503 COSMOS. 



not, necessarily cither be true or eveii probable." These sin- 

 gular words certainly do occur in the anonymous preface* at- 

 tached to the work of Copernicus, and inscribed De HyjDothe- 

 sibus hujus Operis, but tliey are quite contrary to the opinions 

 expressed by Copernicus, and in direct contradiction with his 

 dedication to Pope Paul III. The author of these prefatoi-y 

 remarks was, as Gassendi most expressly says, in his Life of 

 the great astronomer, a matliematician then living at Nurem- 

 berg, and named Andreas Osiander, who, together with Scho- 



* " Neque eniin iiecesse est, eas hypotheses esse veras, iino ne veri- 

 similes quidem, sed sufficit hoc uuum, si calculum observationibus con 

 gruentem exhibeant," says the preface of Osiander. " The Bishop oi 

 Ciibn, Tidemann Gise, a native of Dantzic, who had for years urged 

 Copernicus to pubhsh his work, at last received the manuscript, with 

 the permission of having it printed fully in accoi-dance with his own free 

 pleasure. He sent it first to Rha3ticus, professor at Wittenberg, who 

 had, until recently, been living for a long time with his teacher at 

 Frauenburg. Rhoeticus considered Nuremberg as the most suitable 

 place for its publication, and intrusted the superintendence of the print- 

 ing to Professor Schoner and to Andreas Osiander." (Gassendi, Viia 

 Copernici, p. 319.) The expressions of praise pronounced on the work 

 at the close of the preface might be sufficient to show, without the ex- 

 press testimony of Gassendi, that the preface was by another hand. 

 Osiander has used an expression on the title of the first edition (that of 

 Nuremberg, 1543) which is always carefully avoided in all the writings 

 of Copernicus, " motus stellarum novis insuper ac admirabilibus hypo 

 thesibus oruati," together with the very ungentle addition, " Igitur 

 studiose lector, eme, lege, fruere." In the second Basle edition of 1566 

 which I have very carefully compared with the first Nuremberg edition, 

 there is no longer any reference in the title of the book to the " admi- 

 rable hypothesis;" but Osiander's Prmfatiuncula de Hypothesibus hnjns 

 Operis,''^ as Gassendi calls the intercalated preface, is preserved. That 

 Osiander, without naming himself, meant to show that the Prcefatiun- 

 cula was by a different hand from the work itself, appears veiy evident, 

 from the circumstance of his designating the dedication to Paul III. as 

 the Prcpfatio Anthoris.'" The first edition has only 196 leaves; the sec^ 

 oud 213, on account of the Narratio Prima of the astronomer George 

 Joachim Rhaeticus, and a letter addressed to Schoner, which, as I have 

 remarked in the text, was printed in 1541 by the intervention of the 

 mathematician Gassarus of Basle, and gave to the learned world the 

 first accurate knowledge of the Copernican system. Rhafjticus had re- 

 signed his pi'ofessional chair at Wittenberg, in order that he might 

 enjoy the instructions of Copernicus at Frauenburg itself. (Compare, 

 on these subjects, Gassendi, p. 310-319.) The explanation of what 

 Osiander was induced to add from timidity is given by Gassendi: "An- 

 dreas porro Osiander fuit, qui non modo operarum inspector (the su- 

 perintendent of the printing) fuit, sed Praefatiunculam quoque ad lee- 

 torem (tacito licet nomine) de Hypothesibus operis adhibuit. Ejus in 

 ea consilium fuit, ut, tametsi Copernicus Motum Terra? habuisset, non 

 solum pro Hypothesi, sed pro vero etiam placito, ipse tamen ad rem, ob 

 kJlos, qui hinc offenderentur, leniendam, excusatum eum faceret, quas» 

 talem motum non pro dogmate, sed pro Hypothesi mera assumpsisset.'^ 



