584 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



But Osiander's courage fails liim : lie dares not launch tlie 

 new thouglit boldly. He writes a groveling- preface, endeavoring 

 to excuse Copernicus for his novel idea, and in this he inserts the 

 apologetic lie that Copernicus propounds the doctrine of the 

 earth's movement not as a fact, but as a hypothesis ; he declares 

 that it is lawful for an astronomer to indulge his imagination, 

 and that this is what Copernicus has done. 



Thus was the greatest and most ennobling, perhaps, of scien- 

 tific truths^ — a truth not less ennobling to religion than to science 

 — forced in coming before the world to sneak and crawl.* 



On the 24th of May, 1543, the newly printed book arrived at 

 the house of Copernicus. It was put into his hands ; but he was 

 on his death-bed. A few hours later he was beyond the reach of 

 the conscientious men who would have blotted his reputation, 

 and perhaps have destroyed his life. 



Yet not wholly beyond their reach. Even death could not be 

 trusted to shield him. There seems to have been fear of ven- 

 geance upon his corpse, for on his tombstone was placed no record 

 of his life-long labors, no mention of his great discovery ; but 

 there was graven upon it simply a prayer : " I ask not the grace 

 accorded to Paul ; not that given to Peter ; give me only the favor 



The title is as follows : " Anti-Aiistarchus sive Orbis-TerrEe Immobilis in quo decretum S. 

 Con'»re"-ationis S. R. E. Cardinalium I.qC.XVI adversus Pythagorico-Copernicanos editum 

 defenditur, Antwerpias, MDCXXXI." L'Epinois, Galilee, Paris, 1867, lays stress, p. 14, 

 on the broaching of the doctrine by De Cusa, in 1435, and by Widmanstadt in 1533, 

 and their kind treatment by Eugenius IV and Clement VII, but this is absolutely worth- 

 less in denying the papal policy afterward. Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i, 

 pp. 217, 218, while admitting that De Cusa and Widmanstadt sustained this theory, and 

 received honors from their respective popes, shows that, when the Church gave it serious 

 consideration, it was condemned. There is nothing in this view unreasonable. It would 

 be a parallel case to that of Leo X, at first inclined toward Luther and others, in their 

 " squabbles with the begging friars," and afterward forced to oppose them. That Coper- 

 nicus felt the danger is evident, among other things, by the expression in the preface : 

 " Statim me explodendiim cum tali opinione damitant." For dangers at Wittenberg, see Lange, 

 Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i, p. 217. 



* Osiander, in a letter to Copernicus, dated April 20, 1541, had endeavored to reconcile 

 him to such a procedure, and ends by saying, " Sic enim placidiores reddideris peripatheticos 

 et theologos quos contradicturos nietuis." See Apologia Tychonis in Kepleri Opera Omnia, 

 Frisch's edition, vol. i, p. 246. Kepler holds Osiander entirely responsible for this preface. 

 Bertrand, in his Fondateurs de 1' Astronomic moderne, gives its text, and thinks it possible 

 that Copernicus may have yielded " in pure condescension toward his disciple." But this 

 idea is utterly at variance with expressions in Copernicus's own dedicatory letter to the 

 Pope, which follows the preface. For a good summary of the argument, see Figtiier, 

 Savants de la Renaissance, pp. 378, 379 ; see, also, citation from Gassendi's Life of Coper- 

 nicus, in Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, p. 124. Mr. John Fiske, accurate as he usually is, 

 in his Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, appears to have followed Laplace, Delambre, and 

 Petit into the error of supposing that Copernicus, and not Osiander, is responsible for the 

 preface. For the latest proofs, sec Menzer's translation of Copernicus's work. Thorn, 1879, 

 notes on pp. 3 and 4 of the appendix. 



