Most likely, those historians who consider the Moscow uprising after the fire of 1547 to be inspired by opponents of boyar autocracy are right. It is not unreasonable to try to find the inspirers of the uprising in the inner circle of Ivan IV. However, inspired from the outside, it, reflecting the protest of the broad masses against boyar oppression, as we know, took on an unexpected scope, although it coincided in its direction with the new trends of the emerging government of the 50s. But at the same time, its scale, speed and strength of the popular reaction to the events were such that it was impossible not to take into account the significance of the speech and those deep social reasons that, regardless of the influence of the ruling political parties, gave rise to popular unrest. All this aggravated the complexity of the political situation and greatly contributed to the breadth of ideas and searches for the most effective means of ideological influence, among which works of fine art that were new in their content occupied a significant place. One might think that when developing a plan for political and ideological measures to influence broad public circles, it was decided to turn to one of the most accessible and familiar educational means - to formal and monumental painting, due to the capacity of its images, capable of leading from the usual edifying themes to more broad historical generalizations. A certain experience of this kind developed already during the reign of first Ivan III, and later Vasily III. In addition to influencing the Moscow black people, as well as the boyars and service people, the works of painting were intended to have a direct educational effect on the young Tsar himself. Like many literary endeavors carried out in the circle of Metropolitan Macarius and the “chosen council” - and the leading role of Macarius as the ideologist of autocratic power should not be underestimated - the works of painting in their essential part contained not only “justifications of the policy” of the tsar, but also revealed those basic ideas that were supposed to inspire Ivan IV himself and determine the general direction of his activities.

Ivan the Terrible at the wedding of Simeon Bekbulatovich.

It was important to interest Ivan IV in the general plan of restoration work to such an extent that their ideological orientation would, as if predetermined by the sovereign himself, come from him (remember that somewhat later the Stoglavy Cathedral was organized in a similar way). The initiative for restoration work was divided between Metropolitan Macarius, Sylvester and Ivan IV, who, naturally, had to officially lead. All these relationships can be traced in the very course of events, as the chronicle sets them out, and most importantly, as evidenced by the materials of the “Viskovaty case”. The interior of the temples burned out, and the fire did not spare the royal home or the royal treasury. Leaving churches without shrines was not the custom of Muscovite Rus'. Ivan IV, first of all, “sent holy and honorable icons to the cities, to Veliky Novgorod, and to Smolensk, and to Dmitrov, and Zvenigorod, and from many other cities, they brought many wonderful holy icons and at the Annunciation they set them up for veneration for the Tsar and all the peasants " Following this, restoration work began. One of the active participants in the organization of restoration work was Priest Sylvester, who himself served in the Annunciation Cathedral - as is known, one of the most influential figures of the “elected council”. Sylvester tells in detail about the progress of the work in his “Complaint” to the “consecrated cathedral” of 1554, from where one can glean information about the organization and performers of the work, and about the sources of iconography, and about the process of ordering and “acceptance” of works, as well as about the role and relationships Metropolitan Macarius, Ivan IV and Sylvester himself during the creation of new monuments of painting.

Shchelkanovschina. Popular uprising against the Tatars in Tver. 1327.

Miniature from the Front Chronicle of the 16th century

“The Complaint” allows one to judge the number of invited masters, as well as the very fact of inviting masters, and most importantly, about those artistic centers from which cadres of painters were drawn: “the sovereign sent icon painters to Novgorod, and to Pskov and to other cities, icon painters came together , and the Tsar Sovereign ordered them to paint icons, whoever was ordered to do what, and ordered others to sign the plates and to paint images at the city over the gates of the saints.” Thus, the areas of activity of painters are immediately determined: easel painting (icon painting), secular ward painting, creation of gate icons (it is possible to understand them as mural painting and as easel painting). Sylvester names two cities as the main artistic centers from which masters come: Novgorod and Pskov, and it is very interesting how the relationship between the masters and the organizers of the order develops. All from the same “Complaint” of Sylvester, as well as from his message to his son Anfim, one can judge the leading role of Sylvester in organizing the leadership of the squad itself, which carried out painting work after the fire of 1547. In particular, with the Novgorod masters, Sylvester apparently had relations Habitual, well-coordinated relationships have long been established. He himself determines what they should order, where they can get the sources of iconography: “And I, reporting to the sovereign Tsar, ordered the Novgorod icon painters to paint the Holy Trinity, the Life-Giving One in the acts, and I Believe in one God, and Praise the Lord from heaven, and Sophia, the Wisdom God, yes it is worthy to eat, and the translation of the Trinity had icons, why write, but on Simonov.” But this was done if the plots were traditional. The situation was much more complicated when these translations did not exist.

Defense of Kozelsk, 16th century miniature from the Nikon Chronicle.

The other part of the work was entrusted to the Pskov residents. Their invitation was not unexpected. They turned to Pskov craftsmen back at the end of the 15th century. True, at that time they invited skilled builders, whereas now they invited icon painters. Macarius, in the recent past the Archbishop of Novgorod and Pskov, himself, as is known, a painter, in all likelihood, at one time established relations with Pskov masters. In any case, based on the completed orders, one can judge the rather significant size of the workshop at the archbishop's court in Novgorod. The generally accepted opinion is that this entire workshop, following Macarius, moved to the metropolitan court in Moscow. Macarius, being already a metropolitan, could maintain relations with the Pskovites through the priest of the Annunciation Cathedral, Pskov Semyon, the same one who presented his “Complaint” to the “consecrated cathedral” together with Sylvester. Obviously, the best masters from different cities were convened to fulfill such a complex order, which laid the foundation for the “royal school” of painters. The Pskovites, without explaining the reason, did not want to work in Moscow and undertook to fulfill the order, working at home: “And the Pskov icon painters Ostan, yes Yakov, yes Mikhail, yes Yakushko, and Semyon Vysoky Glagol and his comrades, took time off to Pskov and were there to paint four large icons":

1. Last Judgment

2. Renewal of the Temple of Christ our God of the Resurrection

3. The Passion of the Lord in the Gospel parables

4. Icon, there are four feasts on it: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works, that the only begotten Son is the Word of God, that people come, let us worship the three-part Divinity, that in the carnal grave”

So, at the head of the entire grandiose plan of restoration work was the king, “reporting” to whom or “asking” whom (partly nominally), Sylvester distributed orders among painters, especially if there was an immediate opportunity to use samples.

Battle on the Ice. The flight of the Swedes to the ships.

It should be especially emphasized that the Moscow sources of traditional iconography were the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and the Simonov Monastery. (In written sources, until the second half of the 16th century, there was no information about an art workshop in Simonovo, despite the mention of the names of several masters who came from this monastery). It should also be recalled that among the authoritative sources of iconography, Novgorod and Pskov churches are also mentioned, in particular the murals of St. Sophia of Novgorod, the Church of St. George in the Yuryev Monastery, St. Nicholas on the Yaroslav's Courtyard, the Annunciation on the Settlement, St. John on Opoki, the Cathedral of the Life-Giving Trinity in Pskov, which is very characteristic of Novgorod connections between Sylvester and Macarius. Despite the fact that it would seem natural to consider Metropolitan Macarius himself as the main inspirer of the paintings, it is clear from the text of the “Complaint” that he played a rather passive role in the organizational side of the order. But he carried out the “acceptance” of the order, “performing a prayer service with the entire consecrated cathedral,” because the most important act of approbation from the point of view of church ideology was the moment of consecration of completed works, primarily works of easel, as well as monumental painting. Ivan IV could not do without the participation at this stage either - he distributed new icons to churches. Restoration work after the fire of 1547 was considered a matter of national importance, since Ivan IV himself, Metropolitan Macarius and Sylvester, the member of the “elected council” closest to Ivan IV, took care of their implementation.

Ivan the Terrible and royal icon painters.

It was in the era of Grozny that art was “deeply exploited by the state and the church,” and a rethinking of the role of art took place, the importance of which as an educational principle, a means of persuasion and an irresistible emotional impact increases immeasurably, at the same time the usual way of artistic life changes dramatically. The possibility of “free creative development of the artist’s personality” is reduced. The artist loses the simplicity and freedom of relationship with the client-parishioner, the church ktitor or the abbot - the builder of the monastery. Now orders of national importance are strictly regulated by ruling circles, which consider art as a conductor of certain political trends. Themes and plots of individual works or entire ensembles are discussed by representatives of state and church authorities, become the subject of debate at councils, and are specified in legislative documents. During these years, plans were developed for grandiose monumental ensembles, cycles of easel works and illustrations in handwritten books, which generally have common trends.

Construction of St. Basil's Cathedral (Intercession on the Moat) on Red Square.

A desire is revealed to connect the history of the Moscow state with world history, to show the “chosenness” of the Moscow state, which is the subject of “divine economy.” This idea is supported by numerous analogies from Old Testament history, the history of the Babylonian and Persian kingdoms, the monarchy of Alexander the Great, Roman and Byzantine history. It is not without reason that the chronographic volumes of the Front Chronicle were created with special attention and such thoroughness in the circle of Makaryev scribes. It is not for nothing that in the monumental ensembles of temple paintings and paintings of the Golden Chamber such a significant place was given to historical and Old Testament subjects, selected on the principle of direct analogy. At the same time, the entire cycle of works of fine art was permeated with the idea of the divinity of the sovereign power, its establishment by God, its originality in Rus' and the direct succession of royal dignity from the Roman and Byzantine emperors and the continuity of the dynasty of “God-appointed sceptre-holders” from the princes of Kyiv and Vladimir to the sovereign of Moscow. All this taken together was intended to reinforce and justify the very fact of the crowning of Ivan IV, to justify the further course of autocratic policy not only in the Moscow state itself, but also in the face of the “Orthodox East”.

Ivan the Terrible sends ambassadors to Lithuania.

This was all the more necessary because the “approval” of the wedding of Ivan IV by the Patriarch of Constantinople was expected, which, as we know, took place only in 1561, when a “conciliar charter” was received. An equally important place in the overall plan was occupied by the idea of glorifying the military actions of Ivan IV. His military performances were interpreted as religious wars in defense of the purity and inviolability of the Christian state from infidels, liberating Christian captives and civilians from Tatar invaders and oppressors. Finally, the topic of religious and moral education seemed no less significant. It was interpreted on two levels: more in-depth with a certain philosophical and symbolic connotation in the interpretation of basic Christian dogma and more directly - in terms of moral purification and improvement. The last topic was also of a personal nature - it was about the spiritual education and self-correction of the young autocrat. All these trends, or, more precisely, all these facets of a single ideological concept, were realized in different ways in individual works of art throughout the entire Grozny reign. The culmination of the discovery and implementation of this concept was the period of restoration work of 1547-1554. and more broadly - the time of activity of the “elected Rada”.

Battle of Kulikovo. 1380

After 1570 until the end of the reign of Ivan IV, as is known, the volume of work in the field of fine arts sharply decreased, the tension of emotional content, the feeling of uniqueness and chosenness gradually faded. It is replaced by another, more severe, sorrowful, and sometimes tragic. Echoes of triumph and self-affirmation, so characteristic in the initial period, only occasionally make themselves felt in individual works as belated reflections of the past, only to fade away completely in the early 80s. At the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, applied art came to the forefront in artistic life. If it becomes impossible to affirm and glorify the idea of autocracy as such, then it is natural to add splendor to palace everyday life; palace utensils, like royal clothes, covered with patterns and jewelry, often turn into unique works of art. The nature of the literary works undertaken in order to “prepare” for the wedding in the circle of Metropolitan Macarius is noteworthy. Among them, the rite of crowning the kingdom itself, with its direct connection with the “Tale of the Princes of Vladimir,” should be especially highlighted. The story about Vladimir Monomakh receiving the royal crown and his coronation “to the kingdom” is contained in the Degree Book and the Great Menaions of the Fourth, i.e., literary monuments of the Makaryev circle. The initial volumes of the chronographic part of the Litsevoy Chronicle Code, as well as an expanded (compared to other lists of the Nikon Chronicle) edition of the text of the first six sheets of the Golitsyn volume of the Litsey Chronicle Code, also contain a narrative about the beginning of the reign of Vladimir Monomakh in Kyiv and about his crowning “to the kingdom” with regalia , sent by the Byzantine emperor. In direct connection with them are miniatures decorating the chronographic part of the Front Vault, as well as miniatures of the first six sheets of the Golitsyn volume. In the miniatures of the chronographic part of the Litsa Chronicle, in turn, there is further disclosure of the theme of the divine establishment of autocratic power, the introduction of Rus' into the general course of world history, as well as the idea of the chosenness of the Moscow autocratic ruler. Thus, a certain circle of literary monuments is designated. These same themes are further explored in the paintings of the Golden Chamber, in the reliefs of the royal seat (“Monomakh’s throne”) erected in the Assumption Cathedral, and in the painting of the portal of the Archangel Cathedral. The icons executed by the Pskovites, seemingly purely dogmatic in their content, carry within themselves the beginning, and perhaps also the revelation, of the theme of the sacred nature of the wars led by Ivan IV, the divinely chosen feat of warriors awarded the crowns of immortality and glory, which culminates in the icon “ Church Militant" and in the depiction of Christ - the conqueror of death in the "Four Parts" of the Annunciation Cathedral.

Battle of Kosovo Field. 1389

This theme in its programmatic, most developed form is embodied in the first Russian “battle picture” - “The Militant Church”. A direct revelation of its subtext are the paintings of the tomb of Ivan IV (in the deaconry of the Archangel Cathedral), as well as the system of paintings of the cathedral as a whole (if we assume that its painting that has survived to this day completely repeats the painting carried out no later than 1566). Even if we remain within the most cautious assumptions about the preservation of earlier paintings, one cannot help but see that the military themes included in the murals directly lead to the cycle of Old Testament battle scenes in the paintings of the Golden Chamber, in which contemporaries found direct analogies with the history of Kazan and Astrakhan taking. To this should be added personal, “autobiographical” themes, if this is how we can talk about the subjects of the murals of the Archangel Cathedral (the main tomb of Grozny) and the Golden Chamber, and partly the icon-painting “Church Militant”. Finally, the main Christological, or symbolic-dogmatic, cycle of icons made according to the “sovereign order” is associated with the main compositions of the painting of the Golden Chamber, being a visual expression of the entire system of religious and philosophical views of that group, which is usually called the “government of the 50s” and which included both representatives of the “elected Rada” and the head of the Russian Church - Metropolitan Macarius. Being addressed to relatively wide circles of the people, this painting also had another purpose - a constant reminder of the basic religious and philosophical principles to the young king, whose “correction” was undertaken by his closest members of the “elected council.” This is also evidenced by the presence in the system of painting of the Golden Chamber of compositions on the theme of the Tale of Varlaam and Joasaph, in which contemporaries tended to see the story of the moral renewal of Ivan IV himself, and by Varlaam they meant the same all-powerful Sylvester. Thus, before us are, as it were, links of a single plan. Themes, starting in one of the monuments, continue to be revealed in subsequent ones, read in direct sequence in works of different types of fine art.

Facial chronicle vault(Front chronicle collection of Ivan the Terrible, Tsar Book) - a chronicle collection of events in world and especially Russian history, created in the 40-60s of the 16th century (probably in 1568-1576) specifically for the royal library in a single copy. The word “facial” in the title of the Code means illustrated, with images “in faces”. Consists of 10 volumes containing about 10 thousand sheets of rag paper, decorated with more than 16 thousand miniatures. Covers the period “from the creation of the world” to 1567. The front (i.e., illustrated, with the image “in the faces”) chronicle collection is not only a monument of Russian handwritten books and a masterpiece of ancient Russian literature. This is a literary, historical, artistic monument of world significance. It is no coincidence that it is unofficially called the Tsar-Book (by analogy with the Tsar-Cannon and the Tsar-Bell). The facial chronicle was created in the 2nd half of the 16th century by order of Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible in a single copy for his children. Metropolitan and “sovereign” artisans worked on the books of the Front Vault: about 15 scribes and 10 artists. The arch consists of about 10 thousand sheets and over 17 thousand illustrations, and the visual material occupies about 2/3 of the entire volume of the monument. Miniature drawings (landscape, historical, battle and everyday life genres) not only illustrate the text, but also complement it. Some events are not written, but only drawn. The drawings tell readers what clothing, military armor, church vestments, weapons, tools, household items, etc. looked like in ancient times. In the history of world medieval writing, there is no monument similar to the Front Chronicle, both in breadth of coverage and in volume. It included sacred, Hebrew and ancient Greek history, stories about the Trojan War and Alexander the Great, stories from the history of the Roman and Byzantine empires, as well as a chronicle covering the most important events in Russia for four and a half centuries: from 1114 to 1567. (It is assumed that the beginning and end of this chronicle, namely the Tale of Bygone Years, a significant part of the history of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, as well as some other fragments, have not been preserved.) In the Litsevoy Vault, the history of the Russian state is considered inextricably with world history.

The volumes are grouped in relatively chronological order:

Bible story
History of Rome
History of Byzantium
Russian history

Contents of volumes:

Museum collection (GIM). 1031 sheets, 1677 miniatures. An account of sacred, Hebrew and Greek history from the creation of the world to the destruction of Troy in the 13th century. BC e.
Chronographic collection (BAN). 1469 sheets, 2549 miniatures. An account of the history of the ancient East, the Hellenistic world and ancient Rome from the 11th century. BC e. until the 70s I century n. e.
Face Chronograph (RNB). 1217 sheets, 2191 miniatures. Outline of the history of the ancient Roman Empire from the 70s. I century to 337 and Byzantine history to the 10th century.
Golitsyn volume (RNB). 1035 sheets, 1964 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1114-1247 and 1425-1472.
Laptev volume (RNB). 1005 sheets, 1951 miniature. Outline of Russian history for 1116-1252.
Osterman's first volume (BAN). 802 sheets, 1552 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1254-1378.
Osterman's second volume (BAN). 887 sheets, 1581 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1378-1424.
Shumilovsky volume (RNL). 986 sheets, 1893 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1425, 1478-1533.
Synodal volume (GIM). 626 l, 1125 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1533-1542, 1553-1567.
Royal Book (GIM). 687 sheets, 1291 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1533-1553

History of the creation of the vault:

The vault was probably created in 1568-1576. (according to some sources, work began in the 1540s), commissioned by Ivan the Terrible, in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, which was then the residence of the Tsar. In particular, Alexey Fedorovich Adashev took part in the work. The creation of the Facial Chronicle lasted intermittently for more than 30 years. The text was prepared by scribes from the entourage of Metropolitan Macarius, the miniatures were executed by masters of the metropolitan and “sovereign” workshops. The presence in the illustrations of the Facial Chronicle corpus of images of buildings, structures, clothing, tools of craft and agriculture, household items, corresponding in each case to the historical era, indicates the existence of more ancient illustrated chronicles, which served as models for the illustrators of the Facial Chronicle corpus Illustrative material, occupying about 2/3 The entire volume of the Facial Chronicle contains a developed system of illustrating historical texts. Within the illustrations of the Facial Chronicle, one can talk about the origin and formation of landscape, historical, battle and everyday genres. Around 1575, amendments were made to the text concerning the reign of Ivan the Terrible (apparently under the leadership of the Tsar himself). Initially the vault was not bound - binding was carried out later, at different times.

Storage:

The only original copy of the Code is stored separately, in three places (in different “baskets”):

State Historical Museum (volumes 1, 9, 10)

Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences (volumes 2, 6, 7)

Russian National Library (volumes 3, 4, 5, 8)

Cultural influence and meaning. B. M. Kloss described the Code as “the largest chronicle-chronographic work of medieval Rus'.” The miniatures from the Code are widely known and used both in the form of illustrations and in art.

The “Makaryev school” of painting, the “school of Grozny” are concepts that cover a little more than three decades in the life of Russian art of the second half (or, more precisely, the third quarter) of the 16th century. And it was at this time that a grandiose artistic project was being carried out: the front chronicle of Ivan the Terrible, the Tsar-Book - a chronicle of events in world and especially Russian history, written, probably in 1568-1576, especially for the royal library in a single copy. The word “facial” in the title of the Code means illustrated, with images “in faces”. Consists of 10 volumes containing about 10 thousand sheets of rag paper, decorated with more than 16 thousand miniatures. Covers the period “from the creation of the world” to 1567. A grandiose “paper” project of Ivan the Terrible!

Face chronograph. RNB.

Royal book.

Battle on the Ice. Chronicle miniature from the Front Vault of the 16th century.

Mityai (Mikhail) and St. Dionysius before the leader. book Dimitry Donskoy.

Miniature from the Facial Chronicle. 70s XVI century

One of the books of the Front Vault of the 16th century.

Ivan the Terrible at the wedding of Simeon Bekbulatovich.

Shchelkanovschina. Popular uprising against the Tatars in Tver. 1327.

Miniature from the Front Chronicle of the 16th century

Defense of Kozelsk, 16th century miniature from the Nikon Chronicle.

1. Last Judgment

2. Renewal of the Temple of Christ our God of the Resurrection

3. The Passion of the Lord in the Gospel parables

Battle on the Ice. The flight of the Swedes to the ships.

Ivan the Terrible and royal icon painters.

Construction of St. Basil's Cathedral (Intercession on the Moat) on Red Square.

Ivan the Terrible sends ambassadors to Lithuania.

Battle of Kulikovo. 1380

Battle of Kosovo Field. 1389

The volumes are grouped in relatively chronological order:

Bible story
History of Rome
History of Byzantium
Russian history

Contents of volumes:

Museum collection (GIM). 1031 sheets, 1677 miniatures. An account of sacred, Hebrew and Greek history from the creation of the world to the destruction of Troy in the 13th century. BC e.
Chronographic collection (BAN). 1469 sheets, 2549 miniatures. An account of the history of the ancient East, the Hellenistic world and ancient Rome from the 11th century. BC e. until the 70s I century n. e.
Face Chronograph (RNB). 1217 sheets, 2191 miniatures. Outline of the history of the ancient Roman Empire from the 70s. I century to 337 and Byzantine history to the 10th century.
Golitsyn volume (RNB). 1035 sheets, 1964 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1114-1247 and 1425-1472.
Laptev volume (RNB). 1005 sheets, 1951 miniature. Outline of Russian history for 1116-1252.
Osterman's first volume (BAN). 802 sheets, 1552 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1254-1378.
Osterman's second volume (BAN). 887 sheets, 1581 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1378-1424.
Shumilovsky volume (RNL). 986 sheets, 1893 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1425, 1478-1533.
Synodal volume (GIM). 626 l, 1125 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1533-1542, 1553-1567.
Royal Book (GIM). 687 sheets, 1291 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1533-1553

History of the creation of the vault:

Storage:

The only original copy of the Code is stored separately, in three places (in different “baskets”):

State Historical Museum (volumes 1, 9, 10)

Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences (volumes 2, 6, 7)

Russian National Library (volumes 3, 4, 5, 8)

These years are full of facts, rich in works of art, characterized by a new attitude to the tasks of art, its role in the general structure of the young centralized state, and, finally, they are notable for their attitude towards the creative personality of the artist and attempts to regulate his activities, more than ever to subordinate them to the tasks polemical, to involve in participation in the intense dramatic action of state life. For the first time in the history of Russian artistic culture, issues of art became the subject of debate at two church councils (1551 and 1554). For the first time, a pre-developed plan for the creation of numerous works of different types of art (monumental and easel painting, book illustration and applied art, in particular wood carving) predetermined themes, plots, emotional interpretation and, to a large extent, served as the basis for a complex set of images designed to reinforce, to justify and glorify the rule and deeds of the first “crowned autocrat” who ascended the throne of the centralized Russian state.

"begins the publication of an electronic edition of one of the most famous monuments of ancient Russian art - the Facial Chronicle. The facial chronicle vault of the 16th century is a monumental monument of ancient Russian book art, which in terms of scale and breadth of coverage of historical events, as well as in the form of presentation of the material, has no analogues in the world. This is the largest chronicle-chronographic work of medieval Rus'. The facial chronicle vault was created by order Ivan IV the Terrible

The facial vault has survived to this day in 10 volumes, located in different ancient repositories: the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg and the State Historical Museum in Moscow.

The company "AKTEON" together with the custodians several years ago for the first time carried out a scientific facsimile publication " Facial chronicle vault of the 16th century».

Today the Russian Faith website begins publishing the full version. The proposed edition with translation is presented in three sections: biblical history, world history, Russian chronicle history.

Unlike some edited, unreliable, copied versions from low-quality paper reprints that can be found on the Internet, our publication is the primary source of this most valuable document. It was provided by the publishing house "AKTEON", whose employees carried out direct scanning of the facial vault, stored in Russian ancient repositories.

Today we are talking with the director of the publishing house "ACTEON" Kharis Harrasovich Mustafin.

Haris Harrasovich, several years ago publishing house "ACTEON" began large-scale work on scanning and publishing monuments of ancient Slavic literature. Why, in the presence of numerous ancient chronicles, Chety-Menya and other things, was the Facial Vault chosen as the main, main project?

The facial chronicle of the 16th century stands apart in ancient Russian chronicles. This is the greatest book monument, which is distinguished, first of all, by the scale of its presentation of events - from the creation of the world, biblical events, to world historical events. Finally, it sets out Russian chronicle history from the times of Vladimir Monomakh to the times of Ivan the Terrible.

This monument is interesting both from the point of view of the large amount of information and because it is a single complex, which was created, apparently, as a kind of state order during the formation of the Russian Empire in the 16th century. This is its uniqueness. On the other hand, this monument has a peculiarity: on almost 10 thousand sheets of manuscript there are more than 17.5 thousand book miniatures, never repeated, woven into the outline of the narrative. It turns out that this is not illustrative material for the manuscript, and the manuscripts are not captions for such a huge array of book miniatures.

This is something new, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a unique artistic-literary-historical work, where texts are interspersed with book miniatures, which often depict much more than is stated in the texts. Thus, the reader in these books can look at the events they recount through the eyes of Russian scribes of the 16th century. This is of particular value.

Therefore, to the question of why we took up the Facial Chronicle corpus, I want to answer that it was precisely because of its uniqueness. Many generations of historians and philologists dreamed of the appearance of a facsimile edition of this monument, and only thanks to the new technologies of the 21st century and the determination of our team to begin this work and complete it, it became possible to publish this book monument.

One more thing. When we were selecting material for the publication, we sought advice from the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Archaeographic Commission of the Academy of Sciences. When asked what the most outstanding of the Russian book monuments is in the ancient repositories, we were answered unequivocally that this is the Litsevoy Chronicle, which has no analogues either in Russia or abroad. That's why the publishing house was created "ACTEON" specifically for the project of publishing the Facial Code.

From the point of view of what tasks were set, we need to talk about a very important point. Not only the publishing house worked on the project, but also the largest library-custodians of the Personal Chronicle. A large number of different specialists participated in this project - historians, philologists from leading specialized organizations. This is not just a facsimile edition of a book monument, it is a scientific facsimile edition, which presents detailed descriptions of the original books, the history of their existence, and a huge amount of work has been done to prepare indexes and bibliographic material. It is also very important that work has been done to completely transliterate the text and interlinearly translate it into modern Russian, which has dramatically expanded the ability of even unprepared people to get acquainted with this monument.

Few publishers have done this before. Now this is becoming a kind of standard, because it is very convenient for people. Many publishing houses are now trying to publish the original text and its transliteration, and if they have the strength, then a translation into a modern language. It's a difficult job. The ancient and modern languages are very close, and it is not at all easy to convey certain phrases without greatly distorting their meaning, so that it is understandable to contemporaries. From our point of view, it is very important that the book monuments that we deal with are created both for scientific specialists and for everyone interested in the history and culture of Rus'. We publish the Personal Chronicle in an easy-to-read form.

Can the books of the Litsevoy Vault give the modern reader new historical information?

The facial vault is interesting for several reasons. Firstly, its pages consistently set out the vision of history by Russian scribes of the 16th century, as they understood it. They compiled these books based on their idea of history, and they understood that the history of any state and any society comes from the creation of the world, followed by biblical events, then world history, including the history of Troy, ancient Rome, Byzantium, then the transition to Russian stories. A complete picture of the historical canvas is described. There are few materials where this concept can be seen in its entirety. As a rule, what is published is fragmentary, but here we see an overall unified picture of the understanding of history by people of the 16th century, which is very important.

Later, of course, historical science developed, and this led to the emergence of many different new concepts about what the history was, in particular, of Rus'. Often science was formed to suit one or another political order. Therefore, having the opportunity to familiarize yourself with and evaluate the Russian scribes’ vision of the history of the 16th century, based on the published document - the Litsevoy Chronicle, represents a very interesting opportunity. This vision is not clouded by many layers, on the one hand, artificially contrived, and on the other hand, based on modern historical science. From the Litsevoy Vault, which is, in fact, the primary source, one can examine many historical events of both the 16th century and an earlier era through the eyes of educated Russian scribes.

The point of studying the Code is that in addition to some textual descriptions of events, there is a lot of material related to the display of historical events in miniatures. Often only in them can one see many aspects related to the development of technology, weapons, crafts, and construction. To this day, almost no graphic information has been preserved about events in Rus' and countries adjacent to Rus', which would be reflected graphically. From this point of view, the material in the Code is very interesting and, indeed, can give the modern reader a lot of new historical information. The main thing is that a person has an inquisitive mind and is truly interested in the history and culture of his country.

Today, many publishers publish reprints and facsimile editions. However, their quality in most cases is, to put it mildly, lame. What technologies and software products were used by ACTEON to create, without exaggeration, the highest quality publication of this kind?

It has already been said that when the decision was made to publish a scientific facsimile edition of the Personal Chronicle, the publishing house “ACTEON” was specially created. The main emphasis in the work of this company was on the use of cutting-edge technologies that emerged at the beginning of the 21st century. These are the first non-contact book scanners that allow you to illuminate ancient books with gentle light and non-contact, carefully scan them with the highest quality.

Digital technologies also appeared, largely developed by specialists from our publishing house, which made it possible to virtually straighten the images of open books, to combine the face and the back of the sheets without the slightest distortion of the colors of book miniatures. And finally, our company purchased the country's first digital printing house, which allows for small-circulation production, in fact, the production of books to order at the highest level.

In order to obtain high-quality book bindings, our company created a division that carries out manual book binding, in which, in particular, the technology of the famous Russian book binding of the 16th century was reproduced.

This made it possible to create books that are not only unique in content, but in a certain sense are a work of modern book art.

Which Russian libraries and collections have received your edition of the Litsevoy Vody? Are there any reviews?

Our publication has arrived in almost all the largest libraries in the country: regional, republican, and central. It ended up in the largest universities in the country, as well as in a number of foreign libraries, primarily university ones, where the study of Slavic studies and the history of Eastern Europe and Russia takes place.

We received a lot of positive feedback. Moreover, on the initiative of the Bavarian National Library and the Institute for the Study of the History of Eastern Europe and Russia, the first International Conference dedicated to the study of the Facial Chronicle was held in Munich in 2011. It was published as a result of the appearance of our publication in the largest libraries of the country and the world.

Abroad, the publication of the Facial Vault, in a certain sense, created a scientific sensation, because for the first time a huge array of unique material, which had previously been inaccessible to study by specialists, became available for study. Moreover, the material is extremely valuable, both from the point of view of texts and from the point of view of a large number of book miniatures.

Nowadays, the monopoly on familiarization with historical sources that specialists and researchers previously had is gradually being lost. An increasing number of digital copies are being published online. What role do you think the publication of primary sources can play in historical science, and in public life?

The question is posed in such a way as if the monopoly was created artificially. Researching historical sources is actually hard work. The people who do this work inspire deep respect and admiration. This work requires the highest qualifications. At the same time, our publications are aimed at facilitating the work of these specialists - on the one hand, and at the same time making unique book monuments more accessible to a wide range of the public who are interested in the book culture and history of their country.

In our opinion, Russian book culture deserves to be proud of, to be known, so that people interested in the history of the country take these book monuments into service, in order to bring them, first of all, to the educational system, to their families. I want people, especially young people, to be proud of their country, their history, to know this history.

The fact that more and more materials relating to the history of the country, especially documents, are being published on the Internet is an extremely positive trend, which, we hope, will bear good fruit. More and more young people will be interested in the history and culture of the country, and this, from our point of view, will contribute to the revival and prosperity of Russia.

Did you like the material?

The volumes are grouped in relatively chronological order:

Bible story
History of Rome
History of Byzantium
Russian history

Museum collection (GIM). 1031 sheets, 1677 miniatures. An account of sacred, Hebrew and Greek history from the creation of the world to the destruction of Troy in the 13th century. BC e.
Chronographic collection (BAN). 1469 sheets, 2549 miniatures. An account of the history of the ancient East, the Hellenistic world and ancient Rome from the 11th century. BC e. until the 70s I century n. e.
Face Chronograph (RNB). 1217 sheets, 2191 miniatures. Outline of the history of the ancient Roman Empire from the 70s. I century to 337 and Byzantine history to the 10th century.
Golitsyn volume (Royal Chronicler)(RNB, F.IV.225). 1035 sheets, 1964 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1114-1247 and 1425-1472.
Laptev volume(RNB, F.IV.233). 1005 sheets, 1951 miniature. Outline of Russian history for 1116-1252.
Osterman's first volume(BAN, 31.7.30-1). 802 sheets, 1552 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1254-1378.
Osterman's second volume(BAN, 31.7.30-2). 887 sheets, 1581 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1378-1424.
Shumilovsky volume(RNB, F.IV.232). 986 sheets, 1893 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1425, 1478-1533.
Synodal volume(GIM, Syn. No. 962). 626 l, 1125 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1533-1542, 1553-1567.
Royal book(GIM, Sin. No. 149). 687 sheets, 1291 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1533-1553.

It is assumed that the beginning and end of this chronicle have not been preserved, namely the Tale of Bygone Years, part of the history of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, as well as some other fragments.

History of the creation of the vault

The miniatures from the Code are widely known and used both in the form of illustrations and in art.

Facsimile edition (2008)

A copy of the complete facsimile edition of the Litsevoy Chronicle can be found in the library of the Manuscripts Department of the State Historical Museum in Moscow and in the Pushkin House in St. Petersburg.

Currently, the Facial Chronicle is published for charitable and educational purposes by the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing. Distributed free of charge.

Write a review about the article "Facebook chronicle"

Notes

Literature

Artsikhovsky A.V. Old Russian miniatures as a historical source. - M., 1944.

Podobedova O. I. Miniatures of Russian historical manuscripts: On the history of Russian chronicles / USSR Academy of Sciences, . - M.: Nauka, 1965. - 336 p. - 1,400 copies.

Pokrovskaya V.F. From the history of the creation of the Facial Chronicle of the second half of the 16th century. // Materials and reports on the collections of the Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books of the Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences. - M.; L., 1966.

Amosov A. A. Facial chronicle of Ivan the Terrible: A comprehensive codicological study. - M.: Editorial URSS, 1998. - 392 p. - 1,000 copies.- ISBN 5-901006-49-6.

(in translation)- ISBN 5-901006-49-6.

Facial chronicle code of the 16th century: Methodology for describing and studying a disparate chronicle complex / Comp. E. A. Belokon, V. V. Morozov, S. A. Morozov; Rep. ed. S. O. Schmidt. - M.: RSUH Publishing House, 2003. - 224, p. - 1,500 copies.- ISBN 5-7281-0564-5.

Presnyakov A. E. Moscow Historical Encyclopedia of the 16th century // IORYAS. - 1900. - T. 5, book. 3. - pp. 824-876.

Morozov V.V. Front chronicle about the campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich // TODRL. - 1984. - T. 38. - P. 520-536.

Kloss B. M.

Chronicle corpus obverse // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Vol. 2, part 2 (L - Z). - L., 1989. - P. 30-32.
Links
on the website of the publishing house "Akteon"

with the director of the Akteon company, Mustafin Kharis Harrasovich

Ulyanov O. G.
An excerpt characterizing the Facial Chronicle vault
– Vive l"Empereur! Vive le Roi de Rome! Vive l"Empereur! [Long live the Emperor! Long live the Roman King!] - enthusiastic voices were heard.
After breakfast, Napoleon, in the presence of Bosse, dictated his orders for the army.
– Courte et energique! [Short and energetic!] - said Napoleon when he read the written proclamation himself immediately without amendments. The order was:
“Warriors! This is the battle you have longed for. Victory depends on you. It is necessary for us; she will provide us with everything we need: comfortable apartments and a quick return to our homeland. Act as you acted at Austerlitz, Friedland, Vitebsk and Smolensk. May later posterity proudly remember your exploits to this day. Let it be said about each of you: he was in the great battle near Moscow!”
But Napoleon nodded to the traveler, and Bosse had to go. When Napoleon left the tent, the screams of the guards in front of the portrait of his son intensified even more. Napoleon frowned.
“Take it off,” he said, pointing to the portrait with a graceful, majestic gesture. “It’s too early for him to see the battlefield.”
Bosse, closing his eyes and bowing his head, took a deep breath, with this gesture showing how he knew how to appreciate and understand the words of the emperor.

Napoleon spent the entire day of August 25, as his historians say, on horseback, inspecting the area, discussing the plans presented to him by his marshals, and personally giving orders to his generals.
The original line of Russian troops along Kolocha was broken, and part of this line, namely the Russian left flank, was driven back as a result of the capture of the Shevardinsky redoubt on the 24th. This part of the line was not fortified, no longer protected by the river, and in front of it there was only a more open and level place. It was obvious to every military and non-military person that the French were supposed to attack this part of the line. It seemed that this did not require many considerations, there was no need for such care and troubles of the emperor and his marshals, and there was no need at all for that special highest ability called genius, which they so like to attribute to Napoleon; but the historians who subsequently described this event, and the people then surrounding Napoleon, and he himself, thought differently.
Napoleon drove across the field, thoughtfully peered at the area, shook his head with himself in approval or disbelief, and, without informing the generals around him of the thoughtful move that guided his decisions, conveyed to them only final conclusions in the form of orders. After listening to Davout's proposal, called the Duke of Ecmul, to bypass the Russian left flank, Napoleon said that this did not need to be done, without explaining why it was not necessary. To the proposal of General Compan (who was supposed to attack the flushes) to lead his division through the forest, Napoleon expressed his consent, despite the fact that the so-called Duke of Elchingen, that is, Ney, allowed himself to note that movement through the forest was dangerous and could upset the division .
Having examined the area opposite the Shevardinsky redoubt, Napoleon thought for a while in silence and pointed to the places where two batteries were to be set up by tomorrow to operate against the Russian fortifications, and the places where field artillery was to be lined up next to them.
Having given these and other orders, he returned to his headquarters, and the disposition of the battle was written under his dictation.
This disposition, about which French historians speak with delight and other historians with deep respect, was as follows:
“At dawn, two new batteries, built in the night, on the plain occupied by the Prince of Eckmuhl, will open fire on the two opposing enemy batteries.
At the same time, the chief of artillery of the 1st Corps, General Pernetti, with 30 guns of the Compan division and all the howitzers of the Dessay and Friant divisions, will move forward, open fire and bombard the enemy battery with grenades, against which they will act!
24 guards artillery guns,
30 guns of the Compan division
and 8 guns of the Friant and Dessay divisions,
Total - 62 guns.
The chief of artillery of the 3rd Corps, General Fouche, will place all the howitzers of the 3rd and 8th Corps, 16 in total, on the flanks of the battery, which is assigned to bombard the left fortification, which will total 40 guns against it.
General Sorbier must be ready, at the first order, to march with all the howitzers of the Guards artillery against one or another fortification.
Continuing the cannonade, Prince Poniatowski will head towards the village, into the forest and bypass the enemy position.
General Compan will move through the forest to take possession of the first fortification.
Upon entering the battle in this way, orders will be given according to the actions of the enemy.
The cannonade on the left flank will begin as soon as the cannonade of the right wing is heard. The riflemen of Moran's division and the Viceroy's division would open heavy fire when they saw the beginning of the attack of the right wing.
The Viceroy will take possession of the village [of Borodin] and cross his three bridges, following at the same height with the divisions of Morand and Gerard, which, under his leadership, will head to the redoubt and enter the line with the rest of the army.
All this must be done in order (le tout se fera avec ordre et methode), keeping the troops in reserve as much as possible.
In the imperial camp, near Mozhaisk, September 6, 1812.”
This disposition, written in a very unclear and confused way, if we allow ourselves to regard his orders without religious horror at Napoleon’s genius, contained four points - four orders. None of these orders could be or were carried out.
The disposition says, first: that the batteries set up at the place chosen by Napoleon with the Pernetti and Fouche guns aligned with them, a total of one hundred and two guns, open fire and bombard the Russian flashes and redoubts with shells. This could not be done, since the shells from the places appointed by Napoleon did not reach the Russian works, and these one hundred and two guns fired empty until the nearest commander, contrary to Napoleon’s orders, pushed them forward.
The second order was that Poniatowski, heading towards the village into the forest, should bypass the left wing of the Russians. This could not be and was not done because Poniatovsky, heading towards the village into the forest, met Tuchkov there blocking his way and could not and did not bypass the Russian position.
Third order: General Kompan will move into the forest to take possession of the first fortification. Compan's division did not capture the first fortification, but was repulsed because, leaving the forest, it had to form under grapeshot fire, which Napoleon did not know.
Fourth: The Viceroy will take possession of the village (Borodino) and cross his three bridges, following at the same height with the divisions of Maran and Friant (about which it is not said where and when they will move), which, under his leadership, will go to the redoubt and enter the line with other troops.
As far as one can understand - if not from the confused period of this, then from those attempts that were made by the viceroy to carry out the orders given to him - he was supposed to move through Borodino on the left to the redoubt, while the divisions of Moran and Friant were supposed to move simultaneously from the front.
All this, as well as other points of disposition, was not and could not be fulfilled. Having passed Borodino, the viceroy was repulsed at Kolocha and could not go further; The divisions of Moran and Friant did not take the redoubt, but were repulsed, and the redoubt was captured by cavalry at the end of the battle (probably an unexpected and unheard of thing for Napoleon). So, none of the orders of the disposition were and could not be executed. But the disposition says that upon entering the battle in this way, orders will be given corresponding to the actions of the enemy, and therefore it would seem that during the battle Napoleon would make all the necessary orders; but this was not and could not be because during the entire battle Napoleon was so far from him that (as it turned out later) the course of the battle could not be known to him and not a single order of his during the battle could be carried out.

Many historians say that the Battle of Borodino was not won by the French because Napoleon had a runny nose, that if he had not had a runny nose, his orders before and during the battle would have been even more ingenious, and Russia would have perished, et la face du monde eut ete changee. [and the face of the world would change.] For historians who recognize that Russia was formed by the will of one man - Peter the Great, and France from a republic developed into an empire, and French troops went to Russia by the will of one man - Napoleon, the reasoning is that Russia remained powerful because Napoleon had a big cold on the 26th, such reasoning is inevitably consistent for such historians.
If it depended on the will of Napoleon to give or not to give the Battle of Borodino and it depended on his will to make this or that order, then it is obvious that a runny nose, which had an impact on the manifestation of his will, could be the reason for the salvation of Russia and that therefore the valet who forgot to give Napoleon On the 24th, waterproof boots were the savior of Russia. On this path of thought, this conclusion is undoubted - as undoubted as the conclusion that Voltaire made jokingly (without knowing what) when he said that the Night of St. Bartholomew occurred from an upset stomach of Charles IX. But for people who do not allow that Russia was formed by the will of one person - Peter I, and that the French Empire was formed and the war with Russia began by the will of one person - Napoleon, this reasoning not only seems incorrect, unreasonable, but also contrary to the whole essence human. To the question of what constitutes the cause of historical events, another answer seems to be that the course of world events is predetermined from above, depends on the coincidence of all the arbitrariness of the people participating in these events, and that the influence of Napoleons on the course of these events is only external and fictitious.
Strange as it may seem at first glance, the assumption that the Night of St. Bartholomew, the order for which was given by Charles IX, did not occur at his will, but that it only seemed to him that he ordered it to be done, and that the Borodino massacre of eighty thousand people did not occur at the will of Napoleon (despite the fact that he gave orders about the beginning and course of the battle), and that it seemed to him only that he ordered it - no matter how strange this assumption seems, but human dignity tells me that each of us, if not more, then no less a person than the great Napoleon orders that this solution to the issue be allowed, and historical research abundantly confirms this assumption.

The Front Chronicle Code is a source of blasphemy and lies

(review of the book “The Earthly Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ”)

"Lycevoy Chronicle Code - the source of Truth"
“The Front Chronicle Code frees the soul from heresy”
German Sterligov (chairman of the OLDP)

Before starting to study this book, let’s go to the website of the publishing house “Akteon” (the publisher that distributes the commercial version of LLC) and see its availability there. There is no such book there. The title of the book “The Earthly Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ” and its layout are a product of the OLDP. Why this is important to note will be explained below.

Let's start reading.
Beginning of the book, page 4: “... and Alexander died” (Macedonian) “And then 4 subordinates of Alexander reigned. And Arrhidaeus, the brother of Alexander, who was called Philip, took Macedonia, and he reigned in Macedonia. Antipater reigned in Europe; in Egypt, Ptolemy, the son of Lag, that is, the Hare…………..”

Page 10 “And Romun Ermilai, the king of Rome, took Byzantium for himself and began to love her very much because of her beauty - he himself was good and smart, ………………..”

Page 16 “4th reign in Egypt. Then reigned 4 Ptolemy Euergetes the Father Loving, 25 years, during which the Jewish people, captive, went to Egypt………………..”

Page 25 “As soon as Nikanor Seleucus defeated Antigonus Poliorkter, he began to create many cities. He began to build first by the Syrian Sea, and came to the sea……………….”

Page 35 “Reign 7th in Syria. After Seleucus, Demetrius of Seleucia reigned. 8th reign in Syria. After Demetrius, Alexander Valas reigned. Reign 9th in Syria. After Alexander……………………”

We remind you that you are reading the book “The Earthly Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Page 45 “An evil thing was revealed - the coming of Antiochus. After the victory he ordered………….”
Page 55 “And Antiochus came to Jerusalem, and he had 20,000 horsemen and 100,000 infantry……………”
Page 65 “Reign 22 in Syria. After Antiochus, the grandson of Grypus, Antiochus Euergetes reigned………….”
Page 75 “And the Roman nobles, having learned about this, appointed a strong second governor, named Scipio………….”
Page 85 “Reign 26th in Syria. And this Antiochus owned all this for 9 years………………….”

And only on page 129 did we finally reach the stated topic: “The Word of Holy Father Epiphanius about the life of the Holy Mother of God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And the fun begins...

Page 140 “Mary was in Jerusalem in the temple of the Lord. And she was 14 years old when a woman’s weak nature manifests itself...” A very important clarification for raising children (and it is stated that LLS was created specifically for raising children). I can see a father in a stupor, to whom a young son or daughter asks a question about “female weak nature.” Besides. Everything that concerns God and the Most Holy Theotokos should be permeated with reverence and sacred awe, and I personally deeply doubt that Saint Epiphanius would have written exactly as it is written in this “source of truth.”

Further more.
Page 140 “.. So this explains the words of the Holy Virgin spoken to the Archangel Gabriel. After greeting him, he said to Her: “Thou shalt conceive a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of thy father David.” And so on".
Let’s open the Elisavetgrad Gospel (also charitablely distributed by the OLDP) and compare. Gospel of Luke: “And an angel came to her and said: Rejoice, rejoice, the Lord is with you. Blessed are You among women. She, seeing him, was embarrassed about his words and thought about what this kiss would be like. And the angel said to her: Do not be afraid of Mariam. Find grace from God. And behold, you conceived in your womb and gave birth to a Son, and you called His name Jesus. This one will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.”

Before this, in Z.M.I.H. A third of the book told us about the Roman kings, about how they lived, who they loved and who they hated, who and how they killed. There was not much room for Jesus Christ and His Most Pure Mother in the “source of truth.” Therefore, we are given a mocking snippet of the great moment of the Annunciation and end it with a savory spit of “and so on.” By the way, let’s remember this mocking “and so on.” In the process of studying LLS we will encounter it more than once.

“Thou shalt conceive a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus.”- The earthly life of Jesus Christ
“And behold, you conceived in your womb and gave birth to a Son, and you called His name Jesus.”- Gospel.

Again we are convinced that the “source of truth” is as compressed as possible, because he needs to somehow be able to convey to us several thousand “highly artistic miniatures”, a chronology of palace intrigues and coups of various centuries, pagan tales from Troy, the “Jewish War” by Josephus and much, much more. another very important thing for an Orthodox Christian and raising Orthodox children. Therefore, “give birth to a Son” can be omitted and the Child can be named from the moment of conception.

“...and the Lord God will give him the throne of David your father» - The earthly life of Jesus Christ
“And the Lord God will give him the throne of David, His father" - Gospel
The Society of Ancient Letters distributes both of these books.

Read on.
Chapter “On the Annunciation.” Finally. Now we will touch upon the great moment of the beginning of our salvation and read a wonderful passage from the Gospel. “In the year 5499 and in the 36th year of the reign of Augustus, the month of Dustra, on the 25th day, on Sunday, at the ninth hour of the day, the Most Holy Theotokos prayed, and at that hour the Archangel Gabriel was sent to her by God in the city of Nazareth, and told her everything secret about the Only Begotten Son of God, as stated in the Gospel (as stated in the Gospel... “and so on” in short - A.K.). And no one from Joseph’s household knew what had happened, and the Mother of God did not tell anyone, not Joseph himself, until she saw her Son ascending to Heaven. That is why the Evangelist Matthew says: “And without understanding, she gave birth to her firstborn Son,” that is, they did not know the mystery of God in her, nor the hidden depths about her, nor what had happened.”

The last two sentences are such nonsense that you can grab your head. The first tells us that the Mother of God hid the moment of the great Annunciation from everyone until the moment of the Ascension of the Lord. I thought about the second sentence for a long time and remembered where the Apostle Matthew wrote this. I didn’t guess right away, because the fragment didn’t make sense at all. We open the Gospel and compare.

“And without understanding, she gave birth to her firstborn son.”- Z.M.I.H.
“And he accepted his wife. And without knowing Her, she gave birth to her Firstborn Son.”- Elisavetgrad Gospel. (small digression from the topic. I personally would really like to check the phrase « And without knowing Her dondezhe" and the presence of a word "Firstborn" in the Gospels not distributed by OLDP and older than their variants).

So, a complete inconsistency. Semantic dissonance, stupor. If we accept that there is a lie in the Gospel, or that something was written out of topic, then we get “no one understood that (the great moment of the Annunciation), until the Mother of God gave birth to her firstborn.” But wait. Isn’t it said on the line above: “and the Mother of God did not tell anyone, not Joseph himself, until she saw her Son ascending into Heaven”? It turns out that the second line immediately contradicts the first. The circle is closed. The Elisavetgrad Gospel contains a line that in no way corresponds to the meaning of Z.M.I.H., Z.M.I.H. contradicts itself. A complete dead end for the OLDP. They distribute both of these books.

The further story about the great moment of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos leads to the idea that this was written either by a completely insane person (then it is unclear how he was allowed to do such an important matter), or by an outright enemy. Reading.

“And the Virgin Holy Mary said to the Angel: “What will happen to me, since I don’t know my husband?” As they said before, there is another certain meaning - so as not to return to what was said earlier - in what it means “I don’t know a husband,” that is: “I don’t desire, I have no attraction to my husband, I don’t know carnal lust.” For the virginity of the Mother of God was not due to abstinence or because of feats, like female adornment, and not because of diligence in chastity, but the virginity of the Mother of God was “It’s pretty much from nature, which all wives have, and human nature is strange.” It was said by the prophet Ezekiel (a book that is not in the “Biblical History” OLDP - A.K.): “The gate to the east will be closed, and no one can pass through except the Lord God of Israel: He alone will go in and out , and the gate will be shut." And all the prophets and apostles testify, and our fathers testify, and the bright teachers of the Catholic and Apostolic Church also agree.

That is why the great Dionysius the Areopagite said about Christ that He “The work of man is greater than man, and the Maiden of the Nativity, who is without sickness, listens.”(why is this?! - A.K.) Athanasius of Alexandria and Leo of Rome said about the Mother of God that she “The desires of a man are not known.” All holy Orthodox councils also testify to this. And Jacob the Jew (who is this? - A.K.), who lived then, wrote about her like this: “So that he would be born into the land before everyone, and touched by a woman, having been found a Virgin, just as before the Nativity of the Virgin.” Reuben the priest (Old Testament Reuben? - A.K.) also testifies: “I have received a message from the woman” (?! - A.K). And learning some other very nice things, (?! - A.K) said:“It’s a fair amount of nature to find.” (?! - A.K) And others echoed:“Nature was faster than the statute.”

I am 36 years old. From the teachings of the Church, I know that the Most Holy Theotokos was a Virgin before Christmas and remained a Virgin after Christmas. All blasphemous opinions of heretics have long been anathematized and they have long been burning in hell for their blasphemy against the Mother of God and God. This information is enough for me. Children need even less.

Tell me, why for the second time in this thin book with the loud title “The Earthly Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ” raise the topic of the virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos? And with obvious signs of savoring. Why is this? This topic is intimate and even just an ordinary girl, even if she has lived chastely all her life, will be embarrassed if someone even talks about it with praise. Here we are told about the Most Holy Theotokos and the great event of her Annunciation and the Incarnation of the Savior. Instead of telling us about the Great Sacrament as reverently and with sacred awe as possible, we are given incoherent blasphemous nonsense, which even if you read it 100 times, you won’t understand, while relishing the intimate topic of virginity. With references to Dionysius the Areopagite, whose quotation, of course, needs to be checked and which is not clear in what way it approaches this topic. With reference to some Jacob the Jew, who lived then. Who is this? Apostle James? Well, why wasn't he called that then? With reference to Reuben with his stupefying “testimony”? And only an eyewitness can testify. Who are we talking about?

- but the virginity of the Mother of God was “It’s pretty much natural, what all wives have, and human nature is strange”;
- “That He might be changed into the land, and be born before all, and be touched by a woman, and be found a Virgin, just as before the Nativity of the Virgin”;
- “I have received a message from the woman”;
- “It’s a fair amount of nature to gain”;
- “Nature was faster than the charter.”
We are advised to teach our children this...

It will be interesting to consider the miniature of the moment of the Annunciation. The Blessed Virgin Mary is depicted as an elderly, sad woman, although again in the same book, in the description of the life of the Roman kings, we can see miniatures with young smiling girls. It is interesting to pay attention to the strange blessing of the Angel.

Further. Page 145. “And three months passed, and Mary went to Galilee, to the house of Joseph, and was meek in word and disposition, and holy in image. The time has come, and her belly has grown. And immediately Joseph, seeing the saint and not knowing what the sacraments were about Her, became sad (in the original “she fell into labor” - A.K.), and planned kick out(in the original “expel” - A.K.) Secretly from her house.”
We open the Elisavetgrad Gospel. From Matthew. “Joseph is her righteous husband, and even though you denounce her, you don’t want to let her go.”

OLDP distributes both of these books. And it is very strange that in this blasphemous book with a loud title it is not written like this: “And immediately Joseph, seeing this outrage, wanted to grab this adulteress by the hair, take her out of the city and stone her.” Z.M.I.H presents Joseph as an indignant husband who, for unknown reasons, SECRETLY - just wanted to KICK OUT. The Gospel tells us about a meek and humble man who, having learned about the secret pregnancy of his wife (i.e., in his opinion, the accomplished fact of adultery), did not want to expose Her, but simply wanted to secretly let Her go.

Here is another very interesting passage from the book for raising children.
Page 149-150. About the Magi.

In the year 5502, Herod, the governor, that is, the king of Judea, began to find out that a little time had passed since the Nativity of Christ, and the wise men came from Persia to the land of Judea, as envoys from the southeast, on the left side of Jerusalem, for Persia borders there with Judea. “The star did not appear like other stars, but it was not above the earth according to custom, as it was not according to custom that we walked and were at some insistence, but never appeared,” said the Great Basil. And John Chrysostom says: “Where the Birth of Jesus was pure and unspeakable, not in a den or in any temple, anything new, but Jesus as a young Child, as Matthew the Evangelist himself testifies. Very often there will be an appearance: Joseph and the All-Immaculate Maiden and from her Who was born without a seed, when from the strange and strange magicians we will hear the fear of God, Who was, and for what reason, and who created the descent to man, not only these, but the whole Jerusalem, and those who ruled all the Jews.”

How can you teach children something that adults cannot understand? And it is doubtful that these are even the words of Saints Basil and John, because when reading their teachings, you are amazed at the simplicity and depth of their thoughts and words. And here?

Let's check. Elisavetgrad Gospel, from Luke: “Then receive Him in your hand and bless God and say...” Again a discrepancy. Well, okay, we have already seen more than once that LLS does not correspond to the Gospel. Something else is more important now. Again and again we are given a snippet instead of a full story.

“Now you are releasing Your servant, O Master, according to Your word in peace, because my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared before the face of all people. A light for the revelation of the tongue and the glory of Your people Israel.” “This one is destined for the fall and rebellion of many.”

Page 153. “... and they bring gifts to Him, as to a great king and conqueror, and “they brought gold, and frankincense, and myrrh”: gold as for a king, incense as for a saint, and myrrh as for a dead man.” Why didn't they cut off the hands of the person who wrote this? How could one write such things about the Savior?

The words of John Chrysostom: “But what made the Magi bow when neither the Virgin was famous, nor her house was magnificent, and in all appearance there was nothing that could amaze and attract them?

Meanwhile, they not only worship, but also, having opened their treasures, bring gifts, and gifts not as to man, but as to God - because frankincense and myrrh were symbols of such worship. So, what prompted and forced them to leave the house and decide on such a long journey? The star and divine illumination of their thoughts little by little raised them to the most perfect vision. Otherwise, they would not have shown Him such honor under such seemingly unimportant circumstances. There was nothing great there for the senses, there was only a manger, a hut and a poor Mother, so that you could openly see the wisdom of the Magi and know that they did not approach a simple person, but as God and a benefactor.

That is why they were not tempted by anything visible or external, but worshiped and brought gifts, not similar to the coarse (offerings) of the Jews; They did not sacrifice sheep and calves, but, as if they were true Christians, brought Him knowledge, obedience and love."(John Chrysostom, interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, conversation 8).

Page 156. “Joseph entered the sanctuary of the Egyptian god Avdul, and immediately all the idols fell down. The priests saw and were afraid, and bowed to the Savior so that the church would not fall on them. And they wanted to paint an icon with His image. The icon painter undertook to paint, but could not finish the image of Christ. They began to pray to the Savior to command everything and that His icon would be completed. Christ bowed down to her, and the icon itself was immediately completed. The Egyptians still keep this icon. Many strong kings wanted to take it, or make a copy of it, but they could not.”

An outright lie. Not a single Gospel tells about this. None of the teachers of the Church speak. " The Egyptians still keep this icon.” What is the name of the icon and where is it stored, if the author of these lines knows about it? “Many strong kings wanted to take it, or make a copy of it, but they could not.” What are the “many kings”? How did they want to take this icon? Military campaigns or peaceful requests? Why couldn’t they take it or at least just make a list? In this case, would there have been an iconoclastic period in the history of the Church if all this were true and known to everyone?

Page 162. “Daniel also testifies and says: “And he knows, and understands, speaking from the going out of the Word, let him answer, that he may build Jerusalem even unto the Lord Christ.” weeks of seven, 62". For 60 and two weeks give 483 years, and the beginning is received from the good Lords...”

First. We open Biblical History (the first four books of LLS), the appearance of the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Daniel. We read: weeks seven. Second. We multiply 60 by 7 and add 14 (7+7) We get 434. The compilers of the “source of truth” forgot to add another 49 (7*7) from the vision of the prophet. Anyway. If the “source of truth” does not care about consistency with the Gospel and the Old Testament, then can he be strongly criticized for spelling and arithmetic inaccuracies?

The further into the forest, the more firewood.
Page 170-171. This same Augustus Caesar Octavian, in the 55th year of his reign, in the month of October, which is called in Macedonian Uperveretius, went to a fortune teller called the Pythia, and solemnly made a sacrifice, and asked: “Who will reign after me in the city of Rome?” And the Pythia did not give him an answer. And again he made another sacrifice and asked the Pythia: “Why was no answer given to me, but magic is silent?” And the Pythia told him this: “The Jewish youth commands me, by the command of the Good God, to leave this house and go to hell. Therefore, get out of our houses.”

Young Jew(rejoice, neo-pagans! the “source of truth” confirms your crookedness) by command good(precisely good) God commands the witch to go to hell. No comments.

Page 171. “And Augustus Caesar left the fortune-teller and came to the Capitol, and built there a large and tall altar, on which he wrote in Roman letters: “This altar of God’s great-grandfather”; this altar is in the Capitol even now, as Timothy wrote.”

If this, again, is not the ravings of a madman, which is very similar, it would be nice for the author to refer to a source telling about which Timofey wrote and where about the “altar of God’s great-grandfather.” And what kind of nonsense is this anyway - “the altar of God’s great-grandfather”? And why is this included in the book telling about the Savior? Let's assume that they draw a parallel with the Act of the Holy Apostles. Open it and read it. In the absence of an “Apostle” from the OLDP (they do not distribute it at all and refuse to answer questions regarding the Acts, the Epistles of the Saints, as well as the Apocalypse of John the Theologian), we take the synodal text. The altar is called "unknown god"(Acts 17:23). Absolute discrepancy. Let the OLDP, who distributes this book, answer this question for us. Maybe in their version of the Apostle the altar is stupidly called “to the great-grandfather of God”? Or is this a completely different topic? The word is up to them.

Page 174. “This Tiberius Caesar was at first meek and generous. When he made someone a ruler or a military leader, he did not change him for a long time. When he was asked about this, he told a parable: “One man had purulent sores all over his legs. And the flies came and ate these sores, but he did not drive them away. And someone wanted to drive away the flies, but he exclaimed: “Man, leave it, for these flies have eaten my rotting parts and now they sadden me little. When others come, hungry, they will bring me more suffering." It was he who said about the authorities that they should not be changed often, so that those in power have time to get enough of it and do not oppress their subordinates so much.”

Oh, the wisdom of the Roman pagan kings. I bet that it is for this paragraph that golden rain will fall on LLS. In general, again, an interesting story for raising children. I imagine gray balls moving in naive and simple children's heads: an uncle with sore legs that fester and hurt, instead of going to the doctor and healing them, he just sits and patiently watches as flies eat his ulcers. Despite the fact that my mother said that flies spread infection. That you need to drive them out of the house. Do not allow food to sit on.

Page 180. “About the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ and about John the Baptist.
In the year five thousand five hundred and thirty, in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the archangel Gabriel appeared to John, the son of Zechariah, in the desert and said to him: “Thus says the Lord, who created you and chose you from your mother’s womb: go to a habitable place.” and baptize all that come to repentance, and behold, I will send My only begotten Son; He will come and be baptized by you, and he will sanctify the waters and all those who are baptized; over Him you will see the Spirit of God descending in the vision of a dove and remaining on Him, He is My beloved Son, Judge of the living and the dead, delivering the faithful from all wrath.”

Having heard this, the Forerunner of the Lord John came to Jerusalem, and the Jews came, “and was baptized by him, confessing their sins.” . Elisavetgrad Gospel, from Luke “In the fifth and tenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar[…] the word of God came to John Zechariah’s son in the wilderness.

And he came to the whole country of Jordan preaching baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Life of John the Baptist. “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, when John was 30 years old, there was a voice of God to him,

commanded to leave the desert and go to the Jewish people and by preaching repentance and baptism to awaken the people to repentance of their sins: for the time has come for the coming of the Messiah.”

As we see, neither the Gospel nor the life of John the Baptist tells us about the appearance of the Archangel Gabriel to him. And the “country of Jordan” is not the city of Jerusalem. Totally lies. Page 181-182. “They said then that one of the Jews walked around in strange clothes, having attached animal skins (“cattle hair” in the original - A.K.) to his body in those places where his hair was not covered, and his face was like a wild one. […] His mouth did not know bread; even on Easter he did not taste unleavened bread, saying: “This food was given in remembrance of God, who freed people from work.”

He didn’t allow any other intoxicating wine even close to him. And he did not accept any animal food. He exposed every lie.

Someone might say: why bother so much? There may be minor inaccuracies everywhere. I want to convey that these are not minor inaccuracies and errors. And this short article has already provided enough facts for an objective person. This is purposeful lies and blasphemy.

In general, the entire description of the life of John the Baptist from this book is a vast field of activity for research. Here you can discuss his every statement, his every action.