What is the facial vault? Facial vault of Ivan IV. An excerpt characterizing the Facial Chronicle vault

The volumes are grouped in relatively chronological order:

• Bible story
• History of Rome
• History of Byzantium
• Russian history

1. 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.
2. Chronographic collection (BAN). 1469 sheets, 2549 miniatures. Exposition 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.
3. 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.
4. Golitsyn volume (Royal Chronicler)(RNB, F.IV.225). 1035 sheets, 1964 miniatures. Presentation national history for 1114-1247 and 1425-1472.
5. Laptev volume(RNB, F.IV.233). 1005 sheets, 1951 miniature. Outline of Russian history for 1116-1252.
6. Osterman's first volume(BAN, 31.7.30-1). 802 sheets, 1552 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1254-1378.
7. Osterman's second volume(BAN, 31.7.30-2). 887 sheets, 1581 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1378-1424.
8. Shumilovsky volume(RNB, F.IV.232). 986 sheets, 1893 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1425, 1478-1533.
9. Synodal volume(GIM, Syn. No. 962). 626 l, 1125 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1533-1542, 1553-1567.
10. 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 Litsevaya chronicle published for charitable and educational purposes by the Society of Lovers 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 immediately without amendments. The order was:
“Votre Majeste a trop de bonte, [You are too kind, Your Majesty," Bosse said when asked to accompany the emperor: he was sleepy and did not know how and was afraid to ride a horse.
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. Having listened to the proposal of Davout, 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 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 battle of Borodino the French did not win because Napoleon had a runny nose, that if he had not had a runny nose, then 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. When asked what constitutes the cause 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 way less people, than the great Napoleon, orders to allow this solution to the issue, and historical research abundantly confirms this assumption.

FACE CHRONICLES - Russian chronicles, decorated with illustrations, conveying the content of history. events not only through words, but also through means visual arts. Using the opportunity to convey a detailed narrative with meager lines and colors, medieval scribes and chroniclers often considered the image to be equivalent to the text. The traditions of facial chronicle writing of the 11th-16th centuries are established on the basis of three manuscripts that have survived to this day: the Tver copy of the Chronicle of George Amartol (began work 1304-1307, completed 1368-1377), the Radzivilov or Königsberg Chronicle (90s of the 15th century) and Facial chronicle vault. Each of the named monuments of facial chronicles contains traces of the most ancient illustrated chronicles that have not survived to our time. In the monuments of facial chronicle, a deep correspondence is revealed between the style of the text and the miniatures illustrating it. Conventional language miniaturist is subordinated to the main goal: to clearly show where, when and how it happened this event. The need to talk about various events and convey the socio-historical ideas of medieval Rus' gave rise to a coherent iconographic system that developed over several centuries. An iconographic scheme was established for depicting the granting or reception of investiture, the beginning of the reign of a great or appanage prince, taking an oath (kissing the cross), concluding treaties, sending or receiving embassies, depicting an army, etc. The facial chronicle used historical symbols (for example, a raised sword or saber - sign military threat, ciborium - a sign of the holiness of the place). The attributes of royal and princely dignity are preserved. The complex “feudal table of rank” is strictly observed, first of all, when depicting clothing, headdresses, the shape of thrones, etc. Facial chronicle vault The 2nd half of the 16th century can be considered as a kind of culmination in the formation of the iconography of historical illustration. Subsequent facial chronicles - the Kungur Chronicle and numerous copies of the "Kazan History" - follow the general tradition of historical illustration.

O. I. Podobedova. Moscow.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. In 16 volumes. - M.: Soviet encyclopedia. 1973-1982. Volume 8, KOSSALA – MALTA. 1965.

Literature:

Presnyakov A. E., The Royal Book, its composition and origin, St. Petersburg, 1893; him, Mosk. ist. encyclopedia of the 16th century, "Izv. ORYAS", St. Petersburg, 1900, vol. 5, book. 3; Artsikhovsky A.V., Old Russian. miniatures as ist. source, M., 1944; Alshits D.N., Ivan the Terrible and postscripts to the facial vaults of his time, "IZ", vol. 23, 1947; his, Origin and features of the sources telling about the boyar rebellion of 1553, ibid., vol. 25; Schmidt S. O., Miniatures of the Royal Book as a source on the history of Moscow. uprising of 1547, "PI", vol. 5, M., 1956; Podobedova O.I., Russian miniatures. historical manuscripts. On the history of Russian facial chronicle writing, M., 1965.

For the first time, the legendary Front Chronicle of Tsar Ivan the Terrible has appeared in open and free access on the website of the OLDP (Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing). The manuscript with hundreds of colorful miniatures can be downloaded from the links below.

The facial chronicle was created in the 16th century by order of the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible for the education of the royal children. The work on compiling this Code was headed by the most educated man of his time - St. Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus'. The best scribes and icon painters of the capital worked on compiling the Code. What they performed: a collection of all reliably known sources from Holy Scripture(text of the Septuagint) to the history of Alexander the Great and the writings of Josephus - the entire written history of mankind from the creation of the world to the 16th century inclusive. All times and all peoples who had writing are reflected in dozens of books in this collection. No human civilization has created such a chronicle collection, decorated with a huge number of highly artistic illustrations: neither Europe, nor Asia, nor America or Africa. The fate of the Russian Tsar himself and his children was tragic. The facial chronicle was of no use to the princes. After reading the Facial Vault, part of which is dedicated to the period of Ivan the Terrible, it becomes clear why. Over the next hundreds of years, official historiography appeared, often opportunistic and politically biased, and therefore reliable chronicle sources were doomed to destruction or correction, that is, falsification. The facial chronicle corpus survived these centuries due to the fact that after the death of Ivan the Terrible, during a period of unrest and timelessness, this tome became a coveted object for “enlightened” bibliophiles. Its fragments were stolen from their libraries by the most influential nobles of their time: Osterman, Sheremetev, Golitsyn and others. After all, even then, high-ranking collectors understood that such a tome with sixteen thousand miniatures had no price. So the Code survived until the revolution and was dumped in heaps in several museums and storage facilities.

Already today, through the efforts of enthusiasts, scattered books and sheets have been collected together from various repositories. And the revived Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing has made this masterpiece accessible to everyone. A historical source that has no analogues, many major educational establishments world, national libraries different countries and, of course, our compatriots for raising children on this treasure of experience and wisdom of millennia. In such an amazing way, the work that was done for the royal children five hundred years ago went to our children, dear contemporaries, for which we congratulate you with all our hearts!

First volume

Second volume

Third volume

Volume 4

Library

Source -

Fifth volume (Troy)

Volume six (The earthly life of Jesus Christ)

Volume Seven (Josephus War of the Jews)

Eighth volume (Roman Byzantium)

Part 1 (81-345 AD) -

Part 2 (345-463 AD) -

Ninth volume (Byzantium)

Part 1 (463-586 AD) -

Part 2 (586-805 AD) -

Part 3 (805-875 AD) –

Part 4 (875-928 AD) -

Library

Facsimile editions of Slavic and Byzantine manuscripts of the 11th – 16th centuries. – priority activities of the OLDP. The Foundation has begun to form long-term plan publications, based on proposals already received. At the same time, we are ready to cooperate with the archives of Russia and foreign countries in the implementation and financing of facsimile editions of other rare monuments of Slavic and Byzantine literature. The publications will be produced at a high printing level and sold in large quantities. Preference is given to early manuscripts (up to the 16th century inclusive), with illustrations that require facsimiles due to low availability and (or) poor preservation.

Attention to the readers of the Qatar Commissioner's group.-

Ladies and Gentlemen.

You have a unique opportunity to be one of the first to get acquainted with the work of my comrades from electronic library Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing, who placed on the Internet the unique heritage of our ancestors. What will be revealed to you is truly magnificent, and studying the material will help you understand what the epic of the Russian Land actually looked like. Discoveries and amazing events of the past await you, most of which have never been covered by Torah adherents - historians. Before you is the TRUTH, the same one that many of you have been painfully searching for all your lives. Read and be proud that you belong to the Great Russian People.

A grandiose artistic project: 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.

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. Having seen it, she 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. Let's read.

“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.”

(?! - A.K)

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 statute.”
This is what we are advised to teach our children...

It will be interesting to consider a 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's a very interesting place from a 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 Great Vasily. 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 to do such a thing? 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 to the common man, but as to God and 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.”

Blatant lies. 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. “Likewise, Daniel 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 conformity with the Gospel and Old Testament, then can we really blame him 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.

largest chronicle-chronographic collection Ancient Rus'. L.S. was created by order of Ivan the Terrible in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda in 1568-1576. It contained a statement world history from the creation of the world to the 15th century. and Russian history until 1567. According to A. A. Amosov’s calculations, the surviving ten volumes of L. S. number 9,745 sheets, decorated with 17,744 color illustrations (miniatures). There is reason to believe that the eleventh volume was compiled (or was compiled, but lost) containing a presentation of Russian history of the ancient period until 1114. The first three volumes of L.S. contained the text of historical biblical books (Pentateuch, the books of Joshua. Judges, book of Ruth, four books of Kings, book of Esther, book of the prophet Daniel), full text Alexandria, “History of the Jewish War” by Josephus and two narratives about Trojan War: Old Russian translation of the Latin novel by Guido de Columna “The History of the Destruction of Troy” and “The Tale of the Creation and Captivity of Troy” extracted from the Russian Chronograph. Subsequently, the sources of information on world history were the “Greek and Roman Chronicle” of the second edition and the Russian Chronograph based on it. Russian history in volumes 4-10 is presented mainly according to the Nikon Chronicle, but already starting from the events of 1152, additional material, compared with this chronicle, is found in L.S. As B. M. Kloss established, its sources could be the Resurrection Chronicle, the Novgorod Code of 1539, “The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom” and other sources. Around 1575, the already prepared text of L.S., at the direction of Ivan the Terrible, was subjected to significant revision in the part that contained a description of his reign, i.e., from 1533 to 1568. In the notes made by an unknown editor in the margins of the manuscript, contained, in particular, charges against persons executed or repressed during the oprichnina. Work on L.S. was not completed - the miniatures of the last part were made only in ink sketches, but not painted. L.S. is not only an invaluable monument of book art, but also the most important historical source: miniatures, despite the conventionality and symbolic nature of some images, provide rich material for judgments about the historical realities of their time, and the study of editorial changes made to last volume L.S. (the so-called “Royal Book”), allows us to deepen our information about the complex political struggle in the post-oprichna period, to judge Ivan’s changed assessments of the activities of one or another of his associates, and about the tsar’s new views on the very events of his reign. The text of L.S. was published in the part that is based on the Nikon Chronicle (PSRL.-T. 9-13). Publisher: Shchepkin V. Facial collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Museum // IORYAS.-1899.-T. 4, book. 4.-S. 1345- 1385; Presnyakov A. E.; 1) The Royal Book, its composition and origin. - St. Petersburg, 1893; 2) Moscow Historical Encyclopedia of the 16th century. // IORYAS.- 1900.- T. 4, book. 3.- pp. 824-876; Artsikhovsky A.V. Old Russian miniatures as a historical source. - M., 1944; Podobedova O.I. Miniatures of Russian historical manuscripts. - M., 1965. -S. 102-332; Amosov A. A.; 1) On the question of the time of origin of the Facial Arch of Ivan the Terrible // Materials and communications on the funds of the Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books of the Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences.-L., 1978. - P. 6-36; 2) Facial chronicle of Ivan the Terrible: Experience in comprehensive source research // ADD.- St. Petersburg, 1991; K l o s with B. M. 1) Nikonovsky arch and Russian chronicles of the XVI -XVII centuries.-M., 1980.-P. 206-265; 2) Chronicle collection Litsevoy // Dictionary of scribes.- Vol. 2, part 2.- pp. 30-32; 3) Royal book // Ibid. - pp. 506.-508. O. V. Tvorogov