Chapter 11

N EW L IGHT ON THE P APAL C ONDEMNATION

OF P ICO S T HESES

n 15 January 1487 the General of the Servites, Antonio Alabanti, wrote

from Rome to Lorenzo de Medicis secretary, Niccol Michelozzi. The
letter, published in the Appendix below, is one of a long correspondence
between these two men that reflects Alabantis close relationship not only with the
Medici but also with Michelozzi himself.1 It is particularly interesting for the light
it throws on the early response in Florence and Rome to Picos controversial Nine
Hundred Conclusions, since it shows that the pope had appointed a commission to

Originally published in Rinascimento, 42 (2006), where I expressed my gratitude to Dr Francesco

Borghesi for his generous help in transcribing Alabantis letter and discussing this article with me,
and to Professor James Farge of University of Toronto and Father Thomas OSullivan, OSB ,
librarian at Conception Abbey, Missouri, for their help in identifying Laillier (see notes 8 and 9
below). In addition I would like to thank Fabrizio Meroi for his careful editing.
1

Florence, BNCF, GC 29, 80, fol. 4. The letter appears to have been unknown both to Branca,
who published a later letter in this collection (from Bologna, 15 June [1491], describing Alabantis
meeting with Pico and Poliziano in Rovigo, Vittore Branca, Poliziano e lumanesimo della parola
[Turin, 1983], p. 137), and to D.-M. Montagna, who in a brief reference to Giovanni Di Napoli,
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola e la problematica dottrinale del suo tempo (Rome, 1965), urged
further research on Alabanti and the papal commission, rightly suspecting the archives could
contain [] nuove sorprese (Fra Antonio Alabanti dei Servi e la Disputa Romana di Pico della
Mirandola, Studi storici dell Ordine dei Servi di Maria, 16 (1966), 11819, kindly sent to me by
Susanna Petrai from the Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence). On Alabanti, see the bibliographies
in Branca, Poliziano, p. 153, note 10, Concetta Magliocco in DBI, I (Rome, 1960); Picotti,
Giovinezza, p. 143, note 121; and Di Napoli, Giovanni Pico, p. 128, note 45. On Michelozzi, see
p. 43, note 16 above.

264

Chapter 11

consider the theses before the first magisterial and the second inquisitorial
commissions of 1487 that resulted in the papal bull condemning them on 4 August
1487.2 It also suggests a wider framework within which to interpret reactions to
Picos heresy in the early stages of the story, to include events not only in Florence
and Rome but also in Paris.
Up to now, it has appeared that the first discussion of the Conclusiones Nongentae
was by a commission of masters in theology appointed by Innocent VIII on 20
February 1487, nearly eleven weeks after they were first printed in Rome on 7
December 1486.3 Alabanti was a member of this commission of five bishops and
ten theologians and jurists, which was presided over by the bishop of Tournai and
met in various sessions between 2 and 13 March. Although the commission
unanimously agreed on 6 March that seven of the thirteen disputed theses were
unsound, Alabanti was not one of the seven members present at the final session
on the 13th to condemn the remaining six theses as heretical. Pico himself only
subscribed the minutes on 31 July in response to the second, inquisitorial commission appointed by the pope to re-examine the theses on 6 June 1487. On 4
August the pope condemned them in his bull Etsi ex iniuncto nobis, which he
promulgated only on 15 December, perhaps in response to Picos flight from Rome
in November with Jean Cordier. Crossing into France at the beginning of 1488,
Pico and Cordier were initially arrested and imprisoned in Savoy by the lord of
Bresse and then transferred to the royal castle at Vincennes after his case had been
considered by the University of Paris. Thanks to the successful intervention of his
friends, the pope agreed in March to allow Pico to travel to Italy and thence to
2

Albano Biondi, La doppia inchiesta sulle Conclusiones e le traversie romane di Pico nel 1487
in Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, ed. by Gian Carlo Garfagnini, 2 vols (Florence, 1997), I,
197212, Francesco Bausi, Il dissidio del giovane Pico fra umanesimo e filosofia (14841487),
in Pico, Poliziano e lUmanesimo di fine Quattrocento: Catalogo, ed. by Paolo Viti (Florence, 1994),
pp. 4750. For what follows, see also Leon Dorez and Louis Thuasne, Pic de la Mirandole en
France (14851488) (Paris, 1897), pp. 5870 (publishing the process on 11446); Di Napoli,
Giovanni Pico, pp. 9094, 10203.
3

Picos Conclusiones nongentae was printed in Rome by Eucharius Silber on 7 December 1486,
and clandestinely in Ingolstadt in 1487; it was reprinted not in the editio princeps of his Opera
(Venice, 1498), which included only Picos Apologia tredecim quaestionum (first printed in Naples,
Francesco del Tuppo, after 31 May 1487), but in the 1557 edition of his Opera printed in Venice
and in Basel (the latter repr. Hildesheim, 1969, ed. by Cesare Vasoli). See Bausi, Il dissidio,
pp. 4753, Maria Grazia Blasio, Cum gratia et privilegio: Programmi editoriali e politica pontificia
(Rome, 1988), pp. 1119; it is republished, with facing translations, in Italian in Albano Biondi,
Conclusiones nongentae: le novecento Tesi dellanno 1486 (Florence, 1995), and in English in
Stephen Farmer, Syncretism in the West: Picos 900 Theses (1486) (Tempe, 1998).

NEW LIGHT ON THE PAPAL CONDEMNATION OF PICOS THESES

265

Florence, where he stayed under Medici protection until the new pope, Alexander
VI, finally pardoned him in 1493.4
We now know that Innocent VIII appointed another commission to consider
the theses in January 1487, whose advice he claimed to be acting on when he
appointed the magisterial commission on 20 February.5 For in his letter to
Michelozzi on 15 January, Alabanti informed Michelozzi that he was himself one
of the six very learned people who had been appointed together with five cardinals
to discuss Picos newly published Conclusiones. His letter opens by promising to
attend in due time to some business Michelozzi had written to him about, telling
him that the friend being employed by Lorenzo de Medici in Rome was behaving
imprudently in showing how angry Lorenzo felt towards the pope and in threatening
military action behaviour that was counterproductive and should not be adopted
by Michelozzi.6 This was the context for telling Michelozzi about the publication
of Picos 900 Conclusiones, which he said had been attacked in consistory for
offending as many believed the Catholic truth. The affair had been committed
to five cardinals and six people chosen for their learning as persone doctissime
among them Alabanti himself, since the pope had said in Consistory that the
General of the Servites was to be called. So on the 10th of January, Picos published
theses were discussed by these six people in the house of the cardinal of Naples
(Oliviero Carafa), in the presence of Carafa and the cardinals of San Marco (Marco
Barbo), Novara (Giovanni Arcimboldo),7 Lisbon (Giorgio de Costa), and Siena
(Francesco Piccolomini). When it was Alabantis turn, he spoke he told
Michelozzi according to his conscience and modest ability, and the pope
reported well of him: so that everything comes in time. He continued: this da la
Mirandola is a burden to me, but he had done his duty honestly and according to
the true faith and did not know what would happen next. He was sending

Dorez-Thuasne, Pic de la Mirandole en France, pp. 71101, Di Napoli, Giovanni Pico,

pp. 10318, 142, Biondi, La doppia inchiesta, pp. 197206.
5

[] iudicio quorundam doctissimorum hominum, quoted from the introduction to the

minutes of the process (ed. by Dorez-Thuasne, Pic de la Mirandole, p. 114) and not, as Biondi
suggests (La doppia inchiesta, p. 198), from the popes letter of 20 February (ed. by DorezThuasne, pp. 11517, with an extract in Di Napoli, Giovanni Pico, p. 127, note 37).
6

Appendix, below; Lorenzos anger towards Innocent VIII and the diplomatic situation at the
time are discussed on pp. 27071 below.
7

Navara is written, but Novara must be intended, whose bishop, the learned lawyer Giovanni
Arcimboldo, was made a cardinal in 1473, continuing to use this title after transferring to Milan
in 1484, Nicola Raponi in DBI, III (Rome, 1961).

266

Chapter 11

Michelozzi the Paris conclusions that he had asked for, which all learned men
ridicule as the work of a madman. This particular Michelozzi must keep secret,
even from Lorenzo de Medici, nor did he think he had ever had anything or any
mystery so important that it had had to be kept secret from his father and benefactor
Lorenzo. After listing these Paris conclusions, he once again urged Michelozzi to
keep his promise and excused himself from writing more, since he had just been
told that on Monday (that is, the following day, 16 January) the commission had
to meet for another discussion.
What are the Paris Conclusions? On the face of it, the eighteen conclusions
listed in Alabantis letter have little or nothing to do with Picos 900 Conclusiones,
since they consist of an attack on the Churchs wealth and the ignorance of its
preachers: the legends of saints were no more believable than the chronicles of
France, papal decretals were deceptions, the pope enjoyed no primacy from Christ,
a simple priest should enjoy the same powers as a bishop or the pope and be able
to marry like priests in the Eastern Church. They are in fact, the condemned
propositions of the doctorate that Jean Laillier presented at the Sorbonne on 30
July 1484, which had been a cause clbre in Paris at the time Pico was there in
148586. After seven somewhat disputatious years at the College de Sorbonne,
during which he refused to contribute to the work on the library or fulfil his
office as provost, Laillier was finally licensed in theology on 20 December 1485.8
He was only allowed to receive his doctorate, however, after appealing to
Parlement and being absolved from excommunication and loss of status by the
bishop of Paris at the end of June 1486 on condition that he abjured nine of
his heretical propositions, which are the first nine listed by Alabanti; whereupon
in November the Faculty of Theology appealed against the bishops absolution
and on 7 December, the very day on which Pico published his Conclusiones in
Rome, its appeal was upheld by papal brief.9

Le Livre des Prieurs de Sorbonne (14311485), ed. by Robert Marichal (Paris, 1987), esp.
789, 914, 936, 939, 979, and 991, pp. 213, 24161 (147884); Le Registre de Prt de la
Bibliothque du College de Sorbonne, 14021536, ed. by Jeanne Vieilliard (Paris, 2000), pp. 62728,
listing his loans on pp. 48284. As well as the latter reference, I owe to Father Sullivan the
information that Laillier was ranked eighth in a promotion of 21 licentiati on 20 December 1485.
9

All the relevant documents are published in Charles Du Plessis DArgentr, Collectio
iudiciorum de novis erroribus, 3 vols (Paris, 172836, repr. Brussels, 1963), II (1728), 30818 (from
Paris, Bibliothque Nationale de France, MS nouv. ac. lat. 1826); cf. Csar du Boulay, Historia
universitatis Parisiensis, 6 vols (Paris, 166573), V , 77174; Index chronologicus chartarum
pertinentium ad historiam universitatis Parisiensis, ed. by Charles Jourdain (Paris, 1862), nos 1460,
1461, and 146568, pp. 30405 (references owed to Professor James Farge). The remaining

NEW LIGHT ON THE PAPAL CONDEMNATION OF PICOS THESES

267

Pico was in Paris at the time Lailliers conclusions were under discussion, and
although he left France before Laillier was absolved by the bishop of Paris, he
would have known of the affair through his friends in Paris, the jurist Robert
Gaguin and Jean Cordier, master of theology at the Sorbonne.10 Gaguin was the
owner of an extensive library, like Pico, who sought him out when they both found
themselves in Florence in May 1486 introducing him at this time to Marsilio
Ficino and other humanist friends in Lorenzo de Medicis circle. After Pico had
been condemned of heresy and fled to France, it was Gaguin who recorded for the
Faculty of Law the universitys response to the papal nuncios on 28 January 1488.
In it, he described how Jean Cordier, then in Rome, had helped Pico to return to
his condemned theses and print them in many copies (presumably referring to the
Apologia defending the theses), and how the university, although agreeing to obey
the pope and to capture Pico and Cordier, nevertheless wanted to know what the
propositions were, for a danger cannot be sufficiently avoided unless it is known
about beforehand.11 As this record suggests, Cordier warmly supported Pico. He
was a member of the magisterial commission in March 1487 and initially refused
to condemn the thirteen propositions discussed by the commission, since he
considered them probable and catholic and [] disputable and only recanted
under pressure, although even then refusing to condemn all the propositions as
heretical.12
These contacts explain why Pico would have known about the Laillier affair,
and since he made a point of insisting, in his preface to the Conclusiones, that he
had imitated not the splendour of the Roman language, but the style of speaking
of the most celebrated Parisian disputers, the influence of Paris on his work seems
clear.13 Less clear is Niccol Michelozzis reason for wanting to see Lailliers
conclusions before Alabanti had told him about the popes reaction to Picos
Conclusiones, especially when they were being derided according to Alabanti
among all the learned men in Rome. A possible source of his interest in Laillier

propositions listed by Alabanti relate to Lailliers verbal replies to questions raised in the discussion
of his doctorate, listed by DArgenton, Collectio, p. 308. A day before writing to the Faculty of
Theology, the pope also wrote to the inquisitor Jean Cossart, ibid., pp. 31618.
10

Dorez-Thuasne, Pic de la Mirandole, pp. 32, 3541, 6263, note 1.

11

Ibid., pp. 4650, quoting the Memoriale on pp. 6970, note 2 ([] nam periculum satis
vitari non potest, nisi precognitum); Di Napoli, Giovanni Pico, pp. 10309.
12

Dorez-Thuasne, Pic de la Mirandole, pp. 14142; Biondi, La doppia inchiesta, pp. 205, 206;
Di Napoli, Giovanni Pico, pp. 9192, 14142.
13

See Farmer, Syncretism in the West, pp. 21011.

268

Chapter 11

could have been another of Lorenzos contacts in Rome, Antonio Calderini, who
may also be the friend referred to in Alabantis letter to Michelozzi. Calderini was
a Florentine notary, humanist and ambassadorial secretary who worked for Lorenzo
de Medici and the king of France before entering cardinal Marco Barbos
household in Rome.14 Since Barbo, like Alabanti, was a member of the first
commission to investigate Picos theses and remained closely involved in his case,
he could have provided the information that Calderini sent Michelozzi on 2
December about certain writings against the pope that had been published by
someone in France approving of a pseudo-pope, so they have taken care to see
booksellers dont produce them in print since some have been brought here.15
Although Calderini does not refer to these writings as the Paris Conclusions,
through Barbo he may have aroused Michelozzis interest in them at this juncture,
before they had been condemned by the pope. What remains unclear is why
Alabanti for the first time in his life wanted Lorenzo, his father and
benefactor, to be kept in the dark about them. And this in turn raises the question
of Alabantis relationship with Lorenzo and with his secretary Niccol Michelozzi.
Alabanti had long been an intimate of the Medici family as Prior of SS
Annunziata in Florence from 1477 to 1485, one of the churches over which the
Medici were extending their control as a cult centre.16 After he became General of
the Servites in 1485, he continued to exchange favours with Lorenzo and his
children, acting on their behalf in Rome and Bologna and in return benefiting

14
Lorenzo, Lettere, VII, pp. 179, 181, and XI, p. 9, note 9; Vito Giustiniani in DBI, XVI (Rome,
1973).
15

Antonio Calderini to Michelozzi (2 December 1486), GC 29, 91, fol. 8, received on 10

December: Fertur etiam edita fuisse quedam in pontificem apud gallos [a quodam add. s. l.] quibus
probet pseudo-pont<ificem>, unde precautum est ne librarii opera impressa edant. Nam nonnulla
huc allata sunt. Vos forsitan isthic rem melius tenetis. Barbo and Oliviero Carafa were trusted both
by Lorenzo de Medici (to discuss his sons cardinalate in January 1488, Lorenzo, Lettere, XI, p. 643)
and by the pope (to decide about Pico in August 1489, Raffaella Zaccaria and Loredana Lanza,
Lorenzo per Pico, in Pico, Poliziano e lUmanesimo, ed. by Viti, p. 69, citing Giovanni Lanfredinis
letter to Lorenzo of 27 August 1489).
16

Lorenzo, Lettere, XI, p. 50, note 2; Wolfgang Liebenwein, Die Privatisierung des Wunders:
Piero de Medici in SS Annunziata und San Miniato, in Piero de Medici, il Gottoso, pp. 25190;
Diane Zervas, quos volent et eo modo quo volent: Piero de Medici and the Operai of SS.
Annunziata, 14451455, in Florence and Italy, ed. by Denley and Elam, pp. 46579; and Tomas,
Medici Women, p. 62, citing Clarice Medici Orsinis letter to Niccol Michelozzi, 20 July 1482,
that the Servites sono cose nostre, come sapete.

NEW LIGHT ON THE PAPAL CONDEMNATION OF PICOS THESES

269

from their patronage and support.17 It is clear that he acted as a diplomatic envoy
and mediator for Lorenzo, not only as we shall see in the negotiations for the
marriage of Lorenzos daughter Maddalena to the popes son, Franceschetto Cibo,
but also in attempting to reconcile Lorenzo with Giovanni Bentivoglio during the
uprisings in Forl and Faenza in 1488, when he explained to Michelozzi that he
reported very fully to him on everything he heard, since what might seem small to
me might to you seem big, whereas to Lorenzo he would write in a more considered
way.18 As this letter suggests, Alabanti also enjoyed a close relationship with
Michelozzi, nearly always ending his letters with messages for Niccols mother and
siblings, one of whom was his goddaughter. When he suggested that Cibo after
his marriage to Maddalena needed a companion and guardian who should have
more virtue and prudence than reputation [] alive, dexterous, affable and
prudent not necessarily a doctor nor a knight, neither old nor a child, it was ser
Niccol he had in mind as a model, who [in Latin] is known to the pope, especially
from these beginnings, since the beginning is more than half of the whole; and on
another occasion, when Alabanti showed Giovanni Bentivoglio a letter written by
Lorenzo in reply to Michelozzi, they joked that Michelozzi had become the Big
Boss and Lorenzo his secretary.19

17

Lorenzo, Lettere, XI, p. 50, note 1, Picotti, Giovinezza, p. 143, note 121. As well as Alabantis
letters to Michelozzi in the Ginori Conti collection, there are also letters to Lorenzo and his sons
Piero and Giuliano in Florence in MAP (e.g., MAP 5, 664, 2 July 1494, to Giuliano about a favour
performed for him, although against the honour of the Chapter and himself).
18

Alabanti to Michelozzi (30 April 1488), GC 29, 80, fol. 8: [] perch tale cosa che paresse
a me picola a voi potria parere grande, e che al Magnifico Lorenzo non scriverei se no
ponderatamente. He wrote to Lorenzo on the same day that although non dubito che vostra
Magnificentia sia avisata e pi presto e pi certo, nondimeno Io non ho voluto desistere dal debito
mio (MAP 40, 309, cf. 40, 273, 17 April); on 6 July 1488 he told Michelozzi that as well as writing
to Lorenzo, he was writing to him as his compar fidel e amorevole to avoid his letters going per
canzelaria and also to get his advice (GC 29, 80, fols 1213). On the situation in the Romagna,
Pellegrini, Congiure di Romagna, esp. p. 139, note 95 (referring to Alabantis good offices as
confidant of both Lorenzo and Giovanni Bentivoglio).
19

Alabanti to Michelozzi (1 April 1487), GC 29, 80, fol. 7: Io pensavo [] che non seria forse
male che el signore Francescheto havesse una persona mandata qua al suo governo e compagnia []
e che fusse pi de virtu e de prudentia che de reputatione [] persona viva, destra, affabile e
prudente [] Questo non bisogna che sia n doctore, n chavaliero, n vechio, n fanzulo. Ma fusse
una persona simile a ser Nicholo, qui est notus pontifici maxime a questi principii quoniam
principium est plusque dimidium totius; the same (1 August 1489), GC 29, 80, fol. 21: e dissela
chomo voi eri doventato gran Maestro perch el Magnifico Lorenzo era doventato vostro
canciliere.

270

Chapter 11

Further light on Alabantis confidential relationship with Michelozzi is shed by

a letter he wrote to him on 24 December, three weeks before his January letter. In
it, he told Michelozzi about his very successful audience with the pope in the
Camera del Papagallo, in which he obtained all he wanted and more than he had
dreamt possible (doubtless concerning the renewal of his Orders privileges,
confirmed in May 1487); and when Florence was mentioned, he refrained from
embarking on a discussion about Lorenzo in view of the bad reports he had heard,
especially from those whom Lorenzo uses for his purposes. As far as Lorenzos
special interests (particularit) were concerned, it seems to me that many people
are annoyed with him and he has many rivals and who speak openly against him;
nevertheless Alabanti thought a closer relationship might be possible after the
Sarzana affair was settled and tactfully offered to put in a word about, or touch
on, Lorenzos special concerns when he returned to the pope if he knew what he
and Michelozzi wanted.20
So despite the presence in Rome of the Florentine ambassador, Pierfilippo
Pandolfini, and the archbishop of Florence, Rinaldo Orsini, it seems clear that
Alabanti was also involved in Lorenzos personal negotiations there in 148687.
This was a moment of intense diplomatic activity when the pope was threatening
to conclude an alliance with Venice, while simultaneously dangling before both
Lorenzo and Ferrante of Naples the carrot of marriage to his son, Franceschetto
Cibo. Lorenzo in turn was anxious to recover Sarzana from Innocents home town
of Genoa, as well as to further the interests of his children.21 Lorenzos anger with
the pope at this time is well documented. In November 1486, for instance, Ercole
dEstes ambassador reported that Lorenzo was speechless with rage on hearing
about the popes alliance with Venice, and when he finally recovered his voice, it
was to say that he could believe every evil of this pope and that this ecclesiastical
state has always been the ruin of Italy; on 31 December Lorenzo even went as far
as calling the pope a whore in his own letter to the Florentine ambassador in

20

Alabanti to Michelozzi (24 December 1486, received on 30 December and replied to the
same day), GC 29, 80, fol. 3: intexo e audito qualche cosa molto contraria et precipue da quelli che
Lorenzo adopera ali suo propositi [] Ma quanto ale particularit del nostro Lorenzo per quelo che
io intendo e comprendo [] mi pare de vedere che molti lurtano e ha de molti emuli et qui pallam
obloquuntur; e parendo al Magnifico Lorenzo o a voi che io movesse qualche parole o thochassi
qualche spetialit, tuto far con fede e maxime che questo non pu nocere. Cf. Calderinis letter
of 2 December (note 15 above), which also discusses Lorenzos situation.
21

On the diplomacy of this period, see Lorenzo, Lettere, X , esp. pp. vix, 2021 (note 7), 55,
99107, 10911 (notes 34), and 48192 (Excursus).

NEW LIGHT ON THE PAPAL CONDEMNATION OF PICOS THESES

271

Milan.22 This is evidently what Alabanti was referring to when he talked about
Lorenzos extremely bad disposition towards the pope in his letter of 15 January
and why he corrected Michelozzi in saying that the friend spoke not ill but
imprudently of Lorenzo in reporting his threats against the pope. In cautioning
Michelozzi not to do the same, he doubtless had Lorenzos special interests in
mind, as well as the Pico della Mirandola situation about which he went on to tell
Michelozzi.
Lorenzos particularit at this time concerned the benefices he trying to
acquire for his son Giovanni, as a prelude to his cardinalate, as well as the possible
marriage of his daughter Maddalena to the popes son. Of these, it was the marriage
that Alabanti discreetly promised to assist in his December letter to Michelozzi, as
emerges from Pierfilippo Pandolfinis later correspondence with Lorenzo. Thus,
when Alabanti returned to Rome on 8 February 1487 after visiting Lorenzo in
Florence, Pandolfini was annoyed to find a rival on the scene: so many negotiations,
and in different hands I dont like them, they make my head spin, he wrote to
Lorenzo.23 What was worse was Alabantis secrecy, despite apparently allowing
many people in the palace to know about his business. For when he returned to
Lorenzo on the 13th, by order of SantAgnolo [Cardinal Giovanni Michiel,
protector of the Servites] and the pope, he left Rome in great haste without
showing Pandolfini his new commission as he had promised to do, and without
even having told me why he had come.24 Although the primary reason for
22

Ibid., p. 18, note 6 (quoting Aldobrandino Guidonis letter to Ercole dEste, 20 November
1486): [Lorenzo] stete uno pezo che l non possete aprire bocha de angonia et stiza, and p. 86,
letter 915, to Piero Alamanni: questa puttana se offerta a ciascuno come la bracie.
23

Pierfilippo Pandolfini to Lorenzo [12 February 1487?], MAP 53, 36, decoded and undated,
but it is probably the letter referred to in MAP 51, 385 (see following note), since it begins Il
generale de Servi dice torner indrieto per ordine di SantAgnolo et del papa et inanzi che parte
mostrarmi la commissione and goes on: Queste tante pratiche et per diverse mani non mi
piacciano et maggirono la mente; on Alabantis arrival in Rome and first meeting with Pandolfini
on the 8th, see Pandolfinis letters to Lorenzo of 7 and 9 February, MAP 51, 382, and 384.
24

The same (13 February 1487), MAP 51, 385 (the whole letter is decoded): Hiersera vi scrissi
per le poste [] e dissivi come el Generale de Servi era stato meco et riferitomi che il papa et S.
Agnolo volevano che lui ritornassi a voi con certa commissione et che innanzi che partissi mi
parlerebbe et mosterrebbe la commissione sua acioche io gli potessi ricordare quello che mi pareva.
Stamani di buona hora intendo che s partito et in cost in fretta n venuto sanza havermi parlato
la ragione della venuta sua. He disliked not only the multiplicity of negotiations and negotiators
but also the fact that questa praticha del generale gi per molti di palaz<o> si sappi, non so se con
arte lo facessino, so he left Lorenzo to decide what to do. In October 1489, when it was thought
Michiel was dying, the pope wanted to appoint Giovanni de Medici protector of the Order in his

272

Chapter 11

Alabantes visit to Rome was to renew the privileges enjoyed by the Servite Order
which he achieved in the papal bull, Mare Magnum on 27 May 1487 he
clearly helped to work out the final details of the marriage between Maddalena
and Franceschetto Cibo while he was there, the crucial agreements being signed
in Florence on the 17th (and ratified on the 27th) and in Rome on the 25th of
February. On the 23rd, Pandolfini wrote to Lorenzo that the pope being in
agreement with the archbishop about the marriage, he says you should reply in
general terms to the General of the Servites and send him back. It will be
concluded tomorrow.25 The marriage was to be kept secret for several months,
under pain of excommunication, so Alabanti was dismayed, on his return to
Rome on 11 March, to be assailed by Giuliano Tornabuoni with these words,
So then, this marriage is arranged, and when I appeared not to know what he
was talking about, he said again that its said publicly among us that you went
to Florence for this purpose and you have to bring back the final conclusion.
When Pandolfini, the ambassador, then told him that if only he had conferred
with him before leaving Rome instead of saying nothing, he could have saved him
trouble, Alabanti replied (quoting John 6. 38, in Latin): I did the will of him
who sent me.26
Nowhere in these letters is there any mention of Pico della Mirandola between
Alabantis letter to Michelozzi of 15 January 1487 and Lorenzo de Medicis letter
to the new Florentine ambassador in Rome, Giovanni Lanfredini, on 22 July that
year. In this letter, Lorenzo apparently for the first time asked about Signor
della Mirandola, I mean about Count Giovanni, to which the ambassador
responded by saying that the count was revoking about thirteen clearly heretical
theses out of his 900 and from two to three hundred which were dubious and not
to be discussed. He is so upset that he stays in bed, since he thinks they have

place, sich el Generale ha di restare molto contento, Giovanni Lanfredini to Lorenzo, 13 October
1489, MAP 58, 99, cf. 58, 101 (23 October) and Picotti, Giovinezza, p. 299.
25

Pandolfini to Lorenzo (23 February 1487), MAP 53, 41: Essendo il papa rimasto daccordo
con larc<ivescov>o del parentado, dicie che al Generale de Servi rispondiate generalmente et lo
rimandiate. Domani si far la conclusione. Here and subsequently decoded passages are italicized.
On the negotiations, see Lorenzo, Lettere, XI, Excursus, pp. 48192 (491).
26

Alabanti to Michelozzi (11 March 1487), GC 29, 80, fol. 6: El primo homo amico che io
inscontrassi fu messer Zuliano Tornabuoni, il quale me asalt subito con queste parole, Ben,
questo parentado facto, e Io monstrandoli non sapere quid loqueretur, iterum replicavit come
se dice publice inter nos che voi sete andato a Fiorenze a questo fine e che voi ne havete aportare
lultima conclusione. Ego iterum negavi. [] Ego dixi, Ego feci ob<edient>iam eius qui missit
me .

NEW LIGHT ON THE PAPAL CONDEMNATION OF PICOS THESES

273

imposed a huge burden on him.27 A week later Pico abjured his heretical theses by
finally subscribing the minutes of the papal commission, and on 11 August Lorenzo
asked again to be told what then happened to count Giovanni della Mirandola.28
It was only five months later, on 19 January 1488, that Lorenzo seemed to be aware
that they are writing bulls and persecuting Lord Count Giovanni della Mirandola
in all manner of ways, writing to Lanfredini in Rome to urge restraint on the pope
in his treatment of so learned and highly esteemed a scholar, fearful that the terrors
of persecution might drive someone so clever and passionate to desperation,
especially since it seemed that his Apologia partly justifying his Conclusions
which Pico had dedicated to Lorenzo contained nothing against the faith that
merited criticism; as he commented later, after Picos Heptaplus had also been
condemned, Im certain that if [Pico] said the Creed, those malign spirits would
call it heretical.29 Ten days later, on 29 January, he told Lanfredini to urge the
pope to go slowly and expressed surprise that they had heard nothing from Lyons
about his arrest. In early February, he wrote that Count Antonio della Mirandola
had evidently heard of Lorenzos warm support for his brother and urged him to
persevere, as he did through letters to the count and to Lanfredini. When Lanfredini
wrote to tell Lorenzo in mid-March about the agreement he had reached with the
pope for Picos return to Italy, Lorenzo responded to the news with the greatest
pleasure and satisfaction, saying that he would let Pico know that he should come
to Florence.30
Lorenzos position at this time was very delicate in view of the diplomatic
situation in Italy and the growing hostility in Rome to his family plans, which now
included landed estates for his new son-in-law as well as benefices and a cardinalate

27
Lorenzo, Lettere, X , no. 998 (22 July 1487), p. 454: Advisate quello che del Signor della
Mirandola, dico del Conte Giovanni, citing Giovanni Lanfredinis reply to Lorenzo of 24 July
1487 (MAP 40, 100), ibid., note 7: di che tanto affanato che sta in letto, parendoli riportarne
grandissimo charicho.
28

Lorenzo, Lettere, XI, no. 1021 (11 August 1487), p. 67.

29

Ibid., no. 1151 (19 January 1488), pp. 60102 and note 19: si fanno bolle et molte
generationi di persecutioni; cf. Zaccaria and Lanza, Lorenzo per Pico, pp. 6263 and 77 (citing
Lorenzos letter of 5 October 1489, MAP 51, 538: Sono certo, se costui dicessi il Credo, cotesti
spiriti maligni direbbono che fussi una heresia.)
30

Lorenzo, Lettere, XI, no. 1158 (29 January 1488), p. 644: che se degni andare adagio, MAP
57, 22 (3 February 1488), and Lettere, XII, no. 1185 (22 March 1488), p. 105: Con grandissimo
piacere et satisfactione mia ho inteso della resolutione che avete facta con Nostro Signore del Conte
Giovanni della Mirandola et su questo fondamento che mi scrivete, far intendere al Conte prefato
che se ne vengha di qua; Zaccaria and Lanza, Lorenzo per Pico, pp. 6264.

274

Chapter 11

for Giovanni.31 He opened his letter to Lanfredini on 29 January 1488 by

describing his fear of being destroyed if he lost standing and honour with the pope
through the latest diplomatic moves, for if the pope were forced into the arms of
Naples, there was a real danger of losing him and at the very moment when
Lorenzo hoped to profit from the forthcoming promotion of new cardinals, which
he also discussed with Lanfredini in this same letter.32 On 9 February Lorenzo was
worried by the number of supplications he had to forward to Lanfredini, instructing
him to reserve for the pope only the big and important matters and to deal lightly
with the trivia.33 And on 22 March he openly admitted to Lanfredini that he was
afraid of losing the popes favour as a result of the envy and rivalry he faced from
his competitors, which he thought might have alienated the pope from him. So
although in the same letter he expressed his pleasure on hearing that Pico could
come to Florence, he was careful to give Lanfredini the responsibility for deciding
whether to show the pope his enclosed letter from Picos secretary to his own
secretary, ser Piero Dovizi, asking only to be told what Lanfredini had decided to
do: I dont want to be held responsible for it.34
This makes Lorenzos support for Pico all the more admirable, but it nevertheless
raises the question posed by Alabantis letter to Michelozzi in mid-January 1487,
in which he asked Michelozzi not to tell Lorenzo about the details he enclosed.
Does Lorenzos apparent silence about Pico until July 1487 suggest that Michelozzi
succeeded in keeping Alabantis secret to himself? As we saw, both Alabanti and
Lorenzo had business of their own to negotiate with the pope, making the situation
in 148687 no less delicate and complex than it was in the years that followed. Once
Pico was in Florence, Lorenzo worked consistently to obtain his absolution from the

31
Giovanni was created a cardinal on 9 March 1489. Lorenzos strategie famigliari are well
summarized by Ingeborg Walter, Lorenzo il Magnifico e il suo tempo (Rome, 2005), pp. 22934.
32

See note 30 above.

33

Lorenzo, Lettere, XII, no. 1166 (9 February 1488), pp. 2324: Io vi scrivo spesso in
commendatione di diverse persone; et, come per altra ve ho detto, mi pare debbiamo riservarci a
richiedere il Papa di cose grande et importanti, e di queste zacchere fatene leggermente quello che
si pu.
34
Lorenzo, Lettere, XII, no. 1185 (22 March 1488), cit., p. 104: that when he measured lopere
mie et animo mio verso Sua Santit mi persuado essere pi che mai amato da quella; quando
misuro le industrie che susano cost [Milan] et altrove et quanto pu la invidia et la passione
privata, insieme con questi altri riscontri, stimo pure che Nostro Signore possa in qualche modo
essere alienato dalla fede che ha dimostro in me, concluding: Se vi pare di mostrare questa lettera
a Nostro Signore, me ne rimetto a voi; et avisatemi del partito che harete preso. Desidero che sia
sanza carico mio (p. 106).

NEW LIGHT ON THE PAPAL CONDEMNATION OF PICOS THESES

275

pope, but in vain. Despite his special relationship with Innocent, his personal
appeal to him on Picos behalf fell on deaf ears, even after the pope had appointed
Lorenzos young son Giovanni a cardinal in March 1489 (an open secret for three
years until his consecration in March 1492). In a long interview with the pope on
27 August 1489, Lanfredini was instructed by the pope to tell Lorenzo that this
case concerns me alone because nothing is more against all the popes than matters
concerning faith and especially heresy [] it is not his business, nor is it the
business of messer Giovanni.35 He continued by ordering the ambassador to write
to Lorenzo (as Lanfredini reported, in his second letter to Lorenzo that day) that
this case matters more to me than to count Giovanni and that gratifying Lorenzo
over his son or pleasing him where matters of faith do not enter was one thing and
absolving Pico was quite another thing, since by defying the pope for the sake of his
worldly glory, Pico was risking the eternal damnation of his soul, a matter which
thanks to his plenitudo potestatis was the popes responsibility alone.36
The pope nevertheless gave the cardinals Marco Barbo and Oliviero Carafa the
task of deciding the degree of Picos heresy, as he told Lanfredini in the same
interview, in which he also said that it was necessary for some learned ecclesiastic,
such as the bishop of Ales (Pietro Garcia), to refute Picos erroneous ideas
leaving Lanfredini to comment to Lorenzo that Innocent was forced to follow the
judgement of others because he lacked understanding himself, hes not Sixtus.37
The fact that Barbo and Carafa were members of the very first January commission
to discuss Picos Conclusiones returns us full circle to Alabantis letter to Michelozzi
35

Lanfredini to Lorenzo (27 August 1489), MAP 58, 89: Dite a Lorenzo che questo caso
importa a me solo perch nissuna cosa pi contro tutti e pontifici che le cose della fede et maxime
la heresia [] che non suo caso, n caso di messer Giovanni, cf. Zaccaria and Lanza, Lorenzo
per Pico, p. 69.
36

MAP 58, 88 (27 August 1489): N pu lui de plenitudine potestatis scherzare con queste
cose; et dixemi: Scrivete a Lorenzo che questo caso importa pi ad me che al Conte Giovanni []
et altra cosa che gratificare Lorenzo del figluolo, o compiacerlo dove non entra questi casi della
fede, con qualche gloria sua di mondo con perpetua sua damnatione dellanima (Zaccaria and
Lanza, Lorenzo per Pico, pp. 7374).
37

See MAP 58, 89 (27 August 1489): bisogna aspecti San Marcho perch ne possa essere con
Napoli et loro [] decidino el grado del conte Giovanni [] constrecto governarsene secondo el
iudicio daltri perch lui non se ne intende et bisogna che se ne rapporti che costui non Sisto;
MAP 58, 88 (same day): bisogna che qualche persona docta ecclesiastica dichiari quelle cose et
quelle confuti con le ragione [] et se el vescovo di Ales desistessi, bisognerebbe che altri le facessi
(Zaccaria and Lanza, Lorenzo per Pico, pp. 69, 70, 74). Garsias Determinationes magistrales contra
Conclusiones apologales Ioannis Pici Mirandulani was printed in Rome by Eucharius Silber in 1489,
see Bausi, Il dissidio del giovane Pico, pp. 5355.

276

Chapter 11

published below. The letter not only tells us about this previously unknown
commission but, by listing Lailliers condemned Paris Conclusions, it also alerts
us to a possible connection between Pico and Laillier. Different though their theses
were, the coincidence that Lailliers were publicly condemned by the pope on the
very day that Pico published his Conclusiones may help to explain the popes
intransigence towards Pico. Both theses were in the limelight in Rome at the same
time, posing from Innocents point of view an equal threat to his authority.
So although the letter perhaps raises more questions than it answers, it also throws
interesting new light on an old problem.

Appendix
Antonio Alabanti in Rome to Niccol Michelozzi in Florence, 15
January 1487, Florence, BNCF, Ginori Conti 29, 80, fol. 4, recd. 21
January 1487.
Spectabilis vir compater carissime. Hebi la vostra38 e po<i>che io ho vostro
aviso far lopera al tempo suo et hoc suffic<it>. E perch havete notato che lamico
che Lorenzo adopera etc., sabiate che costui non dice mal di Lorenzo ma dice tropo
imprudentemente unde minazando che Lorenzo farebe e direbe e chel Papa non
lintende e che non passerebe tropo chel campo sarebe in su le porte di Roma e che
queste parole le aveva dete a chi le tocavano. E dicevale a coloro che stano ali fianchi
del Papa. E per simile parole dimostrava tanta mala dispositione di Lorenzo contra
el Papa che questo mondo mi pareva fato di novo. E per questo non ardite de
prorumpere in niuna parola con la sua Santit stimando che non dovesse giovare
ma pi presto nuocere. Hora sono informato e ser a tempo perch el Conte
Gioane da la Mirandola ha publicato 900 conclusione e perch in molti pare che
offende la catolica verit. Per la querella fata in concistoro fu comessa la causa a .5.
Cardinali e furno chiamati .6. per persone doctissime. El compare nostro fu uno
de queli per spetiale motivo del nostro Signore che in concistorio dise el Generale
di Servi sia chiamato. E a d .10. de questo in casa del Excellentissimo cardinale di
Napoli, presenti Sam Marco, el cardinale da Navara,39 Lisbona e de Siena fu agitata

38

Michelozzi received Alabantis letter dated 24 December on 30 December and replied the
same day, BNCF, GC 29, 80, fol. 3v.
39

Novara, see note 7 above.

NEW LIGHT ON THE PAPAL CONDEMNATION OF PICOS THESES

277

questa causa con questi electi. Quando toc dire a me, dixi secundum conscientiam
et modicam sufficientiam meam, del Sanctissimo Padre stato facto una bona
relatione di me. Sche ogne cosa viene a tempo. Ques<to da la Mirandola se
agrava?> di me. Io ho fato loffitio mio pro veritate fidei honestate servata. Non so
quello che seguir. Io vi mando le conclusione de Parise che voi me adimandate,
dele quale qui tuti li homini doti se ne fano beffa, cossa da paci. A quela particula
tenere secreto etiam con Lorenzo; dir questa parola per sempre: Io non credo
mai havere cosa n misterio tanto secreto n di tanta importantia che al mio padre
e benefactore Lorenzo debe essere secreto quando el sapr Io etc.
Prima conclusio. Vos debetis servare precepta Dei et apostolorum. Sed precepta
omnium episcoporum et aliorum dominorum ecclesiasticorum habenda sunt ut
paleam ipsi omni per suas trufas et ineptias destruxerunt ecclesiam Dei.
2a conclusio. Aliqui predicaverunt de uno sancto quod ipse sit in illo loco
unde Lucifer coruit. Tales predicatores destruunt omnia et a tempore sue
institutionis numquam Dei ecclesia prosperavit. Et tantum facient quod quando
materia fuerit bene discusa, reperietur tandem quod ille quem sanctum predicant
non sit in illo loco unde Lucifer coruit sed in illo loco ubi Lucifer nunc est
actualiter; et sicut Pluto deus infernalis Prosapinam tenet in brachiis, sic tenet
Lucifer hanc animam.
3a conclusio. Sancti divites et pecuniosi nunc canonizantur et pauperes
dimittuntur quia non teneor credere tales esse sanctos et ita simplex populus si non
credit talem esse sanctum non peccat, quia a tempore Silvestri [314335] nullus
confessor fuit iuste canonizatus.
4a conclusio. Si presbiter clandestine matrimonium contraheret et de hoc
mihi sacramentaliter confiteretur, nullam ei penitentiam iniungerem.
5a conclusio. Presbiteri ecclesiae orientalis non peccarent contrahendo
matrimonium. Etiam credo quod nos sacerdotes ecclesiae occidentalis non
peccaremus matrimonium contrahentes.
6a conclusio. In uno concilio a quingentis annis citra fuit presbiteris
matrimonium interdictum ab uno papa vel uno papillione.
7a conclusio. Dabo duos albos illi qui mihi producat aliquem passum per
quem simus obligati ad ieiunium quaresime.
8a conclusio. A beato Silvesto citra ecclesia Romana non est amplius ecclesia
Christi sed peccuniarum.
9a conclusio. Non tenemur magis credere legendis sanctorum quam cronicis
Francie.
10a conclusio. Simplex sacerdos potest eque bene consecrare crisma et sacros
ordines confere sicut episcopus vel papa quia omnes habent equalem potestatem.

278

Chapter 11

11a conclusio. Fornicatio simplex non est peccatum mortale.

12a conclusio. Petrus non habuit a Christo super alios apostolos primatum
aut potestatem.
13a conclusio. Quod unus prelatus sit maior alio hoc non e<st> a Christo sed
propter bona temporales aut virtutes.
14a conclusio. Si vultis quod ego loquar de summo pontefice etcetera.
15a conclusio. Decreta aut decretales summorum pontificum non sunt nisi
trufe.
16a conclusio. Ecclesia romana non est aliarum capud.
17a conclusio. Confessio non est de iure divino.
18a conclusio. Confessus religiosis mendicantibus secundum formam
decretalis dudum non est absolutus.
Iste sunt conclusiones. Rogo servetis mihi promissa. Nunc mihi de novo
nuntiatum est quod die lune iterum habemus disputare siche habete me excusatum.
Rome die 15 Januarii 1486.