Why did Brueghel the Elder paint "dinosaurs"? Nude self-portrait with a palette, Richard Gerstl

For years now, the Internet has been circulating a story about dinosaurs depicted in the background of a painting by the Dutch Renaissance artist Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1525-1569). The picture is called "The Suicide of Saul", dedicated to the dramatic event in the history of the ancient Jews - the death of the first king of Israel in the battle with the Philistines (X century BC) at Mount Gilboa and written in 1562 (or in 1564) year. Dinosaurs, as always, were discovered by meticulous adherents of the so-called "alternative history". In their opinion, these dinosaur-like animals prove the lies of the "official historians". Although claims in this case should be made to zoologists, and not to historians, because dinosaurs pass through their department.

"Suicide of Saul" Pieter Bruegel the Elder.

Consider the picture of Brueghel: in the picture we see a stream of victorious Philistines, the remnants of the Jewish army fleeing from enemies and Saul himself, who threw himself on the sword. But this dramatic moment does not interest our debunkers of history and adherents of cheap sensations. Their attention was drawn to the following fragment, which depicts wonderful animals that look like dinosaurs, more precisely, dinosaurs of the sauropod group.

Fragment of the painting with the death of King Saul.

This amazing discovery was made by alternative people on the site of historical fantasy "Kramola", which was warmly supported by the great reader of cracks on stones V. Chudinov. It is interesting to read his "evidence":

"Discovery" by alternatives of dinosaurs in the painting by Brueghel.

“I’ll tell you right away why these are not camels. 1. A camel is slightly larger than a horse, and in the picture we see 4 riders on horseback, and horses are several times smaller than dinosaurs. The sizes of dinosaurs in the picture are comparable to the size of an elephant. The neck of a camel extends down and forward from the body, not immediately up.The neck of a camel is much shorter and thicker in relation to its length.In a camel, the head is most often lower than the hump and always lower than the rider.And in the picture, the heads of dinosaurs are twice as high as the back from the ground "Judging by the photos on Google, camels are not green. There are white, brown and yellow. You can check. And the leftmost dinosaur in the picture is completely green (although the paint may have just faded over time). It's hard to imagine that the artist did not highlight "This moment is on none of the three animals. None of the three animals have humps. But this is the main difference between camels and all steel animals, including dinosaurs."

Let's look closely at the fragment with the "dinosaurs": the depicted horses in the picture are somehow small. The riders are unnaturally large compared to horses and "dinosaurs". The rider on the dinosaur is at least two meters tall, it turns out. It is clear that we are observing a violation of proportions. Details of a fragment of the picture are extremely small, sometimes sketched in several strokes. This is understandable: before us is the background of the picture, which no one will usually carefully consider. Brueghel, apparently, did not consider it important to draw the smallest details here, although he was a master in this. He didn't need it. For the artist, the dramatic effect between the dying king, the enemy hordes and his fleeing army in the distance was important. What is important is the impression that the viewer sees from the scattered soldiers and horsemen of Saul dissolving in the distance and the impending steel river of enemy soldiers. That is, we are dealing with an artistic device.

One should also not forget an important detail that in those days, the drawing of minor details: the background, details of drapery, architecture, the artists instructed their students and apprentices, so that they would fill their hands and train in skill, and not spend it themselves extra time unimportant details of the picture in order to quickly start work on the next order. Thus, the "dinosaurs" may belong to the hand of a not very skillful novice artist's apprentice, and the master himself may not have anything to do with the background of the picture (except that he corrected what his apprentice had drawn with a few strokes).

Cartoon dinosaur.

But back to the "dinosaurs" They want to assure us that these are dinosaurs. Why? Looks like that's the only argument. If you compare dinosaurs from cartoons for children, then they are really similar. But yellow metal is not necessarily gold, just as dinosaurs from cartoons do not look like real animals. Therefore, we have the right not to take the word of alternatives and even our own eyes. In fact, if dinosaurs really lived until the 16th century, then we would have a huge number of images of these amazing animals, we would have written descriptions and evidence of their existence, not to mention the non-fossil bones of dinosaur skeletons, as well as products made from the skin and bones of these animals that have come down to our time. However, we don't have any of that. And therefore, Brueghel did not paint dinosaurs.

Compared to real sauropods, Brueghel's "dinosaurs" do not look like sauropods. They want to assure us that dinosaurs lived in the 16th century. and the painting by Brueghel is supposedly proof of this. But sauropods were quite large animals from 9 to 36 m in length. And in the picture we see small (compared to sauropods) animals no more than two meters in length. And most importantly, Brueghel's "dinosaurs" do not have the famous long tail of sauropods, which was at least half the length of the body of extinct animals. If Bruegel actually saw living dinosaurs, then he would hardly have noticed this characteristic feature sauropods. The absence of a tail in dinosaurs clearly contradicts the version of the debunkers of history.

But let's go back to the picture itself. The action takes place in Judea. It is clear that Brueghel had never been to Palestine and painted this country relying on his rich imagination.

Mount Gilboa.

There is no resemblance to the real battlefield in the picture. We also see in the picture warriors in armor of the late Middle Ages, which could not have been in the Bronze Age. As there was no cavalry itself. It will appear only three hundred years later, before that there were only war chariots, which are repeatedly mentioned in the Bible. In the background we see a high rock with a completely European castle, which could not have been in Saul's time. So, absolutely everything in the picture is fantastic. And this is natural, because the Brueghel painting is not historical reconstruction. The artist depicted the events of the distant past in accordance with the surrounding realities of the late Middle Ages..

But if these are dinosaurs, then strong arguments are needed that these are dinosaurs, and not something else. The only argument of the alternatives is that it looks like dinosaurs. But being similar does not mean being it in reality. From dinosaurs, as I already wrote, there were a lot of physical evidence in the form of bones, skulls and leather goods. But there is nothing of this, except for blurry images of Brueghel. How do supporters of "alternative history" and lovers of cheap sensations explain the absence of dinosaur bones? I think the most "weighty" argument will come into play: armchair scientists destroyed everything in order not to lose their salaries, which is ridiculous in itself. It was the discovery of the existence of dinosaurs in the Middle Ages that would have made the scientist famous and forever inscribed his name in the history of science. That is why for so many years dozens of eccentrics have been trying to catch the Loch Ness monster, because it means world fame.

But what did Brueghel depict in the picture? To do this, you need to immerse yourself in the European cultural tradition Middle Ages, whose heir was Brueghel. In medieval Europe, zoological collections were popular - bestiaries, which originated from ancient writings on zoology. In addition to real-life animals, fantastic animals were described there, such as the basilisk and the manticore. There was also a quite ordinary camel in bestiaries - a very exotic animal for Europe. Few Europeans saw him, so they painted a camel either from other people's words, or, relying on drawings that artists redrawn from book to book, starting from late antiquity.

Compare this medieval depiction of a camel with Brueghel's "dinosaurs". In fact, coincidences one to one. And even the curve of the neck matches. Of course, the neck of Brueghel's camels is long, but the artist himself did not see the camels. He painted them according to the samples of medieval book miniatures he had. Yes, and the style of Brueghel did not completely break with the medieval canons.

Miniature from the book of Bartholomew of England "On the Properties of Things", XIII century.

And here is another medieval image of a camel, already two-humped. Pay attention to the long neck, just like the "dinosaurs" of Brueghel.

Miniature from the book "Flowers of Nature" by Jacob van Marlat, second half of the 15th century.

So, Brueghel (or rather his apprentice) painted camels. Palestine was in the East, and the camel is an oriental animal. Here Brueghel painted them for oriental color. But it's not his fault that he's never seen a live camel in his life. He painted them the way he himself and the viewers of his paintings imagined the camel. This is how the "dinosaurs" turned out, which are actually not dinosaurs at all, but camels.

Written in 1562. There is a description of the picture as “The Suicide of Saul, or the Battle on Mount Gilboa” or “The Defeat of Saul”. The picture is based on a biblical story from old testament about the suicide of the first king of Israel - Saul (1 Sam. 31:4). The Suicide of Saul, along with thirteen more canvases, were collected by Emperor Rudolph II and Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, transported to Vienna, where they are now stored in the Museum of Art.

History of creation

The Suicide of Saul was presumably painted in Antwerp, since Pieter Brueghel (the Elder) lived in this city from 1556 until he moved with his family to Brussels in 1563. Together with The Tower of Babel and The Fall of Icarus, The Suicide of Saul was part of a series of paintings biblical stories in which pride was condemned. Like most of his contemporaries, the artist depicts the ancient Philistines as medieval warriors with weapons that do not correspond to the era of ancient Israel. Depicting an innumerable number of soldiers, Pieter Brueghel (the Elder) adds drama to the situation and emphasizes the hopelessness for King Saul. Therefore, it is the army of the Philistines that occupies a dominant position in the plot of the picture, and only a small part of the space in the lower left is assigned to King Saul and his armor-bearer. Imitating Albert Altdorfer's painting "The Battle of Alexander at Issus" (1529), the author uses the same manner of conveying the event from above, depicting it much higher. Much attention was paid to the transfer of the smallest details, such as parts of the armor and structures in the background.

For several years now, a story about dinosaurs in a painting by the Dutch Renaissance artist Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1525-1569) has been circulating on the Internet. The picture is called "The Suicide of Saul", dedicated to the dramatic event in the history of the ancient Jews - the death of the first king of Israel in the battle with the Philistines (X century BC) and written in 1562 (or in 1564) year.

Brueghel the Elder. Saul's suicide.

In the picture, we see a stream of Philistine victors, the fleeing remnants of the Jewish army and Saul himself, who threw himself on the sword.

Here is actually King Saul himself in the picture, which was named after him.

But this dramatic moment does not interest our debunkers of history and adherents of cheap sensations. Their attention was drawn to the following fragment, which depicts wonderful animals that look like dinosaurs, more precisely, dinosaurs of the sauropod group.

"Dinosaurs" by Brueghel.

This amazing discovery was made on the site "Kramola", which was warmly supported by the great reader of carpets and stones Chudinov. It is interesting to read his "evidence"

"I’ll tell you right away why these are not camels. 1. A camel is slightly larger than a horse, and in the picture we see 4 riders on horseback, and horses are several times smaller than dinosaurs. The size of the dinosaurs in the picture is comparable to the size of an elephant. The camel's legs are longer than the body. The neck of a camel extends from the body down and forward, and not immediately up. The neck of a camel is much shorter and thicker in relation to its length. In a camel, the head is most often lower than the hump and always lower than the rider. And in the picture, the heads of dinosaurs are twice as high as the back from the ground. Judging by the photos on Google, camels are never green. There are white, brown and yellow. You can check. And the leftmost dinosaur in the picture is completely green (although, perhaps, the paint just burned out over time). It is hard to imagine that the artist did not single out this moment on any of the three animals. None of the three animals show humps. But this is the main difference between camels and all steel animals, including dinosaurs.."

Answer: The horses in the picture are somehow small. Riders are unnaturally large compared to horses. A rider on a dinosaur is at least two meters tall, it turns out. It is clear that we are observing a violation of proportions. Details of a fragment of the picture are extremely small, sometimes sketched in several strokes. This is understandable: this is the background of the picture, which no one will carefully consider. Brueghel was not left-handed to draw the smallest details. He didn't need it. For the artist, the dramatic effect between the dying king and his fleeing army in the distance was important. Here even the color of the "dinosaurs" is not important. What is important is the impression that the viewer sees from the scattered soldiers and horsemen of Saul dissolving in the distance and the impending steel river of enemy soldiers. That is, we are dealing with an artistic device.

It should also not be forgotten that in those days, the drawing of minor details: the background, details of drapery, architecture, the artists entrusted to their students and apprentices, so as not to waste too much time on unimportant details of the picture and quickly start working on the next order. Thus, "dinosaurs" may belong to the hand of a not very skilled apprentice, and the master himself may have nothing to do with the background of the picture.

But back to the "dinosaurs" They want to assure us that these are dinosaurs. Why? Similar. When compared with cartoon dinosaurs, they really look alike.

Dinosaurs for young children.

But when compared with real sauropods, then Brueghel's "dinosaurs" do not look like sauropods. They want to assure us that dinosaurs lived in the 16th century. and the Brueghel painting is proof. But sauropods were quite large animals from 9 to 36 m in length. And in the picture we see small (compared to sauropods) animals no more than two meters in length. And most importantly, Brueghel's "dinosaurs" do not have the famous long tail of sauropods, which was at least half the length of the body of extinct animals. If Brueghel actually saw living dinosaurs, then he would hardly have noticed such a characteristic feature of sauropods. The absence of a tail in dinosaurs clearly contradicts the version of the debunkers of history.

Compare human height with various sauropods.

But let's look at the picture itself. The action takes place in Judea. It is clear that Brueghel was never in Palestine and painted relying on his rich imagination.

Mount Gilboa, where King Saul fought the Philistines.

There is no resemblance to the real battlefield in the picture. We also see warriors in the armor of the late Middle Ages, which could not have been in the Bronze Age. As there was no cavalry itself. It will appear only three hundred years later, before that there were only war chariots, which are repeatedly mentioned in the Bible. In the background we see a high rock with a completely European castle, which could not have been in Saul's time. So, absolutely everything in the picture is fantastic. And this is natural, because the Brueghel painting is not a historical reconstruction. The artist depicted the events of the distant past in accordance with the surrounding realities of the late Middle Ages. Just like in animals, our contemporaries suddenly saw dinosaurs.

But if these are dinosaurs, then prove to me that these are dinosaurs, and not something else. The only argument is that it looks like dinosaurs. But being similar does not mean being it in reality. If dinosaurs actually existed at the time of Brueghel, then such wonderful animals would not have been left without attention. They would be written about, they would be drawn. Dinosaurs left a lot of material evidence in the form of bones, skulls and leather goods. But there is nothing of this, except for blurry images of Brueghel. How will fans of cheap sensations explain the absence of dinosaur bones? I think the most lethal argument will come into play: armchair scientists destroyed everything so as not to lose their salaries, which is ridiculous in itself.

But what did Brueghel depict in the picture? To do this, you need to immerse yourself in the European cultural tradition of the Middle Ages, whose heir was Brueghel. In medieval Europe, zoological collections were popular - bestiaries, which originated from ancient writings on zoology. In addition to real-life animals, fantastic animals were described there, such as the basilisk and the manticore. There was also a camel in bestiaries - a very exotic animal for Europe. Few Europeans saw him, so they painted a camel either from other people's words, or relying on antique drawings.

Compare this medieval depiction of a camel with Brueghel's "dinosaurs". Actually one to one. And even the curve of the neck matches. Of course, the neck of Brueghel's camels is long, but the artist himself did not see the camels. He painted them according to the samples of medieval book miniatures he had. Yes, and the style of Brueghel did not completely break with the medieval canons.

Here is another medieval image of a camel, already with two humps. Pay attention to the long neck, like the "dinosaurs" of Brueghel.

So, Brueghel painted camels. Palestine was in the east, and the camel was an animal of the east. Here Brueghel painted them for oriental color. But it's not his fault that he's never seen a live camel in his life. He drew them as he imagined. That's where the "dinosaurs" came from.

Do not look for cheap sensations, but think and reason, unless of course you are capable of it.

Dinosaurs took part in wars in the 16th century. A lot of things do not fit into the history that is taught to us in schools and not only. We firmly believe that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago, because this official version, but is it really so? It turns out that there are many hypotheses that these prehistoric animals lived next to humans for many years, after the "Christmas". The painting "Suicide of Saul" by artist Pieter Brueghel the Elder, 1562, is a direct confirmation of this. On it, among other things, the troops depict riders riding dinosaurs! (Sergey Isofatov).

Original taken from sibved Are dinosaurs the same age as humans? This idea has long appeared (below I will try to state it). And, now, quite scientific information about the surviving organic matter in the bones of dinosaurs caught my eye. Agree, for 65 million years. any organic material will decompose into mineral substances, or petrify, acquire inorganic features as well.
But, despite this age, there are such facts:

For twenty years, researchers have been puzzled by discovering traces of DNA and radioactive carbon in the bones of dinosaurs that died out "millions of years" ago.

Many dinosaur fossils include fragments of real bones that have not had time to mineralize, in other words, become fossilized. For many researchers, the contents of these bones were a complete surprise. Since the 90s of the last century, scientists have made a number of discoveries, finding blood cells, hemoglobin, easily degradable proteins and fragments of soft tissues, in particular elastic ligaments and blood vessels, in the bones of dinosaurs. And what deserves special attention is DNA and radioactive carbon.

Evolutionists now have to solve a formidable problem to explain the supposedly 65-million-year-old age of these bones. As Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who was involved in the discovery of blood cells, said,
“If a blood sample changes beyond recognition after just a week, how could these cells have survived?”
But really, how? In an organism that died out millions of years ago, they, of course, could not have survived. They could only be preserved in remains that were quickly buried under catastrophic conditions and were under a layer of sedimentary rocks. Which is perfectly explained by the global .

But since the evolutionary worldview has a strong position in scientific circles, publishing the results of such a study turned out to be quite difficult. “One reviewer told me that it doesn't matter to him what the data points to, it's just not possible,” says Dr. Schweitzer. “In a reply letter, I asked him: “Then what data will convince you?” - "None."

Schweitzer recalls how her attention was initially drawn to a strong, putrid odor from a Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton found near Hell Creek, Montana. When she mentioned this to Jack Horner, an experienced paleontologist, he replied that all the bones from Hell Creek smelled like that.

The multi-million-year-old dinosaur bones belief is so deeply rooted in the minds of paleontologists that none of them has ever paid attention to the atypical "smell of death" - right under their noses. Even Schweitzer herself, despite her many discoveries, apparently cannot or does not want to move away from the established worldview.

Note the chronology of discoveries over two decades - the clear and consistent indications that something is rotten in the paleontological kingdom with its theories of dinosaurs that died out millions of years ago.

In 1993, Mary Schweitzer unexpectedly discovers blood cells in the bones of dinosaurs.
In 1997, hemoglobin is found, as well as distinguishable blood cells in the bones of a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
In 2003, traces of the protein osteocalcin. In 2005, elastic ligaments and blood vessels.
In 2007, collagen (an important bone structural protein) in Tyrannosaurus rex bones.
In 2009, the easily degradable proteins elastin and laminin, and again collagen in the platypus dinosaur. (If the remains were really as old as it is customary to date, they would not have any of these proteins).
In 2012, scientists reported the discovery of bone tissue cells (osteocytes), actin and tubulin proteins, and DNA(!). (Research-calculated rates of decay of these proteins, and especially DNA, indicate that they could not have been stored in dinosaur remains for what is believed to be 65 million years after their extinction.)
In 2012, scientists report the discovery of radioactive carbon. (Given how quickly carbon-14 decays, even if the remains were a hundred thousand years old, there should be no trace of carbon-14 in them!)
***

In Canada, on the territory of the Dinosaur Park, scientists were able to find structures in the bones of a Cretaceous dinosaur that resemble red blood cells and collagen fibers. The finds allow us to take a fresh look at the structure of the body of ancient living beings.

In order to find traces of organics, cells and other elements of dinosaur flesh, the researchers came up with a special method for analyzing photographs that are obtained using electron and ion microscopes. The latter is used in the IT industry when looking for defects in chips.

Thus, the British made this amazing discovery not due to the discovery of fossils, but thanks to a unique method of analyzing the remains of dinosaurs, as well as exhibits from the Museum of Natural History in the British capital, forgotten for over a hundred years.

It is generally accepted that protein molecules break down quickly and remain in fossils for no longer than four million years. After that, fragments remain that cannot give special ideas about the protein structure.
Scientist Sergio Bertazo, along with colleagues, studying the poorly preserved bones of ancient reptiles, noticed rather unusual ovoid formations with a very dense core. Red blood cells immediately came to mind.

The researchers began to compare them with a drop of blood from a living ostrich - in an ion mass spectrometer, they resembled the red blood cells of an emu.
Scientists immediately jumped at the argument that speaks in favor of the warm-blooded extinct dinosaurs.
In another bone fragment, fibrous structures similar to a spiral of collagen fibers were found. Since the structure of this protein differs in different groups of animals, paleontologists have acquired the opportunity to formulate a new tool for classifying reptiles.

Experts resorted to several analytical techniques. The location and composition of soft tissues in the fossil remains were established using an electron microscope. Then the laboratory assistants dissected the samples with an ion beam and examined their structure.

“Now we need further research, as we want to find out what the structures that we see inside the bones of dinosaurs can really be. However, we believe that they are comparable to red blood cells and collagen fibers. And if we can confirm this, then in our hands will be a new way to delve into the past of dinosaurs and comprehend how they grew and developed," Bertazo emphasized.
Paleontologists reported their discovery in the journal Nature Communications.

Well, now I propose to see where and how dinosaur bones are found.

dinosaur graveyards

Dinosaur graveyards in China

Hill disturbed by road builders found bones

Elsewhere in China. The skeleton does not rest at a great depth, as it should be. After all, over 60 million years, the level of soil above it should accumulate huge (dust fallout and erosion, which brings soil material)

Also shallow depth

Generally a skeleton on the surface

Dinosaur eggs found in fossilized clay in China

Archaeologists have unearthed the world's largest dinosaur cemetery in Mexico. A total of 14 skeletons were found on an area of ​​200x50:

Judging by the location of these bones, the dinosaur got into a "meat grinder".

Bones in the hillside

Dinosaur Park in Alberta (Canada):

This age is also given to dinosaurs due to the fact that their bones are found in the slopes of these hills:

Geologists have data on the age of these layers. After all, they have been accumulating for millions of years... And to accept an almost instantaneous period of formation of layers, as shown here http://sibved.livejournal.com/185060.html during a cataclysm, is for some reason not accepted. Although some scientific circles accept the same hypothesis of the death of dinosaurs during a cataclysm - from the fall of an asteroid. But she did not receive development and a slender model.

Dinosaur cemeteries are found at a certain latitude. Most likely, only this climate in these latitudes suited them. Just like elephants today, the savannas need a huge food base - dinosaurs with their size needed lush vegetation. To the north of the giants lived mammoths, woolly rhinos. And my opinion is that mammoths and dinosaurs lived at about the same time. They were destroyed by one global cataclysm with consequences in the form of a giant wave and a flood. Perhaps it was not in the later historical times but man already existed at that time.

Gobi Desert:

Bones almost on the surface

This copy seemed to have been around a couple of years ago.

And this one swam here recently in geologic time.

Dinosaur egg from Mongolia

Different types of dinosaurs died at the same time. Before the crash, everyone was the same

Do I understand my idea that there is a possibility that the dinosaurs that are found near the surface are not 65 million years old?

And then the motives become clear

33.5×55 cm

Saul's suicide- a painting by Pieter Brueghel (the Elder) written in 1562. There is a description of the picture as “The Suicide of Saul, or the Battle on Mount Gilboa” or “The Defeat of Saul”. The painting is based on a biblical story from the Old Testament about the suicide of the first king of Israel - Saul (1 Samuel 31:4). The Suicide of Saul, along with thirteen more canvases, were collected by Emperor Rudolph II and Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, transported to Vienna, where they are now stored in the Museum of Art.

History of creation

The Suicide of Saul was presumably painted in Antwerp, since Pieter Brueghel (the Elder) lived in this city from 1556 until he moved with his family to Brussels in 1563. Together with The Tower of Babel and The Fall of Icarus, The Suicide of Saul was part of a series of paintings of biblical stories in which pride was condemned. Like most of his contemporaries, the artist depicts the ancient Philistines as medieval warriors with weapons that do not correspond to the era of ancient Israel. Depicting an innumerable number of soldiers, Pieter Brueghel (the Elder) adds drama to the situation and emphasizes the hopelessness for King Saul. Therefore, it is the army of the Philistines that occupies a dominant position in the plot of the picture, and only a small part of the space in the lower left is assigned to King Saul and his armor-bearer. Imitating Albert Altdorfer's painting "The Battle of Alexander at Issus" (1529), the author uses the same manner of conveying the event from above, depicting it much higher. Much attention was paid to the transfer of the smallest details, such as parts of the armor and structures in the background.

The plot of the picture

Saul was the first king of the people of Israel and the general of the Israelite army. He was chosen by God to reign and anointed by the prophet Samuel. During his reign, he obeyed the will of God in everything and waged a series of wars with the Moabs, Ammons, Edomites and Philistines. Gradually, having quarreled with the prophet Samuel and departing from the commandments of God, Saul loses his sacred protection and falls into a cloud of reason. During the decisive battle at Mount Gilboa, he calls for help from God, but the latter rejects him and the Israeli soldiers suffer a crushing defeat. Saul, being wounded by arrows, turns to his armor-bearer with a request to finish him off so as not to be captured by the Philistines. However, his request was not fulfilled and the king commits suicide by stabbing himself with a sword.

Write a review on the article "Suicide of Saul (painting)"

Notes

An excerpt characterizing the Suicide of Saul (painting)

A week later, Prince Andrei was a member of the commission for drafting the military regulations, and, which he did not expect, the head of the department of the commission for compiling wagons. At the request of Speransky, he took the first part of the civil code being compiled and, with the help of the Code Napoleon and Justiniani, [the Code of Napoleon and Justinian,] worked on compiling the department: Rights of persons.

About two years ago, in 1808, returning to St. Petersburg from his trip to the estates, Pierre involuntarily became the head of St. Petersburg Freemasonry. He set up dining and funeral lodges, recruited new members, took care of uniting various lodges and acquiring genuine acts. He gave his money for the construction of temples and replenished, as far as he could, almsgiving, for which most of the members were stingy and sloppy. He almost alone at his own expense supported the house of the poor, arranged by the order in St. Petersburg. Meanwhile, his life went on as before, with the same hobbies and licentiousness. He liked to dine and drink well, and although he considered it immoral and humiliating, he could not refrain from the amusements of bachelor societies in which he participated.
In the wake of his studies and hobbies, Pierre, however, after a year, began to feel how the soil of Freemasonry on which he stood, the more he left from under his feet, the more firmly he tried to become on it. At the same time, he felt that the deeper the soil on which he stood went under his feet, the more involuntarily he was connected with it. When he began Freemasonry, he experienced the feeling of a man trustingly placing his foot on the flat surface of a swamp. Putting his foot down, he fell. In order to fully assure himself of the firmness of the ground on which he stood, he put his other foot on and sank even more, got stuck and already involuntarily walked knee-deep in the swamp.
Iosif Alekseevich was not in Petersburg. (He has recently retired from the affairs of St. Petersburg lodges and lived without a break in Moscow.) All the brothers, members of the lodges, were people familiar to Pierre in life, and it was difficult for him to see in them only brothers in stoneworking, and not Prince B., not Ivan Vasilyevich D., whom he knew in life for the most part as weak and insignificant people. From under the Masonic aprons and signs, he saw on them uniforms and crosses, which they had achieved in life. Often, collecting alms and counting 20-30 rubles written down for the parish, and mostly in debt from ten members, of whom half were as rich as he was, Pierre recalled the Masonic oath that each brother promises to give everything property for a neighbor; and doubts arose in his soul, on which he tried not to dwell.
He divided all the brothers he knew into four categories. In the first category, he ranked the brothers who do not take an active part either in the affairs of lodges or in human affairs, but are exclusively occupied with the sacraments of the science of the order, occupied with questions about the triple name of God, or about the three principles of things, sulfur, mercury and salt, or about the meaning square and all the figures of Solomon's temple. Pierre respected this category of Masonic brothers, to which the old brothers mostly belonged, and Joseph Alekseevich himself, according to Pierre, did not share their interests. His heart did not lie to the mystical side of Freemasonry.