Thesis 4>19
Latin
Nisi essent dicta sanctorum quae in manifesto sui sermonis uidentur dicere oppositum, firmiter assererem hanc et sequentem conclusionem; assero tamen eas probabiles esse et defendi posse rationabiliter, quarum prima est quod peccatum mortale in se est malum finitum.
Copy-text Farmer 1998 (farmer1998:21873-21876), with Farmer's u for v; to be collated against the Rome print of 7 December 1486 (farmer1998:28040-28041). Farmer records that the 1486 print has a full stop before 'quarum' (farmer1998:21885). In the Apology, as quoted by Edelheit, the preamble reads 'firmiter assererem, infrascriptas conclusiones: assero tamen ipsas esse probabiles, et rationabiliter posse defendi' (edelheit2008:16760-16763). Farmer's OCR prints the number of the following thesis as '4220', that is 4>20 (farmer1998:21879).
English
Were it not for sayings of the saints which, on the plain face of their wording, appear to say the opposite, I would firmly assert this conclusion and the one that follows; I do assert, however, that they are probable and can be reasonably defended. The first of them is that mortal sin in itself is a finite evil.
'Dicta sanctorum' are the recorded sayings of the saints and Fathers, whose authority outside the canon of Scripture Pico argued could not prove an opinion heretical (copenhaver2022:1523-1525). 'In manifesto sui sermonis' is rendered 'on the plain face of their wording': the sayings seem to state the opposite as literally read (farmer1998:21873-21874). 'Probabilis' is kept as 'probable' in its scholastic sense; Edelheit traces that sense to Aristotle's accepted or common views (endoxa) rendered in Latin as probabilia, and contrasts Garsia's use of the term with Pico's (edelheit2022:19494-19503; edelheit2022:20218-20222). 'In se' restricts the first conclusion to the sin considered in itself (farmer1998:21876).
Doctrine
Theses 4>19 and 4>20 concern the proportion between mortal sin and its punishment (poena, the penalty owed for a fault), and the Apology answers them together in its second question, 'De poena peccati mortalis' (farmer1998:21936; fornaciari2010:1034). Thesis 4>19 supplies the premise: mortal sin, taken in itself, is a finite evil (farmer1998:21876). Thesis 4>20 draws the consequence that a sin of finite duration is owed only a penalty finite in duration (farmer1998:21879-21880). The sources consulted do not define mortal sin, but the exchange before the commission presupposes that one who remains impenitent in mortal sin is punished eternally, which Pico granted (farmer1998:21937-21939). The passage of Thomas that Pedro Garsia quoted against Pico gives a penalty two quantities, intensity of bitterness and length of time, and holds that the penalty answers the fault in intensity while its duration does not answer the duration of the fault (edelheit2022:20190-20196). In Edelheit's summary of Garsia, the gravity of the sin and the intention of the sinner fix the gravity of the punishment, and the time the sin lasted plays no part (edelheit2022:20135-20140). The editor infers that 4>19 is meant to block the step from a finite act to an unending penalty by denying that the fault itself is infinite (farmer1998:21876; farmer1998:21879-21880). What 4>19 adds to its companion is the modal frame: both conclusions are declared probable and defensible, and would be asserted firmly but for the sayings of the saints (farmer1998:21873-21875).
Context
Both theses belong to the section of theological conclusions 'a communi modo dicendi theologorum satis diversam', from which nine of the thirteen censured theses came (farmer1998:21432-21435; farmer1998:21461-21462). The commission, created by Innocent VIII in February 1487, returned its verdicts in March, and Pico attended some of its sessions to explain his theses (copenhaver2022:514-515; copenhaver2022:543-546; copenhaver2022:565). The formula of 4>19 matches that of 4>18, where Pico says he would assert firmly were the common way of speaking of the theologians not opposed, and asserts only that the dictum is probable (farmer1998:21862-21864). The editor infers that the two formulae mark one tactic of limited commitment, directed in 4>18 at the theologians' usage and in 4>19 at the saints' authority (farmer1998:21862-21863; farmer1998:21873-21874). In Q1 of the Apology Pico had argued that sayings of saints outside the canon of Scripture cannot prove an opinion definitively heretical, since where there is no infallible truth there is no certain faith (copenhaver2022:1519-1525). At the close of Q1 he cited Augustine's rule that it is rash to judge words that can bear a good and a bad sense, above all in order to condemn them; Edelheit sees the same line continued in the question on mortal sin (edelheit2008:16728-16741; edelheit2008:16757-16763).
Reception
Farmer reports that in Pico's answer to the commission 4>19 entered the discussion only briefly, and that the debate turned on 4>20 (farmer1998:21936-21937). After questioning Pico at length the commission found that his explanation added error to error, and judged thesis and response unanimously false, erroneous and heretical (farmer1998:21940-21942). Blum's list of the censured propositions, translated from the notarial record, gives the second as 4>20 alone, with the verdict 'Wrong, erroneous, heretical' (dougherty2008:2183-2184; dougherty2008:2197-2199). In the Apology Pico said that he had declared, in writing and orally, that out of reverence for the saints he did not assert the opinion in that form of words, but only that it could be defended as probable (edelheit2008:16763-16765). Garsia, answering the Apology, appealed to the common use of words and analysed obligation (obligatio), guilt (culpa), punishment (pena) and culpability (reatus), concluding with Thomas and the Lombard that culpability is an effect of the sin and not the sin itself (edelheit2022:20170-20174; edelheit2022:20198-20208).
Historiography
The scholarship consulted gives this question little space: Copenhaver lists it as Q2, 'Sin', and his book, which focuses on six of the thirteen questions, indexes Q2 at four pages (copenhaver2022:847; copenhaver2022:249-250; copenhaver2022:13604). Edelheit (2008) cites its preamble as an instance of Pico's insistence, across the condemned theses, that his positions are probable and defensible (edelheit2008:16738-16741; edelheit2008:16760-16763). Edelheit (2022) notes that in defending this thesis Pico seems to have relied on Thomas's authority as well, and that Garsia replied that Thomas meant the opposite (edelheit2022:20130-20136; edelheit2022:20161-20162). The editor infers that Pico's claim on Thomas for a thesis Farmer reads as anti-Thomist is an instance of the tactic Copenhaver describes, in which Pico claimed eminent authorities for unconventional positions without binding himself to them (farmer1998:21936; copenhaver2022:12236-12239). The thesis shows Pico treating the saints' authority as the one limit he acknowledges on an argument he otherwise claims he can defend (farmer1998:21873-21875).
Pico's sources
- Thomas Aquinas, commentary on Sentences IV, distinction 46, question 1, article 3: the position 4>19-20 appears to oppose (Farmer) (farmer1998:21936)
- Thomas Aquinas on the Sentences, book 4, on whether an eternal penalty is owed to mortal sin, as quoted by Pedro Garsia: Garsia says Pico believed he could ground his thesis on this passage of Thomas; Garsia reads it against him (edelheit2022:20190-20196)
Quotations cited
- “false, erroneous, and heretical” — Stephen A. Farmer, Syncretism in the West: Pico's 900 Theses (1486) (farmer1998:21941)
- “Wrong, erroneous, heretical” — M. V. Dougherty (ed.), Pico della Mirandola: New Essays (dougherty2008:2199)
- “Nisi essent dicta sanctorum, quae in manifesto sui sermonis videntur dicere oppositum” — Amos Edelheit, Ficino, Pico and Savonarola: The Evolution of Humanist Theology 1461/2-1498 (edelheit2008:16761)
- “propter reverentiam sanctorum, sed dixi eam posse probabiliter defendi” — Amos Edelheit, Ficino, Pico and Savonarola: The Evolution of Humanist Theology 1461/2-1498 (edelheit2008:16764)
- “peccato mortali iuste debeatur pena infinita secundum tempus” — Amos Edelheit, A Philosopher at the Crossroads: Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's Encounter with Scholastic Philosophy (edelheit2022:20160)
Not established
- Aquinas's Sentences IV, distinction 46, question 1, article 3 was not opened; that the passage Garsia quotes from 'quarto sententiarum' (edelheit2022:20190-20192) is the article Farmer names (farmer1998:21936) is the editor's inference.
- The Apology's Q2 and the notarial record were not opened; Pico's arguments in the Apology for the finitude of mortal sin are not established by the sources consulted.
- Which argument for the infinity of mortal sin 4>19 answers is not established by the sources consulted.
- Which sayings of the saints Pico had in mind is not established by the sources consulted.
- Whether the commission's verdict fell formally on 4>19 as well as on 4>20 is not established: Farmer speaks of 'his thesis' after noting that 4>19 entered only briefly (farmer1998:21936-21941), and Blum lists 4>20 alone (dougherty2008:2197-2199).
Discussed in
- Amos Edelheit, Ficino, Pico and Savonarola: The Evolution of Humanist Theology 1461/2-1498 (2008)
Farmer's cross-references
- 1>2 Qui dicunt innascibilitatem esse positiuam proprietatem constituentem patrem in esse hypostatico incommunicabili, ab opinione sancti doctori
- 1>7 De attrıbutorum distinctione non discordant Thommas et Scotus.
- 4>20 Secunda est quod peccato mortali finiti temporis non debetur pena infinita secundum tempus, sed finita tantum.