g 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
worthless 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 envious
friars," and afterward forced to oppose them. That Copernicus felt
the danger, is evident, among other things, by the expression in the
preface: "Statim me explodendum cum tali opinione clamitant." For
dangers at Wittenberg, see Lange, as above, vol. i, p. 217.

But Osiander's courage failed him: he dared not launch the new thought
boldly. He wrote a grovelling preface, endeavouring to excuse Copernicus
for his novel idea, and in this he inserted the apologetic lie that
Copernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth's movement not as
a fact, but as a hypothesis. He declared that it was lawful for an
astronomer to indulge his imagination, and that this was what Copernicus
had done.

Thus was the greatest and most ennobling, perhaps, of scientific
truths--a truth not less ennobling to religion than to science--forced,
in coming before the world, to sneak and crawl.(46)

(46) 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 metuis." See Apologia Tychonis in Kepler's Opera Omnia,
Frisch's edition, vol. i, p. 246. Kepler holds Osiander entirely
responsible for this preface. Bertrand, in his Fondateurs de
l'astronomie 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 Figuier, Savants de la Renaissance, pp.
378, 379; see also citation from Gassendi's Life of Copernicus, in
Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, p. 124. Mr. John Fiske, accurate as
he usually is, in his Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy appears to h