Pico della Mirandola, Conclusiones (1486) SectionsThe thirteen condemnedScholarshipMethod

Magic · thesis 9>1

Thesis 9>1

Latin

Tota Magia quae in usu est apud modernos, et quam merito exterminat ecclesia, nullam habet firmitatem, nullum fundamentum, nullam ueritatem, quia pendet ex manu hostium primae ueritatis, potestatum harum tenebrarum, quae tenebras falsitatis male dispositis intellectibus obfundunt.

Copy-text: Farmer 1998, line 25111

Copy-text Farmer 1998 (farmer1998:25111-25114), after the Rome print of 7 December 1486 (colophon farmer1998:28040-28042); u/v as Farmer prints them. The section heading is 'Conclusiones magicae numero XXVI secundum opinionem propriam' (farmer1998:25106-25107). Akopyan reproduces the same wording with v for consonantal u (akopyan2021:1298-1301).

English

The whole of the magic practised by the moderns, which the Church rightly roots out, lacks all stability, all foundation and all truth, since it hangs on the hand of the foes of the first truth, these powers of darkness who spread the shadows of falsehood over ill-disposed minds.

'pendet ex manu' is literally 'hangs from the hand', i.e. depends on the agency of (farmer1998:25113). 'potestatum harum tenebrarum' echoes Col. 1:13, as Farmer notes (farmer1998:25172). 'exterminat' is rendered 'roots out' in the sense of 'drives out of its bounds'; Busi's Italian has 'sradica' (busi2014:1493-1494). 'prima ueritas' is God as first truth, the enemies being demons (editorial inference from farmer1998:25113-25114 and the cross-reference to 22.9 at farmer1998:25172).

Translation: machine-drafted 2026-09-25 (agent WRITER-B2), from the Latin, checked against the sense of Farmer's English at farmer1998:25151; awaiting human check

Attribution: Pico's own opinion: the first of the twenty-six magical conclusions according to his own opinion (farmer1998:25106-25111). · Pico's stance: endorses

Doctrine

The thesis opens the series by setting aside one kind of magic before any positive claim is made: the magic current among the moderns is condemned, and condemned on grounds of truth, since it has no firmness, no foundation and no truth (farmer1998:25111-25113). The reason given is causal: such magic depends on the enemies of the first truth, the 'powers of darkness' of Col. 1:13, which cloud minds already badly disposed (farmer1998:25113-25114; farmer1998:25172). Farmer cross-refers the demonology to 22.9, where Porphyry divides evil demons into substantial souls and material, accidental powers (farmer1998:25172; farmer1998:15550). The thesis thus defines by exclusion the term 'goetia' used in the Oration: the magic that relies wholly on the work and authority of demons, which the Greeks called goeteia and never dignified with the name of magic (copenhaver2019:19582-19588). In the Oration Pico calls that kind the most dishonest of arts, hollow and useless, against a magic that is solid, strong and reliable (copenhaver2019:19595-19596). The three denials of 9>1 (no firmness, no foundation, no truth) answer point for point to that contrast (editorial inference from farmer1998:25112 and copenhaver2019:19595-19596).

Context

Farmer notes that medieval magical treatises regularly began by protesting that their magic was natural and not demonic (farmer1998:25172-25173). Copenhaver shows how little the late-antique legacy offered Pico for a clean line between good and bad magic: Augustine's was the usual Christian position, that magic needs demons, with whom any communication is evil (copenhaver2019:17349-17354). Copenhaver observes that the first four magical propositions distinguish good magic from bad in the same terms used by the Oration (copenhaver2019:17364-17365). Akopyan likewise reads 9>1-2 as a repetition in the Conclusions of the Oration's two forms of magic (akopyan2018:543-552). Busi treats the disclaimer as more a confession than an excuse, since the reputation of Pico the magician outlived him and Benivieni still had to deny it in a letter of 1514 (busi2014:1496-1500; busi2014:1558-1559).

Reception

In the Apology, speaking of figures and numbers in his conclusions, Pico said he did not mean their superstitious use through pacts and agreements with demons, 'quia hec omnia reprobavi in prima conclusione mea' (busi2014:9914-9917). Ebgi summarises the Apology's argument as treating magic as an equivocal term, one sense rightly banished by the Church (busi2014:9849-9856). Farmer judges that the magical theses, despite all disclaimers, were always open to suspicions of demonology and witchcraft (farmer1998:1357-1358). Voltaire read the first proposition: from its words, he wrote, one sees that Pico would grant that magic is the work of demons, as commonly believed (copenhaver2019:8916-8920). Copenhaver cites this passage of the Essai (copenhaver2019:8951-8952; copenhaver2019:23036).

Historiography

Farmer places the thesis within the conventional prologue of medieval magical writing (farmer1998:25172-25173). Busi reads it as a confession of the suspicion Pico expected, and quotes the thesis as the beginning of the first of the twenty-six magical conclusions (busi2014:1496; busi2014:1514-1516).

Pico's sources

Quotations cited

Not established

Discussed in

Mention records in the corpus: 5 (deterministic harvest; see Method).

Farmer's cross-references

Related theses

9>2, 9>3, 9>4, 9>24, 22.9