Tamara Quírico

Michelangelo’s Last Judgement:

Art and Religion Between Reformation and Counter-Reformation

UDC: 75Michelangelo Buonarroti

Tamara Quírico
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
[email protected]

Michelangelo’s Last Judgement has been a controversial work since it was completed, as the Roman Curia was concerned
with the impact of the fresco on Protestants’ criticism. As they opposed to religious art, and fiercely censured the popes’ lack
of spirituality, the Roman Curia feared Protestants would use the Last Judgement as weapon against Catholics. Nevertheless,
all criticism towards Michelangelo’s work and its consequent censorship came fundamentally from Catholics. Regarded
as revolutionary, the Sistine fresco was also deeply indebted to medieval iconographic tradition of the Last Judgement.
Michelangelo, in fact, could not have conceived his huge fresco without the inspiration taken from the many preceding
iconographic models. This paper shall analyse Michelangelo’s Last Judgement fresco in its compositional structure, and
particularly in its iconographic aspects. We shall discuss the elements which aroused the criticism of the Roman Curia, and
which could have justified the destruction of the fresco.

Keywords: Last Judgement, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Council of Trent, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, religious art,
iconography

“(…) lo scandolo che la licenzia de l’arte di Michelagnolo potria mettere fra i Luterani, per il poco
rispetto de le naturali vergogne che in loro istesse discoprono le figure ne lo Abisso e nel Cielo”
Pietro Aretino

Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564) has since long been considered one of the greatest geniuses of
Renaissance. His monumental Last Judgement fresco, painted between 1536 and 1541 (fig. 1), is renowned as
one of his greatest masterpieces, praised, studied and copied already by many of the artist’s contemporaries.
Nevertheless, it has also been a controversial work from the moment it was completed and first shown to the
Sistine Chapel’s audience. Criticism came especially – but not only – from the Roman Curia, later influenced
by the most radical Counter-reformists, such as Gabriele Paleotti and Giovanni Andrea Gilio. In a letter from
19 November 1541, Niccolò Sernini wrote that the Sistine fresco, just shown a few days before, on 31 October,
had been censored and condemned by some cardinals from the Roman Curia.1 Indeed, artistic criticism in the
Counter-Reformation probably began with Michelangelo’s fresco.
Many opponents were particularly concerned with the impact of the fresco on Protestants’ dispraise: as they
opposed to religious art, and fiercely censured the pope’s supposed lack of spirituality, the Roman Curia feared
Protestants would use the Last Judgement painting as weapon against Catholics.2 It was a pertinent concern, if
we consider the outburst of conflicts between Protestants and Catholics in the 16th-century Europe. Nevertheless,
all criticism towards Michelangelo’s work and its consequent censorship came fundamentally from Catholics, in
a crescendo of its condemnation which culminated in the tangible possibility of the fresco’s obliteration in 1564.3
Regarding the possible interrelations between the Last Judgement fresco and the Counter-Reformation,
various scholars still follow the thesis of Romeo De Maio, for whom Michelangelo’s fresco should be considered

115
IKON, 11-2018

one of the main reasons for summoning up the Council of Trent. In his most influential 1978 book, Michelangelo
e la Controriforma, De Maio states that the Sistine’s Last Judgement was much discussed during the last session
of the council, on 3 December 1563. Michelangelo’s fresco would have become its ‘first victim’, as Tridentine
members demanded its remake and, eventually, its destruction.4 However, as John O’Malley recently pointed out,
the Council of Trent “passed a decree on sacred images, never in plenary session discussed it”.5 As a matter of fact,
until 1563, despite all Protestant criticism toward the use of images in religious contexts, and the Roman Curia
specific disapproval to Buonarroti’s fresco since 1541, neither the pope nor his legates at the council saw religious
images in general as a particular problem. The question of the uses of these images was brought into discussion
in Trent only by the French delegation, led by Cardinal Charles de Guise, which joined the Council only near
its conclusion.6 The Tridentine decree regarding religious images is an obvious rephrasing of Gregory the Great
7th-century classical statement on the functions of religious images.7 Nevertheless, as O’Malley demonstrates in
his study, it is also much indebted to the sententia formulated by the Colloquium of Château-de-Saint-Germain,
summoned up by Catherine de’ Medici in 1562, the year before the French delegation joined the Council.8
It is not to say that Michelangelo’s Last Judgement did not suffer the consequences of the Council of Trent.
Soon after its end, Pope Pius IV created a deputation of cardinals to review the Council’s many decrees to see what
could and should be put immediately into practice in Rome. In January 1564, this deputation made public a short
recommendation about images, and a particular sentence interests us, as it concerns the Sistine Chapel: “The
pictures in the Apostolic Chapel are to be covered, as [is to be done] in other churches [of Rome] if they display
anything obscene or obviously false, according to the decree of the council”.9
The end of this story is well-known: after Michelangelo’s death (on February 1564), parts considered indecent
in his Doomsday fresco were covered by Daniele da Volterra, Buonarroti’s friend and admirer. The fame the Last
Judgement acquired since 1541 easily explains its mention in the Roman deputation text. But, differently from
what De Maio and many scholars after him defended, Michelangelo’s fresco was not a direct cause of the Council of
Trent, nor a particular concern in its discussions. In point of fact, arguments against Michelangelo’s Last Judgement
must be measured within a broader picture: indeed, since the end of 15th-century Italy there was among some
religious groups a severe condemnation of the so-called ritorno all’antico. The Catholic Reformation, therefore,
should be considered a reaction against Protestantism inasmuch as it was a response against humanist values
spread by Renaissance culture – of which the Sistine fresco would certainly be one of the greatest examples.10
These issues were all deeply related to each other: the ‘Lutheran crisis’, as Vittorio Frajese points out, was
interpreted by many as “a consequence of the decline of Christian life or, in more traditionally religious terms, as the
consequence of an impurity the papacy was unable to correct”.11 Adrian VI (1522-23) was the first pope to explicitly
condemn the appraisal of ancient statues, which would make Rome – the centre of Christendom – similar to a
pagan city. According to the pope, the ‘pagan infection’ should be sacrificed in order to restore the Church’s dignity.
Adrian was also probably the first to condemn and censor the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling.12 considering its decoration
immoral and inappropriate to the pope’s chapel. After the completion of Michelangelo’s Last Judgement, the Sistine
Chapel would become, to Buonarroti’s critics, una stufa d’ignudi, according to Adrian VI’s own words.
The excess of nudity, therefore, seems to have been the main concern of Michelangelo’s critics. Such
nudity in the fresco was even more acute for 16th-century critics because it is not restricted to the damned who
would be dragged to Hell, as in traditional medieval iconography of the Last Judgement. The blessed and even
the saints (let alone Christ himself ) are depicted half-naked or completely nude, as a humanist statement of
appraisal of the human’s body perfection. This could not be easily accepted by Cinquecento Counter-reformists –
and it was not. As Gabriele Paleotti would later defend, religious art should be judged in regard to morality and
decorum, interpreted as the use of clothes over nudity. Differently from what Renaissance humanists thought –
that the human body should be considered the perfect example of the divine, as man was made ad imaginem et
similitudinem of God –, Counter-reformists interpreted nudity as a synonym of lust, restoring ideas from medieval
moral theology:13 nuditas criminalis instead of nuditas virtualis.

116
 Quírico, Michelangelo’s Last Judgement

Nevertheless, we must also consider a crucial point to this discussion: the location of Michelangelo’s Last
Judgement. A fresco on the main wall of the pope’s chapel, in the heart of Christendom, would certainly have had
greater impact than in any other chapel or church. Its controversial aspects, therefore, would gather much more
attention than other works of religious art. For instance, we could compare the reactions to Buonarroti’s painting to
Luca Signorelli’s fresco cycle in San Brizio Chapel, in the Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta, in Orvieto (fig. 2). Painted
in the turn of the 16th century, the representation of the Stories of the Antichrist (which also includes a depiction of
a Last Judgement) was not censored at any moment during the Cinquecento, although, like Michelangelo’s fresco,
it is also full of the nudity so praised by humanist ideals, and highly criticised by Counter-reformists. Its location
in a side chapel of the cathedral of a small city certainly accounts for that. Michelangelo, on the other hand, had
to pay the price for working in the Sistine Chapel: according to Niccolò Sernini, the Roman cardinals considered
Buonarroti’s nudes were indecent in simil loco, i.e., inside the chapel and over the pope’s altar.14
Decorum, therefore, is the keyword to properly understand all the criticism toward Michelangelo’s Last
Judgement. The problem was not the fresco per se – considered a huge artistic accomplishment since it was
completed, and even before – but its location, as Pietro Aretino so precisely defined in his most famous letter
against Michelangelo and his Sistine fresco: “is it possible that a man more divine than human would have done
this in the greatest sanctuary of God, over the first altar of Jesus, in the most dignified chapel of the world, where
cardinals of the church, where reverend priests, where the vicar of Christ, confess, contemplate and adore His
body, His blood and His flesh with Catholic ceremonies, with sacred orders and with inner prayers?”15
Nudity was one of the main points of controversy in Michelangelo’s Last Judgement, but it was barely the
only one. Buonarroti was also condemned for supposedly disregarding faith over art, using his fresco specially
to show his virtuosity in the creation of the naked human body in most different positions, instead of depicting
theological statements related to the Last Judgement theme in a more precise way. As Paola Barocchi points
out, Counter-reformists considered that difficulties in the artistic process should never be more important than
convenience and overcome it.16
Giovanni Andrea Gilio wrote about this subject in the second part of his Due dialogi, published in 1564. His
text is of great importance fot the understanding of counter-reformistic thoughts on religious art. Gilio discusses
the errors and abuses of artists on their works as they denied the principle of decorum as recommended by Horace
in his Ars Poetica. A great section of Gilio’s work discusses Michelangelo’s Last Judgement and its iconography. He
writes that “to paint honest and devout sacred images, with those signs that are given to them by the ancients
through the privilege of sanctity, what the moderns saw as vile, funny, plebeian, ancient, humble, with no ingegno
or art. That is why these [artists], preferring art to honesty, putting aside the use of depicting dressed figures, they
made and still make them naked; putting aside the use of making them devout, they made them with effort, as
it was a great accomplishment to twist their bodies, arms, legs, and it seems they represent those who grimace
and act than those who contemplate. And so lowered that saintly use with this new invention, that they could
paint these figures little less dishonest in bathhouses and taverns”.17 Gilio, therefore, could not prevent himself
from condemning Michelangelo and his Sistine fresco, as the artist did not follow the “truth of the subject”.18 His
criticism also makes clear how religious art in Italy, during the second half of the 16th century, was analysed and
judged according not to artistic standards, but rather to religious authority: in fact, as he condemned Buonarroti
and his Last Judgement, Gilio wrote that “this is a matter of religion”.19
Besides nudity and decorum, Michelangelo’s Last Judgement was also much criticised for the inclusion of
controversial iconographic elements to the subject. One of the most provocative elements is, undoubtedly, Christ-
Judge who, beardless and half-naked, dominates the scene. His nudity was seen as particularly scandalous, but
we must take into consideration the fact that in the medieval tradition of depicting the Last Judgement, Christ
could be represented either fully clothed, often with an opening on his vest to show the stigma on his flank, or
with his torso practically nude, merely with a piece of cloth that, falling from one of his shoulders, covers his legs.
Although such model was more usual in northern Europe, we can also find examples in Italy, at least since the end

117
IKON, 11-2018

of the 13th century (as in the Last Judgement panel painted by Guido da Siena and his followers, nowadays in the
collection of the Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma, in Grosseto – fig. 3).
We are discussing here, therefore, a well-stablished iconographic model, which was radically reinterpreted
by Michelangelo – but still, a traditional iconographic type. To the eyes of the most radical Counter-reformists,
nevertheless, Buonarroti depicted Christ deprived of his majesty, as he would not resemble the Judging Lord,
but a Greek god instead. Indeed, his strong muscular body recalls, for instance, the powerful central figure of the
Laocoon group found in 1506, which had great impact and influence in Michelangelo’s art. Christ’s face, on the
other hand, clearly bears a similarity to the Hellenistic Apollo of Belvedere’s, discovered in 1491 and since this date
also in the same papal collection of antiquities where the Laocoon group is. Michelangelo certainly knew the Apollo
of Belvedere as well, which probably influenced his conception of the Sistine Christ-Judge. As is well-known, the
association between Christ and Apollo dates back to the first centuries of Christianity. During the Renaissance, this
idea returned, and Apollo was seen once again as the classical prefiguration of Christ. As Kenneth Clark explains,
referring specifically to the Sistine Christ, “we have returned to the most primitive aspect of Apollo, the solar energy
that creates and destroys, the embodiment of sol iustitiae”20 the sun of justice in Last Judgement day.
As a result of his humanist education, Buonarroti possibly desired to emphasise Christ’s dignity through
classical prototypes of beauty and nudity: Christ should be the most beautiful and dignified figure of the whole
fresco, as his spiritual and divine beauty would be reflected in his physical beauty. A humanist ideal that, ultimately,
still echoes medieval ideas diffused, for instance, by Saint Thomas Aquinas, but which could not be accepted by
the Roman Curia if associated to pagan models, as the Renaissance did.
Regarding his gesture, Michelangelo followed a new way of depicting Christ-Judge, which developed in
mid-1330s in the Last Judgement fresco in the Trionfo della Morte cycle in Pisa Camposanto, probably painted by
the Florentine artist Buonamico Buffalmacco21 (fig. 4). As Millard Meiss describes this figure, “(…) the attitude of
Christ is radically different. For the first time in the representation of the Last Judgement he addresses the damned
alone, turning on them with an angry mien, his arm upraised in a powerful gesture of denunciation”.22 If in the
iconographic tradition of the Last Judgement until mid-14th century Christ was depicted frontally or barely moving
to one side, Buffalmacco figured him completely turned to his left, toward the condemned. His right arm is raised,
as he intended to physically chastise those who are already going to Hell. His left hand opens his tunic, showing
the fifth stigma. He seems to evidently emphasise the right to judge mankind he earned through his suffering on
the cross. Such new iconographic type soon became widespread throughout Italy, reinterpreted by many artists,
such as Fra Angelico (fig. 5), who slightly changed Buffalmacco’s original position as he stretches Christ’s left arm
in front of him, a depiction later copied by many other artists. Michelangelo, on the other hand, probably knew
the Trionfo della Morte cycle, and therefore followed more closely Buffalmacco’s model, as his left hand points to
the fifth stigma on his flank. We can see that, if the depiction of Christ as Apollo was heavily condemned by the
Roman Curia, his gesture, on the other hand, received no comments from Michelangelo’s critics, which indicates
that such new model, proposed by Buffalmacco two centuries before, was entirely accepted.23
Regarding controversial iconographic details in the Sistine fresco, we certainly could not forget the depiction
of Charon and Minos (fig. 6), pagan characters whose inspiration probably came to Michelangelo from Dante’s
Inferno. Although their representation was not a complete novelty, as Signorelli had already painted them in
the Orvieto cycle, Charon and Minos were one of the reasons for the fierce criticism of the most radical Counter-
reformists, who considered an affront the inclusion of pagan figures in the most important Christian chapel.
Nevertheless, these mythological characters, put in Hell’s entrance beside the damned, should be interpreted not
as pagan figures, but rather as demons from the Christian tradition. Charon is especially important in the fresco.
Dante describes the boatman who transports the condemned souls through the Acheron as an old man, based
in Virgil’s description in the VI book of the Aeneis: “There Charon stands, who rules the dreary coast- A sordid god:
down from his hoary chin a length of beard descends, uncomb’d, unclean; His eyes, like hollow furnaces on fire;

118
 Quírico, Michelangelo’s Last Judgement

a girdle, foul with grease, binds his obscene attire. He spreads his canvas; with his pole he steers; The freights
of flitting ghosts in his thin bottom bears. He look’d in years; yet in his years were seen a youthful vigour and
autumnal green”.24
Moving away from the classic description, Michelangelo’s Charon indeed resembles a demon, with dark grey-
greenish skin, long ears and hallucinated gaze. He looks, in fact, like a demoniac god. Michelangelo’s Charon seems
to be delighted by the torments of the souls he carries. The artist manages to synthesise Dante’s description in the
Commedia: “Charon the demon, with the eyes of glede,/ Beckoning to them, collects them all together,/ Beats with his
oar whoever lags behind”.25 The scene is near the spectator, and stuns whoever sees it, although there is no specific
punishment depicted. Buonarroti presents us a psychological drama, not a physical one: with Charon, his boat and
the horrific gazes from the damned toward the entrance of Hell and even toward us, it is possible to anticipate all
the terrible torments expecting the condemned souls in the infernal region. Michelangelo, therefore, reinterpreted
in his own particular way the medieval tradition of the Mouth of Hell, with its interior and its punishments.26
The representation of Charon and Minos, as well as the depiction of Christ-Judge, make evident one
aspect that is often neglected when Michelangelo’s Last Judgement is discussed: the fresco is correctly regarded
as revolutionary, due to all the compositional and iconographic innovations created by the artist in the Last
Judgement theme. Nonetheless, the Sistine fresco was also deeply indebted to medieval iconographic tradition
of the Doomsday. Michelangelo, in fact, could not have conceived his huge fresco without the inspiration taken
from the many preceding iconographic models, largely available in Italy. Actually, he had to work within such
tradition, in order to make his work clear and comprehensible to his audience. What is fundamental to bear in
mind is the fact that the Sistine 16th-century viewers were not ordinary ones: indeed, as Anne Leader recalls,
his Last Judgement fresco was “created for an audience of the highest theological sophistication”.27 Yet, even if
Buonarroti could allow himself to create a scene with an “intellectually challenging iconography”,28 he could never
completely abandon traditional medieval elements of the Doomsday iconography. In fact, as Bernardine Barnes
points out, “tradition and history create a range of choices for the artist as his concept begins to take shape”.29
Michelangelo selected from the great medieval tradition the elements he considered more important, aiming to
create his own interpretation for the subject.
Which iconographic elements form such tradition? There are variations in the depiction of the Doomsday,
but some iconographic types appear more consistently in all works, in all periods. The most developed scenes
of the Last Judgement – usually monumental frescoes painted inside churches, as Michelangelo’s work itself
– include Christ-Judge who traditionally presents the stigmas (he is, unquestionably, the most important
element of the whole scene); the trumpeting angels, who would unequivocally indicate the moment of the final
judgement,30 the angels who carry the Arma Christi (the instruments of the Passion) and, rarely (but represented in
the Sistine fresco) also the angels who bring the books of Life and Death,31 the resurrection of the bodies,32 the act
of judgment per se, often depicted as the weighing of souls, presided by Saint Michael,33 the Virgin Mary and Saint
John the Baptist (or Saint John the Evangelist, although this figuration is less common in Italian examples) on
both sides of Christ, forming the Deesis group,34 and finally, the separation between the blessed and the damned,
who will receive the blessings of Paradise and the punishments of Hell, as indicated, for example, by the Gospel of
Saint Matthew.35 These iconographic elements are generally arranged in superposed bands, clearly marked: often
the resurrected are depicted in the inner portion of the composition, and the groups of damned and blessed
are on their sides, as well as the entrances of Hell and Paradise. In the superior bands we have the depiction
of Christ, angels and saints. From the 14th century on, these horizontal divisions between bands become less
evident, although still clearly depicted.
Michelangelo’s Last Judgement, as we have been discussing in this paper, both follows and departs from
such tradition. Undoubtedly, the structure of the fresco is outstanding. Its organisation in just one scene, with
no clear divisions in single episodes, is one of the novelties regarding medieval examples of the scene. Besides,
Michelangelo creates a circular movement in his fresco’s composition, emphasised by the position of Christ’s

119
IKON, 11-2018

3 Guido da Siena and followers, Last Judgement

(last quarter of the 13th century), tempera, Museo
Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma, Grosseto
(photo: T. Quírico)

1 Michelangelo, Last Judgement, fresco, Sistine Chapel, Vatican (from: L.

PARTRIDGE, 2000)

2 Luca Signorelli, Resurrection of the flesh (1499-1506),

fresco, San Brizio Chapel, Cathedral of Santa Maria
Assunta, Orvieto (Wikimedia Commons)
4 Buonamico Buffalmacco, Last Judgement (1336-1340), fresco,
Camposanto, Pisa (photo: T. Quírico)

120
 Quírico, Michelangelo’s Last Judgement

5 Fra Angelico, Last Judgement (c. 1440),

Gemäldegalerie, Berlin (Wikimedia Commons)

6 Michelangelo
Buonarroti, Charon
and Minos, detail of
the Last Judgement
(from: L. PARTRIDGE,
2000)

7-8 Michelangelo Buonarroti, Luxurious sinner and

Avaricious, detail of the Last Judgement (from: L.
PARTRIDGE, 2000)

121
IKON, 11-2018

arms, resembling a maestro conducting his orchestra. The circularity specifically around Christ-Judge had already
been pointed out by Giorgio Vasari as well as Ascanio Condivi,36 the two main biographers of Buonarroti still in
the 16th century. In fact, while the blessed rise toward Christ, on his right (i.e., the viewer’s left), the damned are
dragged down, toward Charon and Minos, on his left, following the right/left division of mankind mentioned, for
instance, in the already cited excerpt from Saint Matthew. The circularity created by Michelangelo emphasises the
decisive aspect of the judgement, as there is no other possible movement in the scene: the resurrected either rise
toward Christ and the saints, or descend toward Hell and its terrible punishments, of which we can only glimpse
a yellowish light from hellfire. Tertium non datur. We have in Michelangelo’s fresco, therefore, a unique sense of
movement, which seems to create a whirlwind inside the painting.
Despite the circularity and its movement, Buonarroti also maintains the traditional model of the
superposed bands, which was also observed by Condivi.37 Following examples from the 14th century, these
bands are inserted in a subtle way, with no clear divisions between them. As it occurs in many medieval
examples, the inferior band is divided in two: the resurrecting bodies on one side, the entrance to Hell on the
other. In the second band the artist depicted the trumpeting angels, as well as the ascending and descending
souls, in both sides of the fresco. The next band is reserved to Christ, the saints and the martyrs. Finally, in the
last band, in both lunettes, angels carry the Arma Christi. Michelangelo’s solution, therefore, compromises
tradition and innovation, and creates a dynamic composition in the Last Judgement theme that would be
later reinterpreted by other artists, such as Tintoretto and Rubens, who aimed at more naturalistic solutions
in the disposition of the figures on the scene.
Within this dynamic composition Michelangelo inserted elements directly related to medieval examples,
although sometimes highly reinterpreted by the artist. The saintly figures around Christ-Judge, for instance, seem
to accomplish an unusual job: they give the impression of creating the traditional mandorla of medieval represen-
tations of the Last Judgement. In this way, besides creating a sense of deepness in the fresco, as they visually move
back from space, Michelangelo maintains in his own particular way the iconographic tradition of the subject.
Among the condemned, specifically, there is an interesting detail: Vasari mentions in his Vita that
Michelangelo would have depicted in this group the seven deadly sins, a common representation in medieval
examples of the Last Judgement.38 Indeed, in such iconographic tradition punishments are carefully described
and represented and, quite frequently, observers can clearly identify the sins for which the damned are being
punished. It is not by chance that most of the seven capital sins were usually depicted. The didactic purpose
of this visual association between sin and chastise is obvious: the viewers, aware of their own sins, could easily
identify the everlasting tortures to which they shall be submitted unless they are remorseful and seek for
redemption.39 In Michelangelo’s Last Judgement, however, differently from what Vasari states, it does not seem
possible to distinguish these sinners, besides perhaps two: one of the damned, who seems to show great pain
as he is pulled down by the genitals, would probably represent the luxurious sinners (fig. 7). Another one has
around his neck a golden bag, which is certainly filled with gold, and two keys – maybe an attempt to protect
his treasure; he is probably an avaricious (fig. 8).
Regarding the luxurious sinner, we must recall Pietro Aretino and Lodovico Dolce’s criticism toward this
figure. Dolce wonders about “what mystical sense may we gather (…) when we see a devil who pulls down,
with his hand grabbed on the testicles, a great figure who bytes his finger due to the pain?”40 Aretino stresses
that Michelangelo, giving more importance to art than to faith, “gives evidence to those who are grabbed from
their genitals and virile members, which would make [people in] brothels simply close their eyes for shame”.41
Both Aretino and Dolce, apparently shocked by the size of these scandalous figures, and by the outrageous
iconographic liberties Buonarroti supposedly would have inserted on his fresco, simply fail to recognise the
ancient medieval tradition of association between sin and punishment which dates back to the first centuries of
Christianity, in descriptions of visions of the otherworld (such as the Apocalypse of Saint Paul, from the end of 4th

122
 Quírico, Michelangelo’s Last Judgement

century), and in the Libri paenitentialis, which defended since the 6th century the so-called cure from the contrary,
based on an ancient proverb: “the contraries must be cured by their opposites”.42 Just as Dolce and Aretino, most
of detractors of Buonarroti’s Last Judgement were unable to see beyond the surface of nudity of the fresco.
Michelangelo, therefore, despite all criticism, managed to conciliate artistic geniality and religious truth,
preserving under a revolutionary structure the most important elements of the medieval tradition of the
iconography of the Doomsday. Once his fresco is admired, there can be no doubt about how the end of times
shall be. While contemplating his Last Judgement, it is easy to remember the Ecclesiastic words: Homo, memento
finis, et in aeternum non peccabis.

1 Cf. R. DE MAIO, Michelangelo e la Controriforma, Florence, Sansoni, 1990, p. 17.

2 For example, Pietro Aretino, who wrote to Messer Enea Parmiggiano that “(…) lo scandolo che la licenzia de
l’arte di Michelagnolo potria mettere fra i Luterani, per il poco rispetto de le naturali vergogne che in loro istesse
discoprono le figure ne lo Abisso e nel Cielo”. P. ARETINO, Lettere, vol. 1, 2, P. PROCACCIOLI (ed.), Milan, Rizzoli, 1991,
p. 702. Romeo de Maio also mentions the Catalan gramatician Antonio Agustín, who wrote that due to the excess
of nudity, “(…) sebbene alli studiosi giovano et alli artefici, li oltramontani si scandalizzano bestialmente”. R. DE
MAIO, op. cit., 1990, p. 28.
3 But we must also stress that at least once before the fresco was almost effaced. According to Gian Paolo Lomazzo,
Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) proposed the destruction of Michelangelo’s Last Judgement, “saying that it was not right that
in Saint Peter’s there should be wicked exhibition of nakedness and buffooneries“. A. LEADER, “Michelangelo’s ‘Last
Judgment’: the culmination of papal propaganda in the Sistine Chapel“, in: Studies in iconography, vol. 27, 2006, p. 143.
4 “Perciò prima di Galileo, Michelangelo varcò le colonne d’Ercole imposte al pensiero dal Concilio di Trento: e ne divenne
la prima vittima. I padri tridentini richiesero la riforma del Giudizio Universale; dopo di che, cinque papi progettarono
di distruggerlo“ - R. DE MAIO, op. cit., 1990, p. 4.
5 J. O’MALLEY, “The Council of Trent (1545-63) and Michelangelo’s Last Judgment (1541)“, in: Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, vol. 156, no. 4, December 2012, pp. 391-392.
6 “Thus all we know about the construction of a text that had such influence on artists and patrons and has in the past
hundred years generated so much scholarly comment is that it was virtually the exclusive product of French concern
(…) that iconoclasm, not a desire to regulate artistic decorum, was the motivating force behind it“; Ibid., pp. 395-396.
7 Regarding Gregory the Great and his defense of the use of religious images, see: L.G. DUGGAN, “Was art really the
‘book of the illiterate’?“, in: Word and Image, vol. 5, no. 3, 1989, and C.M. CHAZELLE, “Pictures, books, and the illiterate:
Pope Gregory I’s letters to Serenus of Marseilles“, in: Word and Image, vol. 6, no 2, 1990.
8 Cf. J. O’MALLEY, op. cit., 2012, pp. 393 and 395.
9 Ibid., p. 396. We must not forget that this regulation was barely followed. “Although artists and patrons there [in Rome]
were made to feel the pressure of the regulation, there is no instance of any other painting in Rome being defaced as
a result of it“, writes O’Malley (Ibid., p. 397).
10 The most famous illustration of such criticism by the end of the Quattrocento came undoubtedly from Girolamo
Savonarola (1452-1498), the Dominican friar who, during the last decades of the 15th century, fiercely opposed himself
against what he saw as a lack of spirituality from the papacy. But Savonarola also aimed against a supposed immorality
he found in Florence since he first arrived in the city in the 1480s, particularly around Lorenzo de’ Medici, il Magnifico,
who was the main sponsor of humanist studies, as well as of the revaluation of classical tradition in the city. According
to the friar, Lorenzo would have stimulated a cult to ancient Greco-Roman paganism in 15th-century Florence, with
the support of the Church itself, as the popes had back then the most important collection of Greco-Roman art.
11 V. FRAJESE, Nascita dell’Indice. La censura ecclesiastica dal Rinascimento alla Controriforma, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2008, p. 41.
12 According to Vasari, “già aveva cominciato Adriano (…) a ragionare di voler gettare per terra la cappella del divino
Michelangiolo dicendo ch’ella era una stufa d’ignudi; e sprezzando tutte le buone pitture e le statue, le chiamava las-

123
IKON, 11-2018

civie del mondo e cose obbrobriose ed abominevoli“. G. VASARI, Le vite dei più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architetti, 3rd
edition, Rome, Newton & Compton, 1997, p. 858.
13 Cf. G. FERGUSON, Signs and symbols in Christian art, New York, Oxford University, 1961, pp. 49-50.
14 Cf. R. DE MAIO, op. cit., 1990, p. 17.
15 “È possibile che l’uomo più tosto divino che umano, abbia ciò fatto nel maggior tempio di Dio, sopra il primo altare di
Giesù, ne la più degna capella del mondo, dove i cardini de la chiesa, dove i sacerdoti reverendi, dove il vicario di Cristo
con cerimonie catoliche, con ordini sacri e con orazioni intrinsiche, confessano, contemplano e adorano il suo corpo,
il suo sangue e la sua carne?“ P. ARETINO, op. cit., 1991, p. 755. This letter was first written to Michelangelo himself in
November 1545 – although we cannot be certain whether it was really sent to the artist. The letter was later rewritten
and sent to Alessandro Corvino in 1547, and this last version was the one published by Aretino. Paola Barocchi tran-
scribes this excerpt according to the version of the letter to Michelangelo: “È possibile che voi, che per essere divino
non degnate il consorzio degli uomini, aviate ciò fatto nel maggior tempio di Dio? Sopra il primo altare di Gesù? Nella
più grande capella del mondo, dove i gran cardini de la Chiesa, dove i sacerdoti riverendi, dove il vicario di Cristo con
ceremoni cattoliche, con ordini sacri e con orazioni divine confessano, contemplano et adorano il suo corpo et il suo
sangue e la sua carne?“; Scritti d’arte del Cinquecento IV – Pittura, P. BAROCCHI (ed.), tome 1, Turin, Einaudi, 1978, p. 817.
16 Ibid., p. 782.
17 “Il dipingere le sacre imagini oneste e devote, con que’ segni che gli sono stati dati dagli antichi per privileggio de la santità,
il che è parruto a’ moderni vile, goffo, plebeo, antico, umile, senza ingegno et arte. Per questo essi, anteponendo l’arte a
l’onestà, lasciando l’uso di fare le figure vestite, l’hanno fatte e le fanno nude; lasciando l’uso di farle devote, l’hanno fatte
sforzate, parendoli gran fatto di torcerli il corpo, le braccia, le gambe, e parve che più tosto rapresentino chi fa le moresche
e gli atti, che chi sta in contemplazione. Et hanno tanto quel santo uso sbassato con questa nova loro invenzione, che ne le
stuffe e ne l’osterie poco più disoneste dipingere si potrebbono le figure” P. BAROCCHI (ed.), op. cit., 1978, p. 861.
18 “(…) se vogliamo considerare la purità de l’istoria, penso che sù verità vi troveremo: perché egli più s’è voluto com-
picere de l’arte, per mostrar quale e quanto sia, che de la verità del soggetto (…)“; Ibid., p. 858.
19 “(…) cotesta è materia da religione“; Ibid., p. 860.
20 K. CLARK, The nude: A study in ideal form, Princeton, Princeton University, 1990, p. 63. An inscription from 1529, in the
audience room of Palazzo Vecchio, in Florence, makes clear this association: “Sol iustitiae / Christus Deus noster / Re-
nat in aeternum“. H. HIBBARD, Michelangelo, 2nd edition, London, Penguin, 1987, p. 246.
21 Regarding the Trionfo della Morte cycle and Buffalmacco’s disputed attribution, see: L. BELLOSI, Buffalmacco e il trionfo
della morte, Turin, Einaudi, 1974. Although there are still disagreements regarding the Trionfo cycle, Bellosi’s hypo-
thesis is the most accepted nowadays by art historians.
22 M. MEISS, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, New York, Harper Torchbooks, 1964, p. 76.
23 For a more thorough analysis of the Christ-Judge depiction, see: T. QUÍRICO, “A representação do Cristo juiz em pin-
turas toscanas do Trecento ao Cinquecento“ (“The representation of Christ-Judge in Tuscan paintings from the Trecento
until the Cinquecento“), in: Concinnitas, vol. 2, 2013.
24 “Portitor has horrendus acquas et flumina seruat terribili squalore Charon, cui plurima mento canities inculta iacet,
stant lumina flamma, sordidus ex umeris nodo dependet amictus. Ipse ratem conto subigit uelisque ministrat et
ferruginea subuectat corpora cumba, iam senior sed cruda deo uridisque senectus“. VIRGILIUS (Publis Virgilius Maro),
Aeneis, H. GOELZER (Latin text and French trans.), Paris, Belles Lettres, 1938, VI, pp. 298-305. An English translation was
taken from The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/ (accessed 1 June 2005).
25 “Caron demonio, con occhi di bragia,/ loro accenando, tutte le racoglie:/ batte col remo qualunque si adagia“. Inf. III,
pp. 109-111.
26 For an analysis of the development of the representation of Hell in Medieval tradition, see: J. BASCHET, Les justices
de l’au-delà. Les représentations de l’enfer en France et en Italie (XIIe-XVe siècle), Rome, École Française de Rome, 1993; T.
QUÍRICO, Inferno e Paradiso. As representações do Juízo Final na pintura toscana do século XIV (Inferno and Paradiso. The
representation of the Last Judgement in Tuscan paintings from the 14th century), Campinas, Unicamp, 2014.
27 A. LEADER, op. cit., 2006, p. 103.
28 Ibid., p. 105.
29 B.A. BARNES, Michelangelo’s Last Judgment. The Renaissance response, Berkeley, University of California, 1998, p. 27.

124
 Quírico, Michelangelo’s Last Judgement

30 See, for instance, 1Cor 15, 51-52, which associates the sound of the trumpets to the resurrection of bodies on
the last day: “Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the
twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and
we shall be changed“.
31 As in Rev 20, 11-15: “Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled
from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne,
and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to
what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up
the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades
were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in
the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire“.
32 We have already quoted 1Corinthians; the resurrection is also mentioned in 1Thes 4, 14-17 (“For since we believe
that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this
we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not
precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the
voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who
are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will
always be with the Lord“), which also alludes to the trumpets.
33 The weighing of souls is indicated in few scriptural texts, as Dan 5, 27 (“Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales
and found wanting“) and Job 31, 6 (“Let God weigh me in honest scales and he will know that I am blameless“). On
the weighing of souls and the reasons for the inclusion of Saint Michael in it, see: M.P. PERRY, “On the Psychostasis
in Christian art“. in: Burlington magazine, vol. 22, 1912-1913; T. QUÍRICO, “A psicostasia nas representaçőes visuais do
Juízo final“ (“The psychostasis in visual representations of the Last Judgement”), in: Atas da VII Semana de Estudos
Medievais, Rio de Janeiro, PEM/ UFRJ, 2007.
34 On the Deesis group, see: T. VELMANS, “L’image de la Déisis dans les églises de Géorgie et dans celles d’autres régions
du monde byzantin“, in: Cahiers archéologiques, vol. 29, 1980-1981.
35 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations
will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep
from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right,
‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of
the world (…)’. Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared
for the devil and his angels (…)’. Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life“. Mt
25, 31-34, 41 and 46.
36 Vasari writes about the Christ: “Sonvi infinitissime figure che gli fanno cerchio (…)“, G. VASARI, op. cit., 1997, p. 1231.
And Condivi: “Intorno al Figliuol de Iddio nelle nube del cielo, nella parte di mezzo, fanno cerchio o corona i beati già
resuscitati (…)“ ; A. CONDIVI, Vita di Michelagnolo Buonarroti, G. NENCIONI (ed.), Firenze, S.P.E.S., 1998, p. 50.
37 “(…) che ‘l tutto essendo diviso in parte destra e sinistra, superiore e inferiore e di mezzo (…)“; Ibid, p. 49.
38 Vasari writes that “(…) avvenga che i superbi, gli invidiosi, gli avari, i lussuriosi e gli altri così fatti si riconoschino
agevolmente da ogni bello spirito (…)“, G. VASARI, op. cit., 1997, p. 1232.
39 Regarding the figuration of Heaven and Hell in Medieval paintings of the Last Judgement, see: T. QUÍRICO, “The
representation of Heaven and Hell in Last Judgement scenes“, in: Memento Mori. Il genere macabro in Europa dal
Medioevo a oggi, 1. ed., vol. 1, M. PICCAT- L. RAMELLO (eds.), Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso, 2014.
40 “Poi, che senso mistico si può cavare (…) dal vedere un diavolo che tira in giù, con la mano aggrappata ne’ testicoli,
una gran figura che per dolore si morde il dito?“. P. BAROCCHI (ed.), op. cit., 1978, p. 822.
41 “(…) per istimare più l’arte che la fede, non pure non serva il decoro ne i martiri né in le vergini, ma rilieva in modo i
rapiti per i membri genitali e virili, che farien non che altro chiuder gli occhi per vergogna i prostiboli“. P. ARETINO, op.
cit., 1991, p. 756.
42 “Contraria contrariis sanantur”. J.T. McNeill. “La medicina per il peccato prescritta nei Penitenziali”, in: M.G. MUZZARELLI
(ed.), Una componente della mentalità occidentale, Bologna, Pàtron, 1980, p. 215.

125
IKON, 11-2018

Tamara Quírico

Michelangelov Posljednji sud: umjetnost i religija između Reformacije i Protureformacije

Michelangelov monumentalni prikaz Posljednjeg suda, jedno je od njegovih najznačajnijih i najkontroverznijih djela.
Kritike su ponajprije dolazile iz Rimske kurije, pojačane utjecajem najradikalnijih protureformista. Mnogi su u Crkvi bili zabrinuti
da će protestanti iskoristiti sliku Posljednjeg suda kao oružje protiv katolika, iako su većina napada na Michelangelovo djelo i
posljedična cenzura dolazili od katolika. Nezadovoljstvo je postepeno jačalo i kulminiralo u osudi djela što je moglo dovesti
do odluke da se freska uništi 1564. Argumenti protiv Michelangelova rada moraju se sagledati iz šire perspektive: doista,
još od kraja 15. stoljeća u Italiji je postojalo nekoliko vjerskih skupina koje su oštro osuđivale takozvani ritorno all’antico.
Katolička je reformacija bila reakcija protiv protestantizma ali i odgovor protiv humanističkih vrijednosti koje je širila
renesansna kultura, od kojih je sikstinska freska jedan od najboljih primjera. Smatrana revolucionarnom, zbog niza novina
koje je umjetnik uveo u temu Posljednjega suda, sikstinska je freska jednako snažno vezana uz srednjovjekovnu ikonografsku
tradiciju prikaza Sudnjeg dana. Zapravo, Michelangelo nije mogao stvoriti svoju veliku zidnu sliku bez naslanjanja na cijeli niz
ranijih ikonografskih modela, poznatih u cijeloj Italiji. U ovome se članku analizira kompozicijska struktura Michelangelove
freske i njezini ikonografski aspekti. Autorica raspravlja o elementima koji su pokrenuli kritiku Rimske Kurije i na kojima se
temelji njezin ikonoklastički pristup te moguće uništenje freske.

Prijevod s engleskoga: Nikolina Gunj

Primljeno/Received: 23.11.2017.
Pregledni rad

126