But this is not correct. The sun, like the earth, revolves
round the central fire. We do not see the central fire because
that side of the earth on which we live is perpetually turned
away from it. This involves the theory that the earth re-
volves round the central fire in the same period that it takes
to rotate upon its axis. The Pythagoreans were the first to
see that the earth is itself one of the planets, and to shake
themselves free from the geocentric hypothesis. Round the
central fire, sometimes mystically called “the Hearth of the
Universe,” revolve ten bodies. First is the “counter-earth,”
a non-existent body invented by the Pythagoreans, next
comes the earth, then the sun, the moon, the five planets,
and lastly the heaven of the fixed stars. This curious system
might have borne fruit in astronomy. That it did not do so
was largely due to the influence of Aristotle, who discounte-
nanced the theory, and insisted that the earth is the centre
of the universe. But in the end the Pythagorean view won
the day. We know that Copernicus derived the suggestion
of his heliocentric hypothesis from the Pythagoreans.
{39}
The Pythagoreans also taught “The Great Year,” probably
a period of 10,000 years, in which the world comes into
being and passes away, going in each such period through
the same evolution down to the smallest details.
There is little to be said by way of criticism of the
Pythagorean system. It is entirely crude philosophy. The
application of the number theory issues in a barren and
futile arithmetical mysticism. Hegel’s words in this con-
nection are instructive:—
“We may certainly,” he says, “feel ourselves prompted to
associate the most general characteristics of thought with
the first numbers: saying one is the simple and immediate,
two is difference and mediation, and three the unity of both
these. Such associations however are purely external; there
is nothing in the mere numbers to make them express these
definite thoughts. With every step in this method, the more
arbitrary grows the association of definite numbers with
definite thoughts ... To attach, as do some secret societies
of modern times, importance to all sorts of numbers and
figures is, to some extent an innocent amusement, but it
is also a sign of deficiency of intellectual resource. These
numbers, it is said, conceal a profound meaning, and sug-
gest a deal to think about. But the point in philosophy is
not what you may think but what you do think; and the
genuine air of thought is to be sought in thought itself and
not in arbitrarily selected symbols.” [Footnote 3]
[Footnote 3: Hegel’sSmaller Logic, translated by Wallace,
second edition, page 198.]
{40}