Talk:The Last Judgment (Michelangelo)

Minos

Once again I would like to note that the depiction of Minos, which is a potrait and insult to the cardinal, does not have it's nudity covered but instead has the snake biting his nude bits. Can be seen here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Michelangelo-minos2.jpg I dont get the resistance to this fact, but It is clearly self-evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.200.230 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Flayed skin = ???

The article contradicts itself.

First it says: "In the painting, Michelangelo does a self portrait depicting himself as St. Bartholomew after he had been flayed (skinned alive)"

Meaning (my free interpretation based solely on the text): flayed skin = Michelangelo

Then later (under Restoration) it says: "The figure of St. Bartholomew depicts the satirist and erotic writer Pietro Aretino who had tried to extort a valuable drawing from Michelangelo."

Meaning (again, my interpretation): flayed skin = erotic writer Pietro Aretino

So.. which is which, what should I believe?

I know this is Wikipedia and I should not hold much value to these articles but it would be nice if this can be settled and altered at some point.. (At this point, I'll be looking elsewhere for a more accurate reading.)

80.57.37.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

I believe that there is a distinction being made between St. Bartholomew and his flayed skin.

St. Bartholomew = Pietro Aretino

Michelangelo = flayed skin 2605:59C0:4131:310:CC5D:7CFD:EF14:3467 (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

rokcie: I also don't get the flayed skin and who exactly was Micheloangelo's self potrait of, the writer or the st.Barthlomew. And the whole business about his flayed skin. really confusing if someone gates it please share!!!

Is this really Michelangelo’s self portrait or is it Arentino’s portrait? Nobody knows for sure. Both are just speculative interpretations, extracted from publications. You are free to have your own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.139.146 (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Misspelled

Before I make the move, is there a reason the article title misspells "judgment" as "judgement?" Tromboneguy0186 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It can be spelled either way. Judgement

Judgment

The Modern Prometheus 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it should be Judgement because: A) in US English either spelling is ok, but in UK English "Judgment" is a spelling mistake., B) here as elsewhere, art historians use Judgement far more often - 5450 vs 3970 in google scholar. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Both versions are perfectly fine. Judgment used more right now, even in UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.139.146 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Self-Portrait

I was under the impression that Michelangelo depicted himself as the hanging skin due to his guilt regarding his homosexuality. Can anyone comment on this. Any sources available in order to confirm that someone else is of the same opinion?

Pictures

I think that there should be one large picture of the last judgement and then the smaller picture of Michelangelo's skin below. If someone could do that, I think that would help the article greatly.

Another interesting contribution would be to add an image of a painting I saw over a year or two ago in the Vatican Library during an exhibition. It was a depiction of the Last Judgment as it was before any of the coverings were added -- all figures were quite nude -- and would be very instructive about the composition and Michelangelo. Sorry, do not remember the artist's name or if the painting has been published in any form. Will continue to inquire. Does anyone know about this?Md6778 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Self-Portrait

It is not universally agreed that Michelangelo was homosexual at all. Ross King in his detailed "MICHELANGELO AND THE POPE'S CEILING" gives his theory that the artist was mostly celibate (p. 197), that his avoidance of women combined with a few close friendships with men had sparked rumors. King does not discuss the mystery of the skin/portrait. CharlesTheBold 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cardinal Carafa

I'm wondering how there was a dispute, since according to the Cardinal Carafa article, he had been dead for 20 years. Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not him. It is Biagio da Cesena and the snake is not covering him but instead biting his sensitive regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.200.230 (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Cardinal Carafa referred to is Giovanni Pietro Carafa (1476-1559) later Pope Paul IV (see article)? He was a cardinal Carafa at the time of Michelangelo's Last Judgment and (according to the article) "Carafa was recalled to Rome by the reform-minded Pope Paul III (1534–49), to sit on a committee of reform of the papal court, an appointment that forecast an end to a humanist papacy" furthermore "Among his first acts as Pope was to cut off Michelangelo's pension, and he had fig leaves painted over the nudes of the Sistine Chapel" (not fig leaves but loin cloths and drapings by Daniele da Volterra "Il Braghettone"). Without reference to this conflict between Michelangelo and Carafa, I cannot resolve the question of Carafa vs. Biagio da Cesena. Md6778 (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Year

Seems to be a discrepancy in the year work was begun; the infobox states 1534, the article 1537. Overall, this could really use expansion, a major work deserving a much greater appreciation here. JNW (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to lack of historical evidence we don’t know for sure. Roughly, the wall has been prepared for fresco in 1535 and the work began in 1536, based on indirect evidence, related to payments for scaffolding erection, pigments, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.139.146 (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Apocryphal story?

"When the Pope's own Master of Ceremonies, Biagio da Cesena, said "it was most disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully," and that it was no work for a papal chapel but rather "for the public baths and taverns," Michelangelo worked the Cesena's face into the scene as Minos, judge of the underworld (far bottom-right corner of the painting) with Donkey ears {i.e.foolishness} while his nudity is covered by a coiled snake. It is said that when Cesena complained to the Pope, the pontiff joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so the portrait would have to remain."

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this section. I recently had the opportunity to tour the Sistine Chapel (it was a wonderful experience) and a guide told us more or less this story, but I wondered then if it might just be apocryphal through and through. So I came to Wikipedia to check and found the story here.

1. We don't have a source for the Biagio da Cesena quote, but it is so specific that I doubt if anyone just made it up - where did he say it/write it?

2. "It is said that..." the Pope made this joke, but... really? Who says it? Is there good authority to think it is true, or is it apocryphal? (And, if apocryphal, was it noteworthy enough to include here anyway, with an explanation of the doubtfulness?)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Here are two sources for the Biagio da Cesena's quote [1] and [2]. I found these through Google books. The first only confirms it as a "popular story", however. I presume it is most likely apocryphal. However, there's coverage of it going back to the 19th century - it's mentioned in "Rime di Michelagnolo Buonarroti, il vecchio" by Nicolà Giosafatte Biagioli in 1821 - [3] - this seems to be where the story, complete with the joke from the pontiff, was originally put into print. Very interesting ! It's probably notable simply as a legend. Claritas (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly not a posthumous legend. The pope's joke is mentioned in Lodovico Domenichi's Detti et fatti di diversi signori et persone private (source: [4]), as well as in Historia di detti et fatti notabili di diversi Principi & huommi privati moderni (1556 - Michelangelo was still alive).

As for Biagio's quote, you can find it mentioned in this 1663 book: Gli scrittori d'Italia by Conte Giammaria Mazzuchelli Bresciano. — Xavier, 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The passage quoted as by Cesena is from Vasari's life (2nd edn, Penguin translation by George Bull), with adding the likeness, but not with the Pope's later joke. It is accepted by all the sources. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article so small?

Seriously, the whole article for one of the most famous frescoes in Western Christianity is smaller than the day to day summary of Celebrity Big Brother 2011, why? This page could have so many things, like more history about it, or explaining all the different people and things that are in the fresco, yet it just mentions the conflict with Carafa, the censorship, and Bartholomew's skin. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

notes

Giovanni Andrea Gilio Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote not needed?

With a disam-ed title, I can't see the need. Thoughts, anyone? Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Last Judgment (Michelangelo). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814062959/http://www.crucifixion.com/visual/theology/johndixon/terror.htm to http://www.crucifixion.com/visual/theology/johndixon/terror.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Has Michelangelo painted "souls"?

@Johnbod: The use of "soul" here is not as uncontroversial as you seem to imply by reverting my changes. The Wikipedia article on soul makes clear that the soul does not refer to the whole person; dead or (faithful or unfaithful) departed persons are what Michelangelo has depicted in his Last Judgment, with faith that they live on. The Bible never speaks of souls existing apart from the body, but rather of "spiritual bodies" (1 Corinthians 15:44). We should avoid "soul" talk in describing Christian art. Jzsj (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

But RS normally do - especially in terms of the VM interceding. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: We're not speaking here of interceding to the Virgin Mary but of a depiction of what judgment might be like. (And what are we supposed to understand by "RS"?) I suggest that we'd be more in line with an educated readership if we got away from the soul talk when referring to deceased persons; the Catholic church is gradually moving beyond such dualism in its references to afterlife, where it can easily be avoided. Jzsj (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, art historians aren't. WP:RS is what we go by on WP (that's Wikipedia). One of the changes you made was to "It appears that the moment has passed for her to exercise her traditional role of pleading on behalf of souls...". Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any RS for "souls": am I missing something? While in other contexts Mary may intercede for living as well as dead souls I see no reason to suppose there are infiltrators among the figures depicted rising from graves. Sparafucil (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

See any where? Perhaps what you are missing is detailed study of the wide range of sources consulted. I don't really understand your last point, but it doesn't seem relevant. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And I find that the Vatican museum's own website never uses the word "soul" in explaining this artwork. It uses rather the words "figure", "saints", "the dead", "the risen", "bodies", "the damned", and "figures". Would you object to my replacing the inaccurate word "soul" with these other words used by the Vatican museum? @Johnbod: Jzsj (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I would object to any wholesale change until I have consulted detailed sources. Also some of the changes you made read very awkwardly. The text has been there for several years without any previous complaints about this, and there's no rush. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do complete your research. You know that much in Wikipedia goes untended for years. You could proceed now to remove the "soul-talk", which is entirely avoided by the Vatican museum, in a way you find least awkward. @Johnbod: Jzsj (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Without knocking the Vatican summary, it is only one long para. This source, easily available online and also short, "Last Judgment" uses "soul" 8 times, 6 of them relevant here (Esperanca Camara, Khan Academy). Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why fetch beyond the Vatican museum itself, and its 461-word commentary? I suggest that it may be trying to live down the scholastic theological tradition of referring to people as souls. Even the Assistant Professor in the USA whom you quote knows to at least greatly limit her use of the term "soul". She uses other terms 32 times: dead 6x, elect 5x, damned 11x, (human) figure 5x, resurrected 2x, and body 5x. And she very notably covers her tracks with the statement: The sheer physicality of these muscular nudes affirmed the Catholic doctrine of bodily resurrection (that on the day of judgment, the dead would rise in their bodies, not as incorporeal souls). Why insist on soul talk when the Vatican museum has abandoned it? Jzsj (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? 461 words makes the definitive source? It is not the function of our article on this 16th-century painting to reflect contemporary trends in Catholic theology, but what it meant to the artist and his contemporaries. The Vatican might be "trying to live down the scholastic theological tradition of referring to people as souls", or "moving beyond such dualism in its references to afterlife" but it is absolutely not appropriate for WP to follow suit. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You are sounding now like a traditionalist who abhors historical research and scholarship and prefers to champion lame ideas. And what makes you think that the 16th century Michelangelo who painted all these very fleshy human bodies would prefer to call them "souls"? Jzsj (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Phooey, I'm sounding (I hope) like an art historian, and you are sounding rather bad-tempered. I've looked at your edit again, and it causes all sorts of problems: Charon certainly ferried souls, not their bodies, in classical mythology. You changed to "there is a zone in the lower middle that is empty of persons", but this zone is occupied by a dozen or so angels, who many readers might regard as persons. You changed "originally Michelangelo was intended to paint the other end wall" - ie was so instructed - the "was" cannot be cut on a whim, it changes the meaning. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that we go back to your statement above and address your main concern, not to make "any wholesale change until I have consulted detailed sources. Also some of the changes you made read very awkwardly." Why not you change 10 of the 17 occurrences of "soul", or let me change them to something less awkward. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise? There would still be enough talk of "soul" to satisfy those who think in those terms. Jzsj (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You really don't seem to get this history business! This is not about satisfying "those who think in those terms", presumably the dreaded 'traditionalists who abhor historical research and scholarship and prefer to champion lame ideas', nor about reflecting current fashions in theology. It is about conveying what WP:RS say the painting was about when painted. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, what makes an Associate Professor in the USA a more reliable source than the experts at the Vatican Museum who in their quite adequate 461-word description never once use the word "souls" in describing the painting, but rather use the words "figure", "saints", "the dead", "the risen", "bodies", "the damned", and "figures". Jzsj (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Who do you think does the tedious work of writing web-page descriptions in even the most distinguished museums? Ok, they are checked by more senior staff, but it was probably a freelance writer or graduate student (the National Gallery in London advertised a number of such posts last year). Plus it was probably first written in Italian, and translated by ...? Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just saying that from both a theological and artistic perspective I must favor the Vatican museum coverage over that of whoever put all the soul-talk into the article in Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec, continuing) Neither author or translator are given. When they say "saints", which the article here often uses too (I make it 9 uses, excluding ones as part of a name), they are referring a different type of person to the "souls". There are many different types of figures in the painting, and one of the advantages of using "souls" is that it makes it clear you mean the rank and file resurrected dead rather than angels, demons, saints, martyrs, personifications or Christ or his mother. "Figure/s" (used 27 times in the article, btw, excluding quotes) is no use for this at all, and "persons" not much. Well, you may have to defer to the Vatican, but WP in general doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So whom do you have who agrees with you. You'll have to give a more specific reference to prove that you have WP on your side. Why not speak specifically of what the painting displays. Your source from Khan Academy above uses dead 6x, elect 5x, damned 11x, (human) figure 5x, resurrected 2x, and body 5x, along with soul 6x. Why are you so critical of the Vatican museum's use of "figure", "saints", "the dead", "the risen", "bodies", "the damned", and "figures". I've invited you to choose your own terms to improve on the soul talk, or let me try again. Jzsj (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I expect the article also uses all these. I don't like just calling figures "the damned"; some readers are likely to be confused by it, & it has Calvinist/punk overtones to me. Well, now would be the time to produce sources, preferably online, on 16th-century Catholic attitudes to the general resurrection of the dead, which I'm sure exist. So far all you have is your own view, plus 461 words from the Vatican Museums failing to use the word. I'm not "critical" of the museum summary, which is used as a source in the article, but it is what it is, and does not deserve the ex cathedra status you give it. Here's a google search to chew on (there is also the British spelling). Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

== Notes ==

• The Apocalypse and the Shape of Things to Come, ed. Frances Carey, #s 96, 98 prints. British Museum/University of Toronto Press, 1999, ISBN 0802083250, 9780802083258

• Hugo Chapman
• Barnes, 87-88, not used yet?
• Michelangelo: A Life in Six Masterpieces, Miles Unger - Neo-Platonism etcJohnbod (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this from the Wikipedia article on Michelangelo, and will leave it to you to prove if you can that the use of "soul" 17 times in the article properly represents what Michelangelo depicts: "In The Last Judgement Michelangelo had the opportunity to depict, on an unprecedented scale, figures in the action of either rising heavenward or falling and being dragged down." Jzsj (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you find in your notes below anything relevant to how Michelangelo saw "the resurrection of the body" (Apostles Creed) or "of the dead" (Nicene Creed) celebrated constantly in the Christian creeds at Mass, and the last judgment, please direct me to it. Thanks! Jzsj (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am really resting my position on usage by RS, but as you probably know, M was immersed in Renaissance Neoplatonism, which very much believed in a distinction between soul and body, and was in some tension with Catholic theology over the issue. See pp 282-284 here , which makes the point that what is generally accepted as M's self-portrait is not reunited with a body. For M and Neoplatonism generally, see Michelangelo's Medici Chapel: A New Interpretation, By Edith Balas , Chapter II onwards. I haven't yet embarked on a trawl through the books I used for the article, which are currently largely in boxes etc, the weather is too good, but I will. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The least we can do is to explain in the article why we use the word "soul", giving references to accounts of how Michelangelo saw things, even though it was out of sync with the creeds used since ancient times and with the correct understanding of the "new heaven and the new earth" of which the Bible speaks. It's certainly out of sync with the realistic figures he painted, with the exception of himself. This deserves an explanation, and perhaps less than 17 uses of "soul", to be more in accord with what is actually painted. Jzsj (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not really distinctive to M; this is one of the most common subjects in medieval church painting, and "souls" is habitually used by art historians. In particular the incident called the "Weighing of Souls" (or pychostasia) is always so called in English (M's composition does not include this). Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written in a way that is not esoteric, or intelligible only to experts, but to the vast majority of readers. Let's not snub our noses at our public. What harm would come from a respectful explanation. As a major contributor to the article shouldn't you distance yourself from this decision, which requires NPOV? Jzsj (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How on earth am I snubbing the public??? I have asked you above to provide WP:RS I can use for the point you want made, but you have yet to produce them - ones that deal with art, please. Since you keep going on about the matter, and have clearly missed the point, I'll say again that the article (previous version) used "figure" 27 times (vs 17 "souls" you tell me) so please stop asking me why the word is avoided! It is also uses "damned" 11 times, and "saved" 6 times. I think it will be very apparent to anyone else reading this who has the strong POV here, which is expressed in extravagant language at several points above. What is my POV supposed to be? Yours is very clear. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest that @Sparafucil:'s point is well made, and you can add a little more "soul" talk if you think it necessary, but then explain in a citation why you use "soul" in seeming denial of the resurrection of the body. @Johnbod: Jzsj (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

He had a point? I couldn't see it. The article very clearly does not deny the resurrection of the body, but I don't mind adjusting it on this, so (3rd time of asking) please produce a decent reference (Unger goes some of the way, but is not ideal). Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Your dismissal of the Vatican museum description as a valid source is gratuitous. It is issued with the oversight of experts in the field, and reflects where we are in avoiding the word "soul" when referring to persons. Jzsj (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As I keep having to remind you, it was not dismissed, but used as a source in the article - probably added by me. This is typical of your dishonest style of argument. But it is very short, at 461 words with under 10% of the word count in this article (currently 4,722), and the mere fact it doesn't use a particular word is at best absence of evidence. I think all the words it does use are also used in the article, and more often as it is so much longer - I've reminded you about "figure" just above. For the 4th time, please produce WP:RS supporting the changes you want made. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What's it mean to use the Vatican Museum itself for a source if you contradict it in your referring to the human spirit as "soul". The human person is referred to ten times in the Vatican Museum article. The philosophical, not Biblical, idea that soul exists apart from body is entirely avoided, for good reason. It's the human spirit that is inseparable from the live body, here or hereafter, not a disembodied soul which is alien to the Biblical accounts and to the Christian creeds and tradition. Jzsj (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

To use a word a one paragraph source does not is not to "contradict" it! Btw, a variety of terms are used to describe and distinguish the figures in the RS survey I am compiling, but "person" is I think not used by any of them. It probably sounds more idiomatic in Italian. It certainly doesn't distinguish them from the many saints, and readers may well not be sure if angels or devils are also "persons", as I've pointed out above. As I expect you know medieval and Catholic literature includes countless mentions of the "soul"; the Dialogue between the Body and the Soul was a distinct literary genre. Apparently at least one wing of modern Catholic thought has now taken against the word or concept (though no doubt another has not). This artcle should really not be dragged into these internal battles, and should rely on art-historical RS. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

One needs to examine the basis of rectified understanding, and so understand where the church is today, and why: there will be for a time those who reject solid historical and biblical scholarship. Jzsj (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You may need to "examine the basis of rectified understanding, and so understand where the church is today", but Wikipedia does not and absolutely should not, as far as this article on a 16th-century painting is concerned. I don't understand your last sentence, though it seems rather threatening! Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Where have you established that the proper, Biblical understanding of the Spirit in humans, inseparable from a body, is contrary to Michelangelo's understanding? And you say below that you don't want to confuse Indian users, but what about all the Christians who, like Michelangelo, profess in the Apostles Creed faith in "the resurrection of the body"? Jzsj (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You have objected to the use of a particular word. On request I promptly produced an undoubted RS that used that word several times in describing this very painting, and am compiling a list of others that use it. All you have done is produced a web-page (already used as a ref in the article) whose 461-word single paragraph does not use that word! I have requested sources supporting your view that the word is inappropriate several times, but you have not supplied any. Instead you go off on fantastical riffs, often expressed in very offensive language, about the views you think I might hold (all completely wrong). It won't do. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• What you say just above is indeed misleading: let the reader compare my remarks to yours for offensiveness. And why put "does not" in quotes when it is simply true.
  

As to "sources supporting (my) view", it is not contentious and so not defended. In the entire coverage of The Last Judgment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) the word "soul" is never used, but rather: "The resurrection of all the dead, 'of both the just and the unjust' (Acts 24:15), will precede the Last Judgment. This will be 'the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth'." Other words used are man, person. wicked, creatures, saints (CCC 1038-1041). There is never any need to argue that it's not souls that rise from the dead but bodies, since this is well understood from 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul uses the word "body" 13 times in 20 verses and never uses "soul" since the Bible speaks only of the human "spirit" as a part of the body-spirit unity created by God. Jzsj (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, let the reader compare! "does not" is indeed true, and was put in italics for emphasis - you persist in taking absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Your view that the many art historians who use the term "soul" in the context of depictions of the Last Judgement are all just wrong is certainly contentious, and you do need to produce sources specifically for that. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

My smaller point, Johnbod, is that I didn't think you actually meant to revert "their attributes, the evidence of their martyrdom" to "their attributes, the evidence of the martyrdom". What I don't quite grasp in your argument is what is added to the description by superfluous words: "The damned souls may be shown naked, as a mark of their humiliation as devils carry them off, and sometimes the newly-resurrected souls too". There's a small doubt in my mind whether the skeletons apparently waiting to be clothed in glorified bodies are indeed 'souls', but that seems completely beside the point of what is depicted, the Resurrection of the Dead. How would one paint differently to show the dead had or had not been reunited with their souls? Sparafucil (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's two letters where the edit was an improvement. A number of sources do just talk of "the damned", "the wicked", "the saved", "the elect", "the blessed" and "sinners", but try to imagine how such phrases might confuse for example our large number of Indian readers. "The dead" is also used, in the article and sources, but that is also rather confusing when many of the figures are in vigourous motion, and seem to have spent most of their time in the gym. Since there is no intention to say anything other than that the souls were reunited with their bodies your last two points aren't relevant. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jzsj, you have several times demanded that the short Vatican Museums account is used as a touchstone for correctness. I notice this uses (once) "the Elect". Would you like to comment on a) how this group is comprised, with sources, b) whether you think it is a suitable term, and c) if used, should it be capitalized? Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

One need only search the web to find many answers such as this. From these you can answer the questions you raise. Jzsj (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Not from that one, which dubious as an RS anyway, and doesn't address a & b. I have my own ongoing researchs, answering your several demands above. So if you want to engage constuctively, you can do this one. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources using "souls"

• pp 153-155, unfortunately 154 is not on preview. Rather critical of the Vatican website's account.

used in the article

• Freedberg, Sidney J.. Painting in Italy, 1500–1600, 3rd edn. 1993, Yale, ISBN 0-300-05587-0 - "the Damned" and "the Elect" 471-474
• Murray, Linda, The Late Renaissance and Mannerism, 1967, Thames and Hudson - "the dead ....the just ...the wicked..." "souls" twice - re weighing pp 10-13
• Hall, James, Hall's Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art, 1996 (2nd edn.), John Murray, ISBN 0-7195-4147-6 "the dead ... the righteous... the sinners... the damned... souls x 5 (weighing)... 187-188
• Hartt, Frederick, History of Italian Renaissance Art, 2nd edn., 1987, Thames & Hudson (US Harry N Abrams), ISBN 0-500-23510-4 "dead ... damned... elect...damned soul" (M's possible eccentric views on damnation, per Leo Steinberg)

Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• • All this proves is that art historians can be careless toward advances in biblical understanding as reflected in the Wikipedia article on soul, where we read:

It is generally accepted that in biblical thought there is no separation of body and soul and, consequently, the resurrection of the body is central. The idea of an immortal soul is not a Hebrew concept but comes from Platonic philosophy. It is, therefore, considered a severe distortion of the NT to read this foreign idea into its teaching.

In support of this conclusion from Critical Review of Books in Religion, the article on "soul" furnishes the following references to modern scholarship on the issue. It is a credit neither to Michelangelo nor to Wikipedia that you insist on this archaism when the conclusion of scholarly sources goes so strongly against you.

Jzsj (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting more info on Clement VII de’ Medici’s original commission

Could someone knowledgeable about this artwork please provide more information regarding Clement VII de’ Medici’s initial commission for it? From what I’ve read, Clement requested a resurrection scene, In Renaissance Italian, the word “resurrection” can be interpreted either as the resurrection of the dead (i.e. the Last Judgment), or a resurrection of Christ on Easter. Did Clement commission the subject matter or did Pope Paul III? Are there sources? 2601:193:8200:4AA0:5C84:A43:6A3D:F97A (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Influence

Perhaps a section on the influence of the work on subsequent art would be appropriate. The mannerism displayed in The Last Judgment had a tremendous effect on succeeding movements and composition styles. An example that comes to mind is Rubens's The Fall of the Damned. [unsigned]

Sources? Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)