Pico della Mirandola, Conclusiones (1486) SectionsThe thirteen condemnedScholarshipMethod

Theological, against the common mode · thesis 4>13 · condemned, Q4

Thesis 4>13

Latin

Non assentior communi sententiae theologorum dicentium posse deum quamlibet naturam suppositare, sed de rationali tamen hoc concedo.

Copy-text: Farmer 1998, line 21767

Copy-text Farmer 1998 (farmer1998:21767-21768). The Apology, as Copenhaver and Edelheit quote it, reads 'Deum' and 'de rationabili tantum' (copenhaver2022:6908-6909; edelheit2022:7762-7764). Garsia's Determinationes of 1489 prints 'de rationali tantum' (edelheit2022:20340-20341). Copenhaver states that the thesis is identical in the Conclusions and the Apology (copenhaver2022:5888-5889), which does not agree with Farmer's 'tamen'. The pre-audit repository entry H.1.4 carried an invented Latin (data/inventory/condemned_thirteen.json).

English

I withhold my assent from the common opinion of the theologians who say that God can make any nature whatever a supposit; this I do grant, however, of the rational nature.

'suppositare': to make a nature the supposit of a divine person, i.e. to assume or take it on, as the Word took on a human nature; the verb is factitive and metaphysical, not the semantic 'supponere' of the logicians (copenhaver2022:2144-2149, 6546-6552). Five modern translators render it five ways (copenhaver2022:5552-5555). 'Non assentior' is kept as a refusal of assent, not 'I disagree', because Pico's defence turns on the difference between withholding assent and asserting the contrary (copenhaver2022:5753-5757). 'tamen' (however) follows Farmer's copy-text; the Apology's 'tantum' would give 'I grant this only of a rational nature' (copenhaver2022:6908-6909).

Translation: machine-drafted 2026-09-26 (agent WRITER-A1b), checked against the sense of Farmer's English at farmer1998:21814; awaiting human check

Attribution: Pico's own opinion, thirteenth of the theological conclusions 'according to my own opinion, rather opposed to the common mode of speaking of theologians' (farmer1998:21490-21494, 21767). Henry of Ghent is not named in the thesis (copenhaver2022:5604-5605). · Pico's stance: endorses (as a refusal of assent to the common opinion and a concession for rational natures)

Condemnation

Q4 in the order of the Apology: Assumption of natures by God. Printed 7 December 1486; censured by the papal commission in February-March 1487; the work as a whole condemned by the bull of 4 August 1487.

'by the import of its language (vi sermonis) the aforesaid conclusion detracts from divine omnipotence and thereby suggests heresy' (Copenhaver's translation of the record, copenhaver2022:6845-6853). Farmer renders it 'derogates from divine omnipotence, and this savors of heresy' (farmer1998:21793); Blum 'Smacks of heresy' (dougherty2008:2204-2207). Garsia restates it in Latin as 'ex vi sermonis videtur derogare divine omnipotentie et per hoc heresim sapere' (edelheit2022:20342-20343).

Doctrine

Assumption (assumptio), 'taking on', is the act by which a divine person unites a created nature to itself, as the Word took on the human nature of Jesus (copenhaver2022:2144-2147). A supposit (suppositum), in the metaphysical sense, is the self-standing individual that has a nature as a formal part, in the formula Copenhaver quotes from Aquinas (copenhaver2022:4552-4553, 4566). To make a nature the supposit (suppositare) was the theologians' technical way of saying that God assumes it; this is not the semantic supposition of terms (copenhaver2022:2144-2149). The thesis asks which natures God could so assume, the question Henry framed as whether God could take on a non-intellectual substance in the unity of a person (copenhaver2022:6111-6113).Aquinas's Sentences commentary granted that under absolute power 'God can take on any creature he chooses', while his Summa restricts the fitting case to a human nature, by rank and need (copenhaver2022:5404-5411, 5432-5440). Capreolus answered yes to whether God could take on a stone (copenhaver2022:5449-5458), and the Centiloquium widely attributed to Ockham drew the consequence 'God can take on a stone, a stick of wood and so on' (copenhaver2022:2133-2134, 2179-2181). Pico's sentence has a refusing part, which declines assent to what theologians assert about God, and a conceding part, which grants assumption of a rational nature (copenhaver2022:5698-5711). The restriction is Henry of Ghent's: God takes on a nature to raise and improve it, and only an intellectual nature can be raised to know and love God in beatitude (copenhaver2022:6483-6489, 6582-6587). The incapacity therefore lies in unreasoning creatures, not in God's power (copenhaver2022:6588-6595; farmer1998:21790-21792). Farmer notes that the thesis contradicts the premise of 4>2, which supposes that God can assume any nature (farmer1998:21789, 21524-21527).

Context

The thesis belongs to the section of theological conclusions in Pico's own name, which Farmer calls immediately suspect because its author was a twenty-three-year-old layman; nine of the thirteen theses attacked came from it (farmer1998:21461-21464). Dispute over God's absolute and ordained powers continued through Pico's lifetime (copenhaver2022:5443-5448). Pico chose the rare verb suppositare over the usual supponere, as Capreolus, whom he read, had done (copenhaver2022:5461-5467). The Conclusions use suppo- words only five times, the Apology many dozens of times (copenhaver2022:4902-4904). None of the thirteen theses Pico lists under Henry's name touches the incarnation (copenhaver2022:5597-5605).

Reception

Questioned by the commission, Pico answered, following Henry, that the restriction holds not because God cannot do it but because a nature lower than the human cannot be made a supposit (copenhaver2022:6837-6840; farmer1998:21789-21792). Having considered that answer, the commission ruled that 'by the import of its language (vi sermonis)' the thesis detracts from divine omnipotence and suggests heresy (copenhaver2022:6845-6853). In the Apology Pico argued that refusing assent to a proposition does not assert its contradiction (copenhaver2022:5753-5757). He invoked the rule de virtute sermonis, judgment 'in virtue of the language', by the literal meaning of the words used, under which his refusal does not detract from omnipotence (copenhaver2022:5716-5719). He wrote that he did not intend to deny that God can make any nature a supposit, only to deny 'particular and explicit' assent to it (edelheit2022:7762-7766). He then cited Henry at length and named seven masters who reported Henry's view without judging it heretical (edelheit2022:7776-7786; copenhaver2022:6560-6562). If the commission were right, Henry, 'the one called the Stately Doctor', would be a heretic (copenhaver2022:6879-6886). The usual view, he added, licensed 'God is a donkey' and 'God is a stick', more scandalous to the uneducated than his refusal (copenhaver2022:6736-6744). Pedro Garsia, bishop of Barcelona and a member of the commission, answered the Apology in his Determinationes magistrales (Rome, 1489) (edelheit2022:18962-18966, 18980-18981). He granted that Pico spoke subtly about assent but still judged the thesis to smack of error and heresy, and argued that if an unreasoning nature could not be assumed, divinity would have left Christ's body in the tomb (edelheit2022:20318-20325, 20332-20337).

Historiography

Copenhaver devotes the third chapter of Pico della Mirandola on Trial to Q4 and translates Pico's Question in full (copenhaver2022:128, 416). He finds that Henry's excerpt fills more than half of its 3500 words, printed with more than two dozen errors (copenhaver2022:5815-5816, 5677-5679). He observes that no other condemned thesis is a first-person refusal of assent, so the device could not protect the other twelve (copenhaver2022:5819-5820, 5850-5852). In his reading Pico reduced his exposure from the start by writing non assentior, 'I do not assent', rather than non credo, 'I do not believe', and did not devise the distinction under fire (copenhaver2022:6935-6946). Farmer reads the record otherwise: in the Apology Pico 'prudently backtracked', claiming only to dispute how the common opinion argued, and the Apology's evidence must be approached with caution (farmer1998:21794-21796, 21466-21470). Edelheit stresses that Henry held 'a more radical and extreme position than Pico', denying a possibility that Pico only declined to affirm, and that Pico cites a development in Henry's thought, not a bare authority (edelheit2022:7747-7758). Blum reads the donkey argument as Pico's method of discrediting dogmatic scholasticism by the absurdity of the contrary position (dougherty2008:2435-2446). Because the formula of non-assent stands in the printed thesis, the editor infers that Copenhaver's reading is the better supported on the wording, while Farmer's caution applies to Pico's glosses on it (editorial inference from farmer1998:21767, 21794-21796 and copenhaver2022:6940-6943). The case shows a thesis condemned for its words and defended by its words, the court's vi sermonis answered by Pico's de virtute sermonis (copenhaver2022:6900-6905).

Pico's sources

Quotations cited

Not established

Discussed in

Mention records in the corpus: 106 (deterministic harvest; see Method).

Farmer's cross-references

Related theses

4>2, 4>18, 4>14, 4>8, 1>3, 1>4