1–20. Disputes and teaching about the "tradition of the elders". – 21–28. Healing of the daughter of a Canaanite. – 29–39. Feeding the four thousand with seven loaves.
. Then the Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees come to Jesus and say:
This whole chapter coincides in presentation with. The fact that this was in Gennesaret is evident from, and this is indirectly confirmed by the Evangelist John, who, having recounted the conversation in Capernaum, says that “After this Jesus went about Galilee”(). It is very likely that this was some time after Easter, close to the events of the feeding of the five thousand. The scribes and Pharisees came from Jerusalem, as Matthew and Mark unanimously testify. These were more honorable people than the provincials, and they were distinguished by a stronger hatred of Christ than these latter. Probably these Pharisees and scribes were sent by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.
. why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.
In the further story, Matthew departs from Mark, who gives a detailed account of what exactly the traditions of the Jewish elders regarding the washing of hands consisted of and for which the scribes and Pharisees accused the Savior and His disciples. Mark's testimony is very well supported by the Talmudic information we have about these Jewish rites. The Pharisees had many ablutions, and their observance reached the extreme pettiness. For example, different types of water were distinguished, which had different cleansing powers, up to six in number, and it was precisely determined which water was suitable for certain ablutions. The definitions about the washing of hands were especially detailed. Speaking about the washing of hands, the evangelists, and especially Mark, reveal a very close acquaintance with the then customs of the Jews, set forth mainly in the small Talmudic treatise on the washing of hands, Yadaim. The washing of hands, as Edersheim (1901, II, 9 ff.) shows, mainly on the basis of this treatise, was not a legal institution, but "the tradition of the elders." The Jews observed the ritual of washing their hands so strictly that Rabbi Akiba, being imprisoned and having water in an amount barely sufficient to sustain life, preferred to die of thirst than to eat with unwashed hands. For non-observance of the ablution before dinner, which was considered the establishment of Solomon, a small excommunication (“nidda”) was supposed. The Pharisees and scribes blame the disciples, and not the Savior Himself, just as they did when picking the ears.
. He answered and said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
The Pharisees and scribes accuse the disciples of violating the tradition of the elders, while they themselves are guilty of violating the commandment of God. This latter is violated by "your tradition", which refers not to ablutions, but to a completely different subject. According to Chrysostom, the Savior proposed this question, “showing that he who sins in great deeds should not so carefully notice in others unimportant deeds. You ought to be accused, He says, and you yourself accuse others.” The Savior reveals the error of the Pharisees in that they paid attention to the little things and overlooked the most important thing in human relationships. Washing hands and honoring father and mother are opposite poles in human moral relations. Both John Chrysostom and Theophylact and Euthymius Zigavin say that the Savior here does not justify the disciples in non-observance of petty Pharisees and admits that there was some kind of violation on the part of His disciples of the human institution. But at the same time he claims that there was also a transgression on the part of the scribes and Pharisees in a much higher sense, and, what is of much greater importance, their tradition was to blame for this violation. The Lord places the clavum clavo retundit here.
. For God commanded: Honor your father and mother; and: whoever speaks evil of his father or mother, let him die by death.
(cf.). ((quotes from ; ; )).
According to St. John Chrysostom, the Savior “does not immediately turn to the committed offense and does not say that it does not mean anything, otherwise He would increase the impudence of the accusers, but first he combats their impudence, posing a much more important crime and placing it on their head. He does not say that those who violate the decree do well, so as not to give them an opportunity to accuse themselves, but he does not condemn the act of the disciples, so as not to confirm the decree. Equally, he does not accuse the elders, as people of lawful and vicious, but, leaving all this, he chooses a different path and, censuring those who apparently approached Him, touches those who made the decisions themselves.
. But you say: if someone says to a father or mother: a gift to God is what you would use from me,
. he may not honor his father or his mother; thus you have made void the commandment of God by your tradition.
In Matthew, it is almost identical with Mark, but with the omission of the word "korvan" and with the replacement of the words of Mark: "you already allow him to do nothing for his father or his mother", other expressions set out in the first half of verse 6. The construction of the verse in Matthew is less clear than in Mark. The word "korvan" is a literal translation of a frequently used Jewish votive formula, which has been subjected to many abuses.
The grounds for votive practice were given in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament (see ; ; ; ; ; ). Subsequently, vows became the subject of Jewish casuistry. The word "korvan" was changed to "konam" "out of piety". They began to say not only “this thing to horses”, but also “to horses of my eyes if they sleep”, “to horses of my hands if they work” and even simply “to horses that I will not sleep” and so on (see. Talmud, Translated by Pereferkovich, III, 183). The gift to God in Hebrew was called “korvan” (like in), and it is often mentioned in the chapter where lambs, goats, calves offered to God as a burnt offering, a peace offering or a sin offering are called “korvan”, i.e. e. "victim". Gasophylakia (treasury) in the temple, where offerings from the people were put together, is metonymically called "korvan" or "korvana". Vows could and should have been canceled often, the main reason for this was that they were repented (harata), in which case the lawyers had to cancel them. The custom, which the Savior condemns, was that the scribes allowed a person by this formula to dedicate his property to the temple and thus evade the obligation to help his parents. The legal formula was thus more sacred than the divine command set forth in Scripture.
. Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied well of you, saying:
. These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
. but in vain they worship Me, teaching doctrines, the commandments of men.
In Mark, these words of the prophet Isaiah () were spoken by Christ before the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees. The meaning of this quotation in the application to the present case is quite clear. By observing the traditions of their elders, the Pharisees and scribes wanted to please God, because all these traditions, like all Jewish legislation in general, had a religious character. The scribes and Pharisees thought that by washing their hands before eating food, they were fulfilling religious requirements that were obligatory for everyone, and even more so for such religious teachers as Christ and His disciples were. Non-observance of the traditions of the elders could serve both in the eyes of the enemies of Christ and in the eyes of the people as a sign of deviation from true religious teachings. But the enemies of Christ did not notice that, observing these trifles, which had nothing to do with religion, they did not pay attention to more important things and violated not the traditions of the elders, but the commandments of God. From this it was clear that it was not the religion of Christ, but their own religion, that was false. They approached God only with their mouths and honored Him with their tongues.
. And calling the people, he said to them: Listen and understand!
Having placed His enemies in a stalemate by the extraordinary force of His argument, the Savior leaves them and speaks to all the people. It points to this προσκαλεσάμενος - "calling" or "calling" the people who stood right there, perhaps only parting before their teachers and leaders who were talking with Christ.
. it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth defiles a person.
(Compare () - with a slight difference in expressions).
When the Pharisees accused the disciples of eating with unwashed hands, the Savior says that no food defiles a person. But if food does not defile, much less eating it with unwashed hands. An entirely new principle was set forth here, which, however simple in itself, is still not well understood by many. It expresses the opposite idea that any food can be the cause of spiritual or religious defilement. Here Jesus Christ obviously thinks not about legal, but about moral desecration, which is related not to what enters the mouth (cf.), but to what comes out of the mouth (immoral speeches). Judging by the context, the Savior does not speak against the Mosaic institutions, but the application of His speech to them is inevitable, so that, as a result, the law and its rule are subject to a material abolition. Some ambiguity is rightly found at the appropriate place in Mark. Matthew substitutes the explanatory "from the mouth" instead of "from a man."
. Then His disciples came and said to Him, Do you know that when the Pharisees heard this word, they were offended?
Mark and the other evangelists do not have verses corresponding to verses 12-14. But in Mark () one can find an explanatory note that Matthew does not have, and on the basis of it one can conclude that the disciples approached the Savior not in the presence of the people, but when He entered the house with them. However, this can also be guessed from the testimony of Matthew in verses 12 and 15 compared with, where almost the same expressions are used.
"This word" is referred by many to that which is stated in verses 3-9. But it is better to understand the 11th verse here with Evfimy Zigavin. Because this "word", if addressed to the people, could seem especially seductive to the Pharisees. The Pharisees were greatly tempted by precisely these words of Christ, because they saw in them the annihilation and open trampling not only of their own traditions, but also of all Mosaic rituals.
. He answered and said, Every plant that my Heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted;
According to John Chrysostom, the Savior says this about the Pharisees themselves and their traditions. The plant here serves as an image of the Pharisees as a party or sect. The thought expressed here by Christ is similar to the thought of Gamaliel ().
. leave them: they are the blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.
According to John Chrysostom, if the Savior had said this about the law, he would have called him the blind leader of the blind. Wed . In Luke (), a similar saying is inserted into the Sermon on the Mount.
. And Peter, answering, said to Him, Explain to us this parable.
The speech coincides in meaning with the second half of the indicated verse in Mark. Difference from Mk. 7Meyer calls "insignificant". The best reading is just a "parable", without adding "this". If the word "this" is accepted, then Peter's request would, of course, refer to verse 14. But here the question is fully clarified by Mark, in whom Peter's words undoubtedly refer to , and in Matthew, therefore, to verse 11. The subsequent speech of the Savior confirms this interpretation.
. Jesus said, Do you still not understand?
The meaning is that even "you" - a word on which there is a special emphasis - who have been with Me for so long and have learned from Me, do not even you understand yet?
. Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth passes into the belly and is cast out?
Mark has more details: “Are you really that dumb? Do you not understand that nothing that enters a person from without can defile him? Because it does not enter into his heart, but into the womb, and goes out.. For the place under consideration, there is a parallel in Philo (De opificio mundi, I, 29), who says: “Through the mouth, according to Plato, the mortal enters, and the immortal comes out. Through the mouth enters food and drink, the perishable body is the perishable sustenance. And the words, the immortal laws of the immortal soul, by which rational life is governed, come out of the mouth.
. but what comes out of the mouth comes out of the heart - this defiles a person,
What enters a person (food) does not defile him. And what comes out of his heart can defile him. Further precise explanation is given in the following verse.
. for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies -
. it defiles a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile a person.
Christ did not abolish the law of Moses and did not say that any kind of food or drink is good for man. He only said that no food and no way of taking it defiles a person.
. And going out from there, Jesus withdrew into the countries of Tire and Sidon.
In both Matthew and Mark, the word "from there" is completely unclear. Origen believed that from Gennesaret, along which the Savior traveled (; ); but he retired, perhaps because the Pharisees who listened to him were tempted by the speech about objects that defile a person. Having withdrawn from Israel, Jesus Christ comes to the limits of Tire and Sidon. John Chrysostom, Theophylact and others, when interpreting this place, have a lot of reasoning about why the Savior told the disciples not to go on the path of the pagans when He Himself goes to them. The answer is given in the sense that the Savior went to the limits of Tire and Sidon not for preaching, but to "hide himself", although he could not do this.
From these interpretations, it is clear that the Savior, contrary to popular belief, "crossed the borders of Palestine" and, albeit a little, was in a pagan country. If we agree with this, then the subsequent history will be somewhat clearer to us.
Tire (in Hebrew "zor" - rock) was a famous Phoenician trading city. Around the time of the conquest of the kingdom of Israel by Salmanassar (721 BC), the Assyrians besieged it, but could not take it after a five-year siege and only imposed tribute on it (). About the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (588 BC), Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tire and took it, but did not destroy it. In 332 BC, after a seven-month siege, Tire was taken by Alexander the Great, who crucified 2,000 Tyrians for their resistance. Tire is now called Es Sur. From 126 B.C. Tire was an independent city with a Hellenistic structure.
Sidon (a fishing city, fishing, fishing - the same root as [Beth]said) was older than Tyre. Sidon is often mentioned in the Old Testament. It currently has up to 15,000 inhabitants, but its commercial importance is inferior to that of Beirut. Sidon is now called Saida.
. And so, the Canaanite woman, coming out of those places, cried out to Him: have mercy on me, Lord, son of David, my daughter is cruelly raging.
The story told in verses 22 and later in verses 23-24 is not found in Mark or the other evangelists. The expressions of Mark () are quite different from those of Matthew. Matthew and Mark call this woman by various names: Matthew - a Canaanite, Mark - a Greek woman (ἑλληνίς) and a Syro-Phoenician. The first name - Canaanite - is consistent with the fact that the Phoenicians themselves called themselves Canaanites, and their country - Canaan. B lists the descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham, among which Sidon is listed first. From Mark's testimony that the woman was Greek, it can be concluded that she was called that only by the language in which, in all likelihood, she spoke. In the Vulgate, this word is translated, however, through gentilis - pagan. If this translation is correct, then the word refers to the woman's religious beliefs, and not to her dialect. As for the name "Syro-Phoenician", the Phoenicians who lived in the region of Tire and Sidon or Phoenicia were called so, in contrast to the Phoenicians who lived in Africa (Libya) on its northern coast (Carthage), who were called Λιβοφοίνικες, Carthaginians (lat. .poeni). How this woman learned about Christ and that He is the Son of David is unknown, but it is very likely that according to rumors, because in the Gospel of Matthew there is a direct note that the rumor about Christ spread “throughout all Syria” (), which was nearby from Phoenicia. The latter is not mentioned in the Gospels. The woman calls Christ first the Lord (κύριε) and then the Son of David. The title of Christ Lord in the New Testament is common. This is what the centurion (;) and the Samaritan woman () call Christ. Verse 26 () speaks against the opinion that the woman was a proselyte of the gate. But the expression "Son of David" may indicate her familiarity with Jewish history. In legend, she is known under the name of Justa, and her daughter - Veronica. The woman says: have mercy not on my daughter, but on me. Because the daughter's illness was the mother's illness. She does not say: come and heal, but have mercy.
. But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples, approaching, asked Him: Let her go, because she is screaming after us.
Comparing the stories of Matthew and Mark, we must present the matter as follows. The Savior arrived in pagan territory with His disciples and entered the house to "hide" or hide (λαθεῖν - Mark). Reasons for the Savior "didn't want anyone to know" about His stay in Phoenicia, we do not know. But here there was nothing unnatural or inconsistent with His other actions, because He did the same on other occasions, withdrawing from the crowd and for prayer (; ; Luke 5, etc.). It can be assumed that in the present case, the removal of Christ from Israeli society occurred due to the great events that required solitude, which are described in; (confession of Peter and transfiguration). The cry of the woman, as it seemed to the disciples, did not correspond to the intention of Christ to be left alone, and they ask Him to let her go (cf.). The word "let go" (ἀπόλυσον) does not express that the disciples asked Christ to grant the woman's request.
According to Mark, the woman entered the house where the Savior was, and there she screamed for help (- εἰσελθοῦσα ), and according to Matthew, this was when the Savior was on the way. There is no contradiction, because both were possible. Further explanation in the comments on the next verse.
. He answered and said, I have only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
The key to explaining all this is given by John Chrysostom, Theophylact and Evfimy Zigavin, who believe that the purpose of Christ's refusal was not to test, but to reveal the faith of this woman. This must be clearly noted in order to understand what follows. Although Chrysostom says that the woman heard the words of Christ: "Sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", but it is more likely that she did not hear, because it is said: "He didn't say a word to her". The answer to the disciples was both practically and theoretically correct, because Christ had to limit and limit His activity only to the house of Israel, and in this individualization of His activity was its universal character. The gospel expression cannot be explained in the sense that spiritual Israel is meant here. If Christ directly released the woman, as His disciples asked, then we would not have a beautiful example that explains how "The kingdom of heaven is taken by force"(). It is taken despite all the obstacles and even the humiliations to which the Gentiles are or may be subjected.
. And she, coming up, bowed to Him and said: Lord! help me.
Mark tells in more detail that the woman fell at the feet of the Savior and asked Him to cast out the demon from her daughter. About προσεκύνει see comments on. The woman no longer calls Christ the Son of David, but only the Lord and worships Him as God.
. He answered and said, It is not good to take bread from the children and throw it to the dogs.
(Compare () with the addition: "Let the children have their fill first").
Literally: “you can’t (shouldn’t) take bread from children and throw it to dogs” (in Mark - “not good”). It is thought that the Savior is speaking here "ex publico judaeorum affectu" (Erasmus), or, what is the same, in the ordinary speech of the Jews, who called the pagans dogs; the Israelites, like the children of Abraham, are “sons of the kingdom” () and have the first right to the bread of grace and truth. The Jews called the Gentiles dogs because of idolatry and unclean living.
. She said: yes, Lord! but dogs also eat the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters.
. Then Jesus said to her in answer: O woman! great is thy faith; let it be to you as you wish. And her daughter was healed in that hour.
. Passing over from there, Jesus came to the Sea of Galilee, and going up to the mountain, he sat down there.
According to Mark, Christ, "coming out of the borders of Tyre"(so according to some readings), “went again” through Sidon (this is not in the Russian translation) "to the Sea of Galilee", in the middle part (ἀνὰ μέσον - cf.;) of the Decapolis limits (in Russian translation - "through the Decapolis"). A mountain is understood to mean some high area on the shore of a lake, and not any individual mountain. It is not clear from Matthew's account which side of the Lake of Galilee this was, but Mark clearly states that it was on the east.
. And a multitude of people came to Him, having with them the lame, the blind, the dumb, the crippled, and many others, and cast them down at the feet of Jesus; and he healed them;
. so that the people marveled, seeing the dumb speaking, the crippled healthy, the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and glorified the God of Israel.
Mark has only the first sentence of Matthew 31, expressed quite differently. Matthew then adds words that the other evangelists do not have. The expressions “praise, glorify God” are found many times in the New Testament (“Israel”, as here. On this basis, they think that now Christ was among the pagans who glorified a God alien to them - "God of Israel"(cf.) - "some of them came from afar").
. And Jesus, calling His disciples, said to them: I am sorry for the people, who have been with me for three days, and they have nothing to eat; I don’t want to let them go hungry, lest they weaken on the road.
. And his disciples said to him, “Where can we get so many loaves of bread in the wilderness to feed so many people?”
(Compare () with a significant difference in expressions).
If all four evangelists told about the feeding of five thousand people, then the real story belongs only to Matthew and Mark. In general content, it is so similar to the story of the feeding of five thousand with five loaves that many took it for a variant of the same event. If so, then this could, on the one hand, affect the interpretation of the first story, and on the other hand, would give reason to consider both stories legendary. But others hold different opinions. Even in antiquity, attention was paid to the differences between the two stories, and on this basis it was argued that they depicted two real events. So, Origen wrote among other things: “Now, after healing the dumb and others, (the Lord) has mercy on the people who have been around Him for three days and have not had food. There the disciples ask for five thousand, but here He Himself speaks of four thousand. Those in the evening are satisfied, having spent a day with Him, but these are said to have stayed with Him for three days, and they receive loaves so as not to faint on the way. There the disciples speak about the five loaves and two fishes that they had, although the Lord did not ask about this, but here they answer the question that they had seven loaves and a few fishes. There He commands the people to lie down on the grass, but here He does not command, but announces to the people to lie down... These on the mountain are satisfied, and those in a desert place. These three days were with Jesus, but those were one day, on which they were satisfied in the evening.” Hilarius and Jerome also dealt with the distinction between the two saturations. That these were really two events is strongly confirmed by the Savior Himself, who points to it in . The assumption that both events are identical is based on the apparent difficulty of the students' question: “Where can we get so many loaves in the desert?”, - so soon forgotten the former miracle, but such slowness in faith is found among people in other cases, and examples of it are reported in Scripture itself (cf. Ex. 16c; see; Alford). This whole story seems to have a connection with the previous story about the healing of the daughter of the Canaanite and the crumbs that fall from the table of the master dogs. The miracle was performed in Decapolis, i.e. where the population consisted, if not exclusively, then predominantly of pagans. The ratio of the numbers of the first and second saturation is as follows: 5000:4000; 5:7; 2:x; 12 (the number of people, loaves, fishes and boxes filled with loaves).
. Then he ordered the people to lie down on the ground.“In everything else, he acts like before: he seats the people on the ground and makes sure that the bread does not decrease in the hands of the disciples” (St. John Chrysostom). Outwardly, the event now differs from the former only in numbers.
. And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, gave thanks, broke them, and gave them to his disciples, and the disciples to the people.
. And they all ate and were satisfied; and took up the remaining pieces of seven baskets full,
Adding to the story “having blessed, He ordered them to be distributed”(i.e. loaves) occurs only in Mark. The parallel of verse 37 is , with some difference in expression. Matthew added: (“seven baskets”) full, which Mark does not have. Instead of the "boxes" in which the pieces were collected after the feeding of the five thousand, we now speak of "baskets" (σπυρίδες ). This word, in addition to the Gospels, is used only once in the New Testament (), which says that the Apostle Paul was lowered in a basket along the wall in Damascus. On this basis, it is assumed that these were large baskets. Where they were taken from is completely unknown. Perhaps they were brought by people who followed Christ and were originally filled with provisions. The number of baskets filled with pieces of the remaining bread now corresponds to the number of bread broken and distributed to the people.
. and those who ate were four thousand men, besides women and children.
Matthew adds here "except women and children", which Mark does not have (see comments on).
. And having dismissed the people, He entered the boat and came to the region of Magdala.
Instead of "to the limits (τὰ μέρη) of Magdalene" (according to the Russian translation), Mark has "to the limits (τὰ μέρη) of Dalmanuf". Augustine has no doubt that this is the same place, only with a different name. Because in numerous codes and in Mark, "Magedan" is also written. But in this case, why is the same place marked by different names? First of all, we note that the correct reading in Matthew is not Magdala, but Magadan. So in Sinai, BD, ancient Latin, Syro-Sinaitic. The word Magadan or Magedan is considered identical with Magdala (modern Mejdel). Magdala means "tower". That was the name of the place on the western shore of the Lake of Galilee, perhaps mentioned in the book of Joshua (). It was the birthplace of Mary Magdalene. Why it was also called Magadan is unknown. About Magadan itself, if it was not identical with Magdala, nothing is known. Most travelers believed that Magdala was five versts north of Tiberias, where the village of Mejdel is now. It is currently a small village. It contains up to half a dozen houses, without windows, with flat roofs. Here laziness and poverty now reign. Children run through the streets half-naked. Dalmanufa, mentioned by Mark, was, apparently, somewhere in the vicinity of Magdala. If so, there is no contradiction in the testimony of the evangelists. One places where Christ arrived with His disciples on a boat calls Magadan (Magdala), the other points to a place nearby.
Back in the early 1560s, the Dutch had to fully experience the misfortunes that the Spanish authorities brought down on them. The thirty-year-old artist saw how cities that had flourished before fell into decay. Foreign merchants, fearing the religious intolerance of the Spanish inquisitors, sought hospitality in other lands. The burning of heretics became a common sight, as were dozens of gallows lined along the deserted roads.
With the arrival of the Duke of Alba, the country was turned into a giant dungeon. The wave of uprisings that had swept through the Netherlands quickly subsided. In these events, many art historians see the key to the especially tragic nature of Brueghel's last works. The dramatic outcome of the struggle for his people extinguished the last hope in the artist's heart. Having lost faith in the possibility of victory, Brueghel again directed his art into an allegorical direction, as if he no longer had the strength to write immediate events.
At this time, the painting "The Blind" was created, in which the despair of Brueghel the man and the greatness of Brueghel the artist reached their highest limit.
The picture is dedicated to the words of Christ in the biblical parable about the foolish blind man who undertook to be a guide to his fellow sufferers:
"Can the blind lead the blind? Will not both fall into the pit?"
Of course, by this Jesus meant spiritual blindness. As a reminder of this, Brueghel depicts the church in the depths of the picture - the only place where the blind can be healed.
But in order to cross the threshold of the church, you need to be sighted or use the help of a sighted person; neither is available to Brueghel's characters.
Experienced events taking place with his country, as if forced Brueghel to recall the Calvinist doctrine of the tragic blindness of all mankind, unaware of their fate and submissive to the will of the destined spectacle.
A terrible line of homeless cripples, deprived not only of sight, but also of a guide, wanders from the depths of the picture towards the viewer slowly and carefully, they follow each other, not suspecting that their path leads to a ravine filled with water.
Suddenly the leader stumbles and falls, and after him falls
The "look" of his empty eye sockets is turned to the viewer. Unsatisfied hatred, the cruel grin of a satanic smile turned his face into a terrible mask. There is so much impotent malice in him that it would hardly occur to anyone to sympathize with the poor fellow.
Convulsively looking for a suddenly disappeared support support, already swaying and losing balance
While they are walking calmly, because they still do not know about the impending disaster. Their faces are full of humility, barely covering stupidity and hidden malice.
But the farther away, the more uncertain their convulsive gestures and quick movements become, and the ground is already slipping from under their feet. Because the blind lead the blind, because they feel the fall, because the fall is inevitable. The moment seemed to stop. They are probably asking for something.
Their faces, expressing horror and bewilderment, are ugly and scary. They reflect all the vices of human society: malice, greed, cunning, deceit, hypocrisy.
Brueghel tries to avoid deliberate drama: his characters, most likely, are not in danger of death - the ravine is not deep. All the horror of what is happening is concentrated not in the plot, but precisely in the images: in a leisurely, trail after trail, movement to the edge of the pit, in a series of terrible faces, mobile and diverse, but devoid of any shadow of thought and life.
As if overtaking the blind, the viewer's gaze jumps from one figure to another, catches a terrible in its sequence change in the expressions of their faces from the stupid and animal-carnivorous last blind to more and more greedy, more and more cunning and vicious.
Condemning humanity for vanity and depravity, the artist opposes it
The sun still shines, the trees turn green, and even the grass under the feet of the blind is soft and silky. Cozy houses stand along a quiet village street, at the end of which you can see a pointed church. The bright and radiant world of nature remains, as it were, beyond human misunderstanding. The world of nature is eternal, in it everything is fair and logical. Its serene beauty makes it possible to forget about human vices and misfortunes, but the figures of the blind themselves in this environment seem even more repulsive and terrible.
This painting is Brueghel's last known surviving work. Was the painting "The Blind" a kind of farewell of the artist to people?
No. Brueghel, who died in Brussels on September 5, 1569 (at the age of about forty), worked on another painting until the end of his days, which. according to contemporaries, "was the best of his works." Neither the picture itself nor its description have come down to us, only the name is known: "The Triumph of Truth"
The Blind is one of the most iconic paintings by Pieter Brueghel the Elder. It is believed that it is based on one of the biblical parables, which says: "If the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into the pit". As in almost all other canvases of the artist, this one also contains an allegory, and which one we will analyze later in the article.
The painting "The Blind" was painted in 1568. It depicts a line of blind people who confidently walk along the road straight into the pit. The first have already fallen, and the rest will meet the same fate. The plot is based on a biblical parable, which says: "If the blind lead the blind, then both of them will fall into the pit." The meaning of the parable, as always, is read between the lines. The blind are not those who have no sight, but those who follow someone, blindly believing him.
It is worth noting that the idea of painting a picture came to the mind of the artist for a reason. At that time, his native country of the Netherlands became dependent on the Spaniards, led by the Duke of Alba. Under the pretext of fighting heretics, countless ordinary people were killed. Those who disagreed with the new regime were quickly eliminated, and the rest began to blindly obey the new authorities.
If you pay attention to the faces of the blind in the picture, then they are all deliberately distorted. And this is not because the author was biased towards the crippled. Each of the characters personifies the vices of humanity - greed, anger, cruelty, deceit, hypocrisy, lust. It is they who obscure the eyes of a person and direct him into the "pits" of spiritual immorality.
(1525-1569) - South Dutch artist, who is also known by the nickname "Peasant". Representative of a whole family of famous artists. The paintings of the painter are in the largest museums in the world, including the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, the Prado Museum in Madrid, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Louvre in Paris and others. Here I would like to dwell on one of the most remarkable paintings by the Dutch artist, which is called "The Blind" or "The Parable of the Blind".
The painting "The Blind" was painted in 1568. It is currently in the National Gallery of Naples. The plot of the canvas describes one of the parables, which says: "If the blind lead the blind, then both of them will fall into the pit." The parable is not direct, but rather allegorical. The blind, not because of a physical defect, but because of their short-sightedness, uniting and relying on each other, who are not led by the “seer”, will inevitably fall into the “pit”. The picture describes the parable directly and without any hints. A group of blind men, who hold on to each other, go forward, led by their unfounded certainty. The first person falls into the pit, followed by the second, and the third is already beginning to stumble to follow those in front. Those who are further away do not yet suspect what awaits them ahead, but they will also fall into a ravine with water.
Pieter Brueghel the Elder tried to avoid a tragic outcome in his painting. Apparently, nothing threatens the group of people, since the pit is filled with water and is shallow. The main thing in the character of the picture, he wanted to emphasize something else. If you look at the faces of the "blind", you can see that they are depicted deliberately ugly and scary. He portrayed them as such not at all because he somehow wanted to offend people who were deprived of their sight, since blind people, as such, are not at all discussed here. All the vices of mankind are displayed in the grimaces of people - deceit, hypocrisy, lust, greed, deceit, malice, cruelty. It is these vices that make people blind to the true values of life that lead a person to pits, each of which becomes deeper and deeper ...
The masterpiece of world painting "The Blind" was the last painting of the artist. Pieter Brueghel seemed to express his attitude towards people before his departure. It is known that before his death he worked on another painting, which was called "The Triumph of Truth", but it has not survived to this day.
Pieter Brueghel the Elder - The Blind (The Parable of the Blind)
Do you dream of making your home beautiful, cozy and comfortable? Come to the online furniture store "Mebelyuka", where you can find everything you need. Sofas, armchairs, tables, cabinets, chests of drawers and other furniture of excellent quality.
Art historians believe that the Northern Renaissance is in no way inferior to the Italian. It was completely different in its spirit and embodiment, but its artistic value does not become less because of this. An outstanding figure of this era was Pieter Brueghel. "The Parable of the Blind" is one of his best works.
Northern Renaissance
This term covers all the art of the 15th century, developing outside of Italy, which was the birthplace of the classical. To the north, both France and England are attributed, but when talking about painting, as a rule, they recall the Netherlands and Germany. It was here that Albrecht Dürer, Rogier van der Weyden, Jan van Eyck and, of course, Pieter Brueghel and his sons worked.
In the painting of the Northern Renaissance, there is a clear connection with the Gothic, folk art and mythology. The letter is detailed and detailed. Unlike Italy, a humanistic secular worldview has not yet emerged in the North. Artists do not turn to the classical heritage of antiquity and the study of anatomy for a more reliable depiction of the human body. In addition, there is a significant influence of the church on art. If the picture does not directly depict the biblical story, then Christian allegories are clearly traced in it.
Biography of Brueghel
Bruegel is a whole dynasty. Not only his father was engaged in painting, but Peter Brueghel himself. The works of his sons, Jan Brueghel and Pieter Brueghel the Younger, are also widely known. They not only painted their own paintings, but also made quite a few copies of their father's works.
The elder Brueghel was born in the Dutch city of Breda at the beginning of the 16th century. He began his career as a graphic artist, then studied painting with the court master Cook van Aelst in Antwerp. In the 1950s, like many European artists, he made an "educational" trip to Italy. On the way he visited Switzerland and France and painted several landscapes. Sunny Italy struck Brueghel not only with beautiful nature, but also with monuments of classical art. Critics agree that the old Italian masters had a great influence on the work of the young artist.
After the trip, Brueghel continues to work in Antwerp and marries the daughter of his mentor, Maria. In 1963 the family moved to Brussels, where the artist would remain until the end of his days. Brueghel's brushes are credited with forty-five paintings. Of these, more than thirty depict nature, rural life and scenes from the life of villagers. The artist did not accept orders for portraits, only one of his works in this genre is known - “Head of a Peasant Woman”. If in the early works of Brueghel the figures of people are small and insignificant compared to the surrounding landscape, then in the later work there is a growing interest in the depiction of human figures. In these paintings, people are written out large, faces are depicted expressively, emotions are easily read on them. These works include The Cripples, The Peasant and the Destroyer of Nests, and, of course, The Parable of the Blind.
"The Parable of the Blind". Pieter Brueghel
Brueghel's painting is not the only plot in art on the theme of the blind. The image of the blind man is firmly established in mythology as an allegory of ignorance, intolerance for other people's opinions, blinded consciousness. But at the same time, the blind person often acts as the personification of faith (it is not for nothing that she is often called blind). So, even in the Bible there is a parable about the blind Bartimaeus. Man gains sight through his boundless faith. The ancient Indian story "The Blind and the Elephant" is widely known. The parable tells about three people who were allowed to touch various parts of the elephant's body, on the basis of which each made a verdict on what the animal looks like, and each of them was wrong. Brueghel's work, according to the generally accepted interpretation, is based on the biblical lines: "If the blind lead the blind, then both of them will fall into the pit." In the picture we see a literal illustration of this.
Against the backdrop of a serene rural landscape, a procession of six men walks. They are not richly dressed, on the chest of one of them there is a cross, as a symbol of hope in God. The blind are moving along the dam, but do not notice how the road makes a turn. And now their leader, having stumbled, falls into the water. The second man, unable to resist, flies after him. The third does not yet understand what is happening, but his position is already unstable. The latter do not yet know about the fate prepared for them, but they will all inevitably end up in the water, because the blind one following the blind is doomed.
Interpretation
To understand what Brueghel's "Parable of the Blind" is talking about, one cannot lose sight of the cultural and historical context in which this painting was created. In the last years of the artist's life, his native Netherlands was occupied by the Spanish under the leadership Under the pretext of the destruction of heretics, thousands of ordinary people were tortured and killed. Terror and lawlessness reigned in the country. The riots that had begun and the performances quickly faded away. Like all the people, the artist was seized with despair, and this hopelessness found its fullest expression in his painting “The Parable of the Blind”.
This work is an allegorical protest and appeal to the whole world. Where will blind humanity go? By what right does the blind lead the blind? Blindness here is not only a physical injury, but also a poverty of spirit. The whole canvas screams that it is not too late to stop and finally try to open your eyes. Probably, as long as humanity exists, this call will still be relevant.
Composition and color
The composition of the picture is built diagonally. Moreover, the dynamics and tension increase along the line that visually separates the picture. The landscape is static and serene, there are no extraneous figures of people and animals. Only imperturbable nature is a witness to the drama that is being played out, which, in comparison with eternity, is just an insignificant episode. In the direction from the hillock, emphasized by the gabled roofs of Dutch houses, the blind are moving. The dip on the right acts as a counterpoint to the elevation.
The lifeless dry silhouette of a tree on the left side of the picture repeats the curves of the body of the last man. If the last figures are still moving calmly, then along the diagonal the dynamics and tension are growing. Each subsequent figure is already more unstable and more and more despair and dull horror are read on their faces. We do not fully see the face of the first blind man, he is already immersed in water. But his figure expresses helplessness and despair.
The idea and composition are emphasized by the color of the picture. For a gloomy plot, the artist chose soft, muted tones. The landscape is dominated by strongly muted ocher, dusty greenery. The low gloomy sky is made in shades of gray. There is not a single gap between the clouds. The clothes of the blind are of the same faded tones as the surrounding nature - all the same palette of gray. The artist managed to emphasize the dynamic diagonal with color. Tension builds with color. The deaf cloaks of the last two men are made in the most calm and dark shades. Flashes of dazzling white stockings and caps flash by the cliff, they are echoed by the dirty white cloak of the third blind man. The clothes of the brightest colors - red, green, orange - were awarded by the artist to the guide, who ended his journey so ingloriously. Clay at the cliff glows with bright ocher.
This painting is one of the last and most famous works of Pieter Brueghel. In this work, he showed himself to be a mature artist. The skillful technique of writing and the masterful use of pictorial techniques are combined here with drama and depth of the plot.
