PYTHAGOREAN PHILOLAUS PYROCENTRIC UNIVERSE:

ITS SIGNIFICANCE AND CONTRIBUTION

TO ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS

YIORGO N. MANIATIS
Hellenic Open University
ymani@tellas.gr

ABSTRACT. In this work, first, I reexamine the pyrocentric universe of the Pythagorean, Philolaus, who emphatically propounded that the center of the cosmos is neither the earth nor
the sun, but a central fiery hearth that stands in the middle of the spherical universe. Second,
I attempt to demonstrate the value and significance of this pyrocentric cosmic model by
elaborating its novel revolutionary elements and its contribution to astronomy. Third, by
underlining the diachroneity and timeliness of this cosmic model, I try to establish as to how
the model served as a precursor to not only the ancient and modern heliocentric models, as
widely believed, but also as much to the contemporary cosmic models and theories of astrophysics.
KEYWORDS. Philolaus, Pythagoreanism, cosmology, universe, astronomy, astrophysics

Introduction

Pythagoreans were the first, in the history of philosophy and science, to conceive
that the earth does not form the center of the universe, but is an orbiting planet, a
fact that is closer to the scientific truth. However, most of the historical accounts of
science today wrongly project that astronomical revolution started from the 17th century onwards with the Copernican Revolution, by pioneers like Copernicus, Brahe,
Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and others. Only when there is a reference to other associated ancient Greeks, the names of a few astronomers such as Aristarchus and
Ptolemy are mentioned. The true pioneers of the astronomical revolution Pythagoreans and the other Presocratics find little or no mention in these accounts.
Vol. 3. 2 (2009) 401415
www.nsu.ru/classics/schole

Yiorgo Maniatis, 2009

402

Philolaus Pyrocentric Universe

To set the facts right, in this work, first, I reexamine the pyrocentric universe of the
Pythagorean, Philolaus, who emphatically propounded that the center of the cosmos is
neither the earth nor the sun, but a central fiery hearth that stands in the middle of the
spherical universe. Second, I attempt to demonstrate the value and significance of this
pyrocentric cosmic model by elaborating its novel revolutionary elements and its contribution to astronomy. Third, by underlining the diachroneity and timeliness of this
cosmic model, I try to establish as to how the model served as a precursor to not only
the ancient and modern heliocentric models, as widely believed, but also as much to
the contemporary cosmic models and theories of astrophysics.
Philolaus Pyrocentric Universe: The Central Fiery Hearth
For an accurate reconstruction of the Philolaic cosmological system, one has to rely
only on two genuine fragments and a few testimonia, as is usually the tragic case
with all the Presocratics. The fragments that describe the cosmogony of Philolaus are
B7 and B17. 1 In B7, Philolaus asserted that the cosmos begins first with the harmonizing and fitting together ( ) within the middle of the spherical
universe ( ), which is the central hearth (). In B17,
he regarded the universe as an ordered unity ( ) that came to be at the
middle ( ), and that it expanded and developed
symmetrically around the middle, both upwards and downwards, thus implying that
it is a sphere as affirmed in B7, with two similar but reversed hemispheres. Philolaus
was perhaps influenced by Parmenides 2 cosmic well-rounded sphere which is from
the center equally balanced in every direction, or by Empedocles 3 cosmic Sphairos
under the reign of Love. From the testimonia, it can be inferred that this hearth, in
the center of the universe, is a central fire.
Additionally, in fragment B1, Philolaus maintained that the harmonizing and
fitting together of the ordered cosmos involves both unlimiteds and limiters (
), while in B6, he argued that for the cosmos to come into being, the unlimited and the limiters need to
be first harmonized and fitted together. The unlimiteds () are continua
without limit, such as water, air, or fire, which were used by other Presocratics as
the first material cosmic principles. The limiters () are things that set
the limits in a continuum, such as shapes or forms. These first principles are fitted
together in a mathematical harmony. One can infer from B7 that fire is the unlimited element, and the center of the cosmic sphere is the limiter, in which fire is
placed, thus, making fire limited. Thus, the unlimited and the limiter got harmonized and fitted together as the cosmos. Further, according to Aristotle, 4 after the
1

DK 44.
DK 28 B8.43-44.
3
DK 31 B28, B29.
4
Aristotle, Metaphysics 1091a15.
2

Yiorgo N. Maniatis / Vol. 3. 2 (2009) 401415

403

first unity of the central fire, the next part of the cosmogony was for the closest
part of the unlimited to be immediately drawn in and limited by the limit (
). Furthermore,
Aristotle 5 also claimed that a series of three unlimiteds were brought in from the
unlimited outside the cosmic sphere: time, breath, and void (
). Philolaus, who seemed to follow the
usual Presocratic cosmological picture, first envisaged that the spherical cosmos
with a central fire at its center is surrounded by an unlimited expanse, outside the
spherical universe, from which the central fire drew in the three unlimited elements of time, breath, and void, to continue further construction of the cosmos.
Thus, according to Philolaus cosmogony, the interaction of the hot central fire
with the cold breath, which seems to cool the cosmos, leads to the generation of
the other materials of the cosmos, such as water and earth. Some pieces of the central fire may have been separated, from which, perhaps, the remaining heavenly
bodies the earth, the moon, the planets, the sun, and the stars were formed.
Aristotle believed that the void served to divide the places occupied by all the individual things created in space ( ). And
time is most likely to serve the function of setting the temporal measures of all cyclical periods and revolutions of all heavenly bodies. 6
However, to construct a fuller picture of the Philolaic pyrocentric universe, one
must also take into account the genuine testimonia DK 44: A16, A17, A19, 7 A20, A21,
A22; DK 58: B37, B37a; and Aristotles F203, which provide additional evidence about
Philolaus cosmological and astronomical system. According to these testimonia, Philolaus universe is pyrocentric, that is, there is a central fire in the middle of the spherical cosmos, the fiery hearth, around which all the ten heavenly bodies are dancing in
ten homocentric circles (16:
). Beginning from the inside of the
sphere, in the first circle around the central fire lies the counter-earth, in the second
lies the earth, in the third lies the moon, in the fourth lies the sun, in the fifth up to the
ninth circles lie the five known planets of antiquity in no specified order, and in the
tenth, the outermost circle, lie the fixed stars (16: , , ,
, , ). The earth moves around the central fire in an inclined circle, in the same way as the sun and the moon (A21:
( ) ).
This probably indicates that the rest of the bodies also move in the same inclined circles around the center, from west to east, as the earth. The earth completes its revolution around the central fire in 24 hours. The moon completes its revolution in about a
month, because its day is 15 times that of an earth day (A20:
), and its night correspondingly 15 times that of an
5

Aristotle, F201; cf. also Physics 213b22.

See also Huffman 1993, 203-215; 2008, 14-15.
7
Cf. also Achilles, Isagoga excerpta 19 (46, 13 Maass).
6

404

Philolaus Pyrocentric Universe

earth night. The sun completes its revolution in a year of 364 days (A22: Philolaus
annum naturalem dies habere prodidit CCCLXIIII et dimidiatum). The rest of the
planets have their own revolution periods, whose number increase with their proximity to the periphery of the sphere. This indicates that the counter-earth and the
earth, which move closer to the central fire, have the fastest motions. The other bodies
that move farther from the central fire have slower motions; the farther they are the
slower are their motions. Thus, the fixed stars have the slowest motion. The counterearth always remains and moves opposite to the earth, as denoted by its name ( +
) (17: ; B37:
), in such a way that the
inhabited side of the earth is always turned away from it; hence, one can never see the
counter-earth (B37:
; A17: ; F203:
). In addition, one can never see the central fire
also, because as the earth rotates once on its axis around the center, its inhabited side
always remains turned away from both the counter-earth and the central fire. Furthermore, the central fire remains hidden from the earth owing to the intervening
counter-earth. This also implies that the revolution speed of the counter-earth must be
identical to that of the earth. 8
At the periphery of the spherical universe, Philolaus asserted that there is another
fire at the uppermost place surrounding the entire cosmos (A16:
), referring obviously to the fixed stars that are fiery. Thus, in the
universe, all light and heat comes mainly from the central fire at the middle, which is
the demiurgic force that generates life, light, and heat on all heavenly bodies (B37:

), as well as from the fiery fixed stars at the periphery, which transmit
their light and heat to all other heavenly bodies. In addition, the sun, which is a bodylike glass, receives this cosmic light and heat reflected by the central fire and the fixed
stars, strains it, and transmits it to the earth and other heavenly bodies (A19:
, ,
). However, the earth cannot receive its light directly
from the central fire, because of the intervening counter-earth. Thus, the earth receives
its light from the sun, which in turn receives it from both the central fire and the fiery
fixed stars. Furthermore, the earth has its day and night depending on its position relative to the sun: it is day when the earth faces the sun and night when it moves away
from the sun (B37:
,
).
Philolaus also considered 59 years as a great year (A22: est et Philolai Pythagorici
annus ex annis LIX), in which the lunar and solar cycles were reconciled. 9 This
8
9

See also Huffman 2003, 243-254; 2008, 16-19.

Huffman 2008, 18.

Yiorgo N. Maniatis / Vol. 3. 2 (2009) 401415

405

great year may be related to the doctrine of the periodical return of all things that
Dicaearchus 10 assigned to the Pythagoreans, and perhaps also to the Pythagorean
doctrine of reincarnation. 11
So far, I tried to make an accurate reconstruction of Philolaus pyrocentric universe, based on the evidence drawn from the ancient fragments and testimonia. In the
subsequent parts of my paper, I am not interested in discussing some of the controversies raised about the Philolaic universe, because they do not contribute to my theme.
What comprises the main scope of my essay in the following sections is to show the
novel nature of the Philolaic pyrocentric universe, thereby attempting to prove its
great significance and contribution to the science of astronomy and astrophysics.
Value and Significance of Philolaus Pyrocentric Universe
By introducing the pyrocentric universe, Philolaus and the Pythagoreans were the
first to consider the earth as being away from its traditional central fixed position in
the universe and view it as a planet instead, which moves and orbits around a new
fiery cosmic center. Although, this novel pyrocentric system did not win universal
acclaim from contemporary scholars, it indeed was a revolutionary cosmic model
that significantly contributed to the development of astronomical science. Any revolutionary proposal made during the birth of any science is seldom fully appreciated,
as in the case of the scientific systems of many Presocratics, and therefore, the Philolaic pyrocentric universe will be evaluated against this backdrop.
In the realm of scholarly research, 12 in chronological order, some critics, such as
Frank, 13 Rehm Vogel, 14 Gundel, 15 Wiersma, 16 and van der Waerden, 17 being impressed with Philolaus who did not consider the earth as the cosmic center, and being influenced by the false analogy of Philolaus system to that of Copernicus, believed that Philolaus system was so advanced that it does not belong to a scientist of
the second half of the 5th century BCE such as Philolaus, but to some other scientist
of the 4th century BCE, who was wrongly identified by Wiersma and van der Waerden, as Hicetas. 18 On the other hand, Philip 19 considered that Philolaus was not a
10

See Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras 19.

See Riedweg 2005, 63.
12
For early accounts of Philolaus cosmology, also see A. Boeckh, Philolaus des Pythagoreers Lehren nebst den Bruchstchen seines Werkes (Berlin 1819); T. H. Martin, Hypothse astronomique de Philolaus, in Bolletino di bibliografia e di storia delle scienze matematiche e fisiche 5 (Rome 1872) 127-157; G. V. Schiaparelli, Die Vorlufer des Copernicus im
Alterthum, trans. F. M. Kurze (Leipzig 1876).
13
Frank 1923, 35ff., 207ff.
14
RehmVogel 1933, 47.
15
Gundel, RE XX, 2056f.
16
Wiersma 1942, 25ff.
17
van der Waerden 1951, 49ff., 54.
18
DK 50.
11

406

Philolaus Pyrocentric Universe

great thinker and that his interest was peripheral. He thought that his book was unscientific and without real understanding of the doctrines it reports. Dicks 20 and
Burkert 21 showed that the Philolaic system was not as sophisticated as the former
scholars thought, and that it had elements similar to those of other cosmological systems of the 5th century BCE, such as those of Empedocles and Anaxagoras. By asserting that Philolaus cosmology is not a scientific astronomy, but a mlange of
myth and , Burkert 22 went to the opposite extreme and considered it as
a mere mythology in scientific clothing, rather than an effort, in accord with scientific method, to save the phenomena. Accordingly, he drew a parallel between Philolaus system and that of Herodorus of Heraclea, who was an interpreter of myth in
the same era as that of Philolaus. He also linked the counter-earth to the widespread
folklore myth of a counter-world where everything is opposite of what is known
and related it to the realm of the dead. Similarly, von Fritz 23 unfairly criticized Philolaus system as a superficial conglomeration of heterogeneous elements and naive
speculation, not an attempt to find a deeper penetrating explanation of the phenomena. Refuting all these judgments as unfair, Barnes 24 rightly considered that Philolaus is a philosopher of some merit. He further asserted that his revolutionary
astronomy was admirable, and that despite the naive elements there are elements of bold originality, both in speculative science and in philosophy, such as the
significant discovery of Aristotelian form, which rendered a unique and important role to Philolaus in the development of philosophy. Later on, Furley 25 considered that Philolaus system, on the whole, had very little astronomical sense, and as
certain a priori features, like the existence of life on the moon (A20), appeared absurd to him, he concluded that the whole scheme lapses into fantasy. However,
other prominent 5th century BCE Presocratic rationalists, such as Anaxagoras 26 and
possibly Democritus, supported the existence of life on the moon, and there were
similar indications during the 4th century BCE as well. 27
Kingsley 28 also opined that the Philolaic system has religious and mythological
implication. Elaborating on this, he added that the counter-earth is linked to the
counter realm of the dead, the realm of Hades, and that the central fire is Tartarus,
which is below Hades. He further argued that Philolaus conceived these ideas by interpreting following the Homeric ideas that Hades and Tartarus are below the
earth. He also misinterpreted Aristotles account that the central fire was named
19

Philip 1966, 32, 116.

Dicks 1970, 65ff., 70, 72.
21
Burkert 1972, 337-350.
22
Burkert 1972, 342, 346-348, 350.
23
von Fritz 1973, 474.
24
Barnes 1982, 378, 383-384, 388, 391, 396.
25
Furley 1987, 58.
26
See DK 59 A77; D.L. II 8.
27
See Huffman 1993, 271-273; 2008, 18.
28
Kingsley 1995, 172-213.
20

Yiorgo N. Maniatis / Vol. 3. 2 (2009) 401415

407

(58 B37), by wrongly translating it as prison of Zeus, and used it as a proof

that the central fire must be finally Tartarus, the prison in which Zeus punished the
Titans and the humans. However, in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, did
not denote the prison, but the watch-tower of Zeus, the guard-house of Zeus; 29 and, as
the other testimonia of Simplicius and Aetius testify, the central fire was also named
as the tower of Zeus, the guard-house of Zeus, the throne of Zeus (58 B37:
), and the house of Zeus (44 A16: ).
Hence, from the possible religious and mythical implication in Philolaus cosmological system, as can be seen from these testimonia, as well as from the fact that Philolaus also called the central fire as hearth (), which is the religious center of the
house and the state, one must infer that Philolaus did not draw any parallel between
the central fire and any prison for punishment, but rather to the palace where Zeus
guarded his sacred fire in the center of the cosmos. 30 Kahn, 31 considering that Philolaus system is more of a symbolic speculation than scientific astronomy, claimed
that Philolaus did not make any important contribution to observational astronomy
or accurate theory.
In the most recent research, Huffman 32 aptly asserted that all these interpretations of Philolaus system, such as mythical, religious, or fantastical, are misguided.
He argued that Philolaus system was not solely of mythical or religious significance,
because other ancient thinkers, such as Aristotle, held that the system was consistent
with the phenomena. Huffman successfully showed that Philolaus was as much a
Presocratic as a Pythagorean, because his system, though not a mathematically sophisticated account of planetary motion, is clearly a product of traditional
Presocratic thought on the cosmos. Furthermore, despite some of its peculiarities,
such as the central fire and the counter-earth, he presumed that Philolaus system
satisfactorily explains the cosmos equally to the systems of other great Presocratics
such as Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus. He considered though Philolaus
system to be even more sophisticated than their systems, because it discovered the
correct order of the five known planets of antiquity. Thus, Huffman rightly concluded that it is in fact the most impressive example of Presocratic speculative astronomy and establishes Philolaus as an important precursor of Plato. 33
My thesis in this essay is that the Philolaic pyrocentric model of the universe is a
truly revolutionary cosmic model, although it remained overlooked. I argue that Philolaus pyrocentric universe is of great significance, because he and the Pythagoreans
were the only ancient Greek philosopher-scientists who, in the very beginning of the

29

See Plato, Protagoras 321d.

See also Huffman 2007; 2008, 19.
31
Kahn 1974, 180; 2001, 26-30.
32
Huffman 1993, xiii-xiv, 202-288; 2007, 57-94; 2008, 14-19.
33
See also Furley 1987, 60, who similarly asserted that the Pythagorean School was the
precursor of Platos cosmology, and that this was the reason why Plato chose the name of the
Pythagorean Timaeus for his sole cosmological dialogue.
30

408

Philolaus Pyrocentric Universe

scientific era in ancient Greece, came remarkably close to the scientific truth about
the cosmic reality than the rest of the philosophers and scientists, not only of the ancient but also of the medieval and early modern times. This is because Philolaus and
the Pythagoreans did not adopt in their cosmology either the usual geocentric cosmic model a model adopted almost by the entire ancient Greek philosophic and
scientific tradition, and followed throughout the medieval times until the Copernican Revolution in the 17th century , or the heliocentric cosmic model a model
adopted by Aristarchus of Samos later in the Hellenistic era and readopted by Copernicus in the modern era , but a pyrocentric cosmic model that indeed had significant novel and revolutionary elements, which I will try to show next.
Among the significant innovations of Philolaus was that he was the first philosopher-scientist who explored the role of the spherical structure of the universe with
the symmetrical notions of up and down. Even more important was the fact that he
was the first to combine the structural elements of the limiters the center of the
spherical universe with the traditional material elements of the unlimited
fire , and to consider both as the first principles of the cosmos. Thus, the fact that
the central fire is in the center of a spherical cosmos is just as important as that it is
fiery. 34 Earlier Presocratics believed that the cosmos originated from a material
starting point, such as Thales water, Anaximanders unlimited, Anaximenes air,
Heraclitus fire, but none of them specified the location of their material starting
point. This was first carried out by Philolaus who placed fire in the center of the universe, thus, exploring the consequences of the cosmogonys spherical shape, and justifying why the fiery material starting point of the world should be in the center. 35
Furthermore, Philolaus was the first to attribute spherical shapes to both the earth
and the heavenly bodies. Additionally, he and the Pythagoreans, according to Eudemus, 36 assigned for the first time the correct order of the positions of the five known
planets in antiquity: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
Philolaus was again the first to emphasize the cyclical motions of the heavenly
bodies around a center, and to conceive that the planets closest to the center have the
fastest motions. He also distinguished the planets from the fixed stars, but attributed
motion to the fixed stars too, besides attributing orbits to the planets that are inside
the outer sphere of the fixed stars. Philolaus also explained that the alternation of day
and night is due to the revolution of the earth around the central fire, which takes
place in the correct time-period of 24 hours. He clearly alluded to the existence of
extraterrestrial life on the moon and the counter-earth, a research subject which
evokes great interest and enthusiasm in contemporary astrophysical science. In addition, Philolaus and the Pythagoreans conceived a cyclical time and a cyclical motion
for all the heavenly bodies around the center of the universe. This led them to the
theory of the periodical return of all things, where after each great year all the
34

Huffman 1993, 214-215.

Huffman 2007, 89-90.
36
Eudemus, F146 = Simplicius, Commentarius in De Caelo, 471, 4 = DK 12 A19.
35

Yiorgo N. Maniatis / Vol. 3. 2 (2009) 401415

409

events in the universe are repeated cyclically for eternity. Also, by applying mathematics to the physical world, Philolaus conceived that the cosmos is mathematically
structured. By considering all the heavenly bodies of the cosmos in terms of numbers
and shapes, which exhibit special ratios as in music, Philolaus proposed the famous
theory of the harmony of the spheres. Thus, Philolaus and the Pythagoreans were
the first to perceive the kosmos in tune with its etymology, as an aesthetic adornment
with perfect mathematical and harmonious orderliness. Interestingly, the concept of
Philolaus that all heavenly bodies in the cosmos were most probably separated off
and expanded from the central fire is in tune with the contemporary astrophysical
theory of the Big Bang, which asserts something similar.
The most revolutionary contribution of Philolaus, though, was that he and the Pythagoreans were the only ancient Greek philosopher-scientists along with Aristarchus who rejected the traditional geocentric system, which continued to be followed wrongly for thousands of years before and after them, and replaced it with a
novel pyrocentric one. Their doctrine that the earth was just another planet moving
around a center of the universe other than around itself, though considered outrageous by the ancient scholars, was indeed revolutionary, regardless of it being familiar
to all today. The earth was considered incorrectly as the center of the cosmos for thousands of years, most likely out of respect for the mother-goddess Earth (), and also
because this cosmic picture saved the phenomena. Hence, anybody venturing to propose a different cosmic model was vulnerable to be accused of impiety and atheism.
However, the reason for Philolaus to reject the traditional geocentric model, and
instead, adopt a pyrocentric one remains conjectural, because unfortunately there
are no recorded statements of Philolaus. Perhaps, as Aristotle 37 testified, the Pythagoreans visualized the earth as not being the center, because they considered fire
as the most honorable of all elements ( ), which they
presumed deserves to be placed at the center of the universe the most honorable
and significant part of the cosmos and guarded more than any (

). Perhaps, Philolaus adopted the concept of
central fire from Heraclitus , 38 who was the first to consider the everliving fire as the primary substance of the universe. Or, perhaps, Philolaus adopted
it from his older Pythagorean, Hippasus, 39 who also regarded fire as the cosmic principle, or even from Parmenides, 40 who considered the central fire as a feature of his
cosmology, though as an obscure and vague one. 41
Nevertheless, the most important fact is that the basic premise of Philolaus theory was proven to be scientifically accurate: the earth is an orbiting planet and not
37

Aristotle, De Caelo B13 293a30-b2 = DK 58 B37.

DK 22 B30.
39
DK 18, 7.
40
DK 28 A37.
41
See KRS 1983, 259, 344.
38

410

Philolaus Pyrocentric Universe

the center of the universe. And this fact alone is of unique significance and is a great
contribution to the development of astronomical science.
Precursor of Modern Astronomy and Contemporary Astrophysics
By rejecting the geocentric system, Philolaus did not adopt the heliocentric system
either. However, there has been some misunderstanding on this issue regarding a
false association between Philolaus and Copernicus, perhaps, at the instance of Copernicus himself. In ancient Greece, there were only two scientists who rejected the
traditional geocentric system: Philolaus was the first one in the 5th century BCE,
who replaced it with a pyrocentric system, and Aristarchus of Samos was the second
one in the 3rd century BCE in the Hellenistic era, who replaced it with a heliocentric
system. Unfortunately, both these novel cosmological systems were not accepted
either by the common Greek people or the famous Greek philosophers and scientists, such as Plato, Eudoxus, Callippus, Aristotle, Apollonius, Hipparchus, Ptolemy,
as the traditional geocentric system was too deep-rooted to be abandoned. Therefore, the geocentric system unfortunately continued to hold sway for more than 2000
years through the medieval times up to the early modern times.
Nevertheless, in the modern era, Copernicus was the first scientist to have been
deeply dissatisfied with the traditional geocentric cosmological model. Therefore, he
reported in his work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, 42 published in the
year of his death, 1543, that he found in (pseudo-) Plutarch 43 about Philolaus 44 who
held that the earth moved in a circle and was one of the planets, and hence, he
immediately started to meditate on the mobility of the earth. Thus, Copernicus
considered Philolaus as his precursor, but ignored the fact that Philolaus system was
pyrocentric, and not heliocentric, as his system. He seemed to be concerned only
about the mobility of the earth, and not about Philolaus system considering fire as
the center of the universe, as against the sun, which he considered to be the center of
the universe. 45 And this misunderstanding led the Copernican heliocentric system to
be originally known as astronomia Pythagorica or Philolaica. 46 Besides misunderstanding Philolaus system as heliocentric, Copernicus ignored his real precursor,
Aristarchus, who first asserted, as Copernicus did later, that the sun is at the center
of the universe and that the earth is a planet orbiting around the sun. Even though
he knew of Aristarchus, he consistently concealed this knowledge, considering that

42

Copernicus, Preface, I. 5.
DK 44 A21 = Aetius III, 13, 1.2 (D. 378).
44
Copernicus, I. 5, also mentioned Hicetas, Ecphantus, and Heraclides of Pontus among
the ancient scientists, who also claimed that the earth moved around its axis, but they placed
it traditionally at the center of the cosmos without considering it as a planet.
45
Cf. Huffman 2007, 57-58.
46
See Martin 1872, 128f.; Schiaparelli 1876, 17ff.; Burkert 1972, 337.
43

Yiorgo N. Maniatis / Vol. 3. 2 (2009) 401415

411

Aristarchus was no radical innovator, but a link with the supposed master of all true
astronomy, Pythagoras of Samos. 47
Regardless of all these issues, it is important to note that Philolaus adopted a totally novel pyrocentric system that was more sophisticated in so far as the cosmic
center is concerned. Thus, in one way, Philolaus can be considered as the precursor of heliocentrism, as both Aristarchus and Copernicus rejected geocentricism
and adopted his view of the mobile earth as a planet. However, at the same time,
Philolaus cannot be considered as a real precursor of heliocentrism, because his
pyrocentric model was more sophisticated than the heliocentric one, as it has been
scientifically proven that the sun is not after all the center of the universe, thus,
finally proving that Aristarchus and Copernicus were both wrong. It is true that
some ancient Greek geocentric cosmic models, such as those of the aforementioned philosophers and scientists, as well as both the ancient and the modern heliocentric cosmic models of Aristarchus and Copernicus, were more sophisticated
than Philolaus model, in that they explained the motions of the planets and other
astronomical phenomena in better way. However, Philolaus system is more sophisticated than all of them with regard to the cosmic center. By rejecting both the
earth and the sun as being the centers of the cosmos, he was the first to come
closer to the scientific truth, namely, that both the earth and the sun are mobile
bodies in the heaven. Furthermore, he proposed an unobservable fire as the center
of the universe, and that all the known heavenly bodies of his epoch orbit around
it. Thus, to consider Philolaus as the precursor of heliocentrism is both right and
wrong: right, because in heliocentrism, the geocentricism was rejected, and the sun
is considered as a fiery body; wrong, because he envisioned the sun as a mobile
body orbiting fourth around the central fire, thus, offering a much more sophisticated theory closer to the scientific truth, which surpassed heliocentrism even before it was proposed by Aristarchus, 150 years later. Hence, the pyrocentric model
of Philolaus and the Pythagoreans is a pioneering and significant contribution to
astronomy, in that they first envisioned accurately that the universe is neither geocentric nor heliocentric, and that the earth and the sun are merely two heavenly
bodies orbiting around a central fire.
However, the greatest significance of this pyrocentric model, according to my
thesis in this paper, is that it is the precursor of models and theories of contemporary
astrophysical science as well. Today, contemporary astrophysics denies the notion, at
least till date, that the universe has a center somewhere where the Big Bang started.
This is explained by the fact that the Big Bang could not have happened at any specific place in the universe, simply because there was no universe before the Big Bang,
and its explosion was not a conventional explosion expanding from a central point,
but an explosion of space and time, expanding uniformly in all directions. 48 Nevertheless, even though scientists could not establish, up to now, whether the universe
47
48

Africa 1961, 406.

See Gibbs 1997.

412

Philolaus Pyrocentric Universe

had a center, Philolaus pyrocentric model is still timely and diachronic, in the sense
that it forms the core of many contemporary astrophysical theories and models,
which I will attempt to show next, being thus still valid, to a certain extent, in the
passing of time.
If one observes the structural models of many cosmological phenomena and
heavenly bodies within the universe, according to contemporary astrophysics, one
can discover that they all have a similar pyrocentric nature. For example, if one studies the nature and the structure of the smallest heavenly bodies, such as the planets
and their moons, it can be observed that they all form material spheres that have
fiery centers, which are remnants that originate from the primordial cosmic fire of
the Big Bang, to which they owe their pyrocentric nature. Subsequently, if one observes the solar systems, in the next level of the cosmic scale, then it can be seen
again that they all have fiery stars at their centers, around which all the planets and
moons of the solar systems move in orbits that are ellipses of generally low eccentricity, which are again remnants that originate from the primordial cosmic fire of the
Big Bang, to which they owe their pyrocentric nature. Going further up to the higher
level of the cosmos, if one observes the nature and the structure of the galaxies, it can
be seen once again that they also have fiery centers in the middle, with such great
densities of fiery astral matter that usually show up as black holes, around which all
nebulae, stars, planets, moons, and all other celestial bodies within each galaxy move
again in orbits that are ellipses of generally low eccentricity, , which are again remnants that originate from the primordial cosmic fire of the Big Bang, to which they
owe their pyrocentric nature.
Moving further up the cosmic scale, if one observes the structure of the area that
the scientists now call the Local Universe our local region within the entire cosmos it can be seen again that a gigantic fiery astral area, called the Great Attractor, remains inside it, which somehow acts as its fiery center. The theory of the
Great Attractor 49 was discovered in the 1980s, by a group of astrophysicists, called
the seven samurai, 50 who studied the topography of the universe. The Great Attractor has the largest gravitationally bound concentration of the fiery astral mass. It is a
gigantic filamentary or wall structure with a huge density of tens of thousands of
older galaxies and clusters, many of which collide among themselves, and has a diameter of about 300 million light-years. It is centered behind the galactic plane in the
direction of the Hydra and Centaurus constellations in the southern sky, lying at a
distance of between 150 and 250 million light-years from our Milky Way. It has been
observed that all the other adjacent superclusters and clusters of the galaxies within
our Local Universe, including the Milky Way, the solar system, and the earth, are
gravitationally attracted and keep moving towards the Great Attractor with enor49

See Dressler 1995.

The following astrophysicists comprised the group seven samurai who discovered the
theory of the Great Attractor: D. Burstein, R. Davies, A. Dressler, S.M. Faber, D. Lynden-Bell,
R.J. Terlevich, and G.A. Wegner.
50

Yiorgo N. Maniatis / Vol. 3. 2 (2009) 401415

413

mous velocities, which then appears to act as a sort of fiery center within our Local
Universe. This hotter gigantic area of denser concentration of mass is not amenable
to observation, like Philolaus central fire, as it lies in the zone of avoidance, that is,
in that region of the night sky that remains obscured by the Milky Way galaxy. Thus,
the Great Attractor can be observed only by its gravitational effect on the motion of
the superclusters and clusters of the galaxies over the region of hundreds of millions
of light-years across our Local Universe. 51
Recent research has indicated an even greater concentration of mass behind the
Great Attractor, the Shapley Supercluster, lying 500 million light-years away, which
contains the most massive association of galaxies and clusters in the Local Universe,
attracting and pulling the Local Universe towards it, including perhaps, the Great
Attractor itself. 52 However, it is not yet clear whether it is the Great Attractor or the
Shapley Supercluster, or perhaps both, which attract the Local Universe. Nevertheless, the most significant finding is that the Local Universe is attracted and moved
towards both of them, which then seem to act as a kind of fiery center within it. And
furthermore, if this cosmic phenomenon happens to our Local Universe and appears
as a kind of fiery center within it, then it might as well happen to the other Local
Universes with their own Great Attractors, as they follow uniform structures like our
Local Universe within the entire cosmos, originating all from the primordial cosmic
fire of the Big Bang, to which they owe their pyrocentric nature.
Finally, if one also observes the origin and the beginning of the universe, it can be
seen again that it was a Big Bang of an inconceivable gigantic fiery explosion of space
and time, which generated the entire expanding universe with all its evolving life. And
this theory, of course, is similar, to a certain extent, to the Philolaic origin and beginning of the universe that started out of a central fire which generated all the cosmos.
Hence, as we see the universe follows a rather pyrocentric pattern in the formations and structures of its cosmic phenomena, from its smallest to the largest structure, that is, from its planets, solar systems, and galaxies, up to its Local Universes, all
of them appearing to have a similar pyrocentric structure with a fiery center of
denser and hotter astral matter in the middle, which originates from the primordial
cosmic fire of the Big Bang. And this, of course, indicates that the Pythagorean and
Philolaic pyrocentric cosmic model is also a precursor of contemporary astrophysics,
and thus still has the value of diachroneity and timeliness, which further proves its
significant contribution to contemporary science as well.
Scientists have not yet discovered any center of the universe, and most deny that
there is one. If the theory that the cosmos follows an eternal circle of Big Bangs and
Big Crunches is finally valid, then this might signify the existence of a cosmic center,
where the universe possibly originates as a Big Bang and perishes as a Big Crunch in
its eternal circles. However, most importantly, it should be noted that scientists have
not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a center for the universe on larger
51
52

See Kraan-Korteweg, Lahav 2000.

See Kocevski, Ebeling 2006; Kocevski, Ebeling, Mullis, Tully 2007.

414

Philolaus Pyrocentric Universe

scales beyond the observable universe. 53 So, who knows? One day we may finally discover that the universe has after all a center, possibly a fiery center, following the
usual pyrocentric pattern that we observe everywhere in the cosmos, and whose pioneer precursor was Philolaus and the Pythagoreans.
Bibliography
Africa T. W. (1961) Copernicus Relation to Aristarchus and Pythagoras, Isis 52.3, 403-409
Barnes J. (21982) The Presocratic Philosophers (London)
Burkert W. (1972) Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, trans. E. L. Minar, Jr.
(Cambridge, M. A.)
Copernicus N. (1939) On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, trans. C. G. Wallis
(Chicago)
Dicks D. R. (1970) Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle (Ithaca, N. Y.)
Diels H., Kranz W. (DK) (61951-1952) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Berlin)
Dressler A. (1995) Voyage to the Great Attractor: Exploring Intergalactic Space (Vintage)
Frank E. (1923) Plato und die sogenannten Pythagoreer: Ein Kapitel aus der Geschichte des
griechischen Geistes (Halle)
Fritz K., von (1973) Philolaus, Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft suppt.
13, 453484
Furley D. (1987) The Greek Cosmologists (Cambridge)
Gibbs F. (1997) Where is the Centre of the Universe?,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Gundel H. G., Planeten, Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft XX, 2017
2185
Huffman C. A. (1993) Philolaus of Croton: Pythagorean and Presocratic (Cambridge)
Huffman C. A. (2007) Philolaus and the Central Fire, in Stern-Gillet S., K. Corrigan, eds.
Reading Ancient Texts, Volume I: Presocratics and Plato, Essays in Honour of Denis
O Brien (Leiden) 5794
Huffman C. A. (2008) Philolaus, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philolaus
Kahn C. H. (1993) Pythagorean Philosophy Before Plato, in Mourelatos A. P. D., ed.
The Pre-Socratics (Princeton) 161185
Kahn C. H. (2001) Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History (Indianapolis)
Kingsley P. (1995) Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean
Tradition (Oxford)
Kirk G. S., Raven J. E., Schofield M. (KRS) (21983) The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge)
Kocevski D. D., Ebeling H. (2006) On the Origin of the Local Group's Peculiar Velocity,
The Astrophysical Journal 645.2, 10431053
Kocevski D.D., Ebeling H., Mullis C.R., Tully R.B. (2007) A Systematic X-Ray Search for
Clusters of Galaxies behind the Milky Way. II. The Second CIZA Subsample, The
Astrophysical Journal 662.1, 224235
Kraan-Korteweg R.C., Lahav O. (2000) The Universe behind the Milky Way, The
Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 10.3, 211261
Philip J.A. (1966) Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism (Toronto)

53

See Gibbs 1997.

Yiorgo N. Maniatis / Vol. 3. 2 (2009) 401415

415

Rehm A., Vogel K. (1933) Exakte Wissenschaften, Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft

II 54 (Leipzig)
Riedweg C. (2005) Pythagoras: His Life, Teaching, and Influence (Ithaca / London)
van der Waerden B. L. (1951) Die Astronomie der Pythagoreer, Verh. d. kon. Ned. Ak. v.
Wet. Afd. Natuurk. I 20.1 (Amsterdam)
Wiersma W. (1942) Die Fragmente des Philolaos und das sogenannte philolaische
Weltsystem, Mnemosyne 3.10, 2332