---

While heliocentrism (at least in the West) is generally attributed to Pythagoras of Samos (c. 569–c. 475 B.C.), prime sources in support of that attribution are nonextant.¹ The first, essential (but nonetheless sophistical) heliocentric model (although again, not based on prime sources) is historically attributed to Aristarchus of Samos (c. 310–c. 230 B.C.). In reference to Aristarchus of Samos, Archimedes (c. 287–212 B.C.) writes:

[…] Now you [King Gelon] are aware that ‘universe’ is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere whose centre is the centre of the earth and whose radius is equal to the straight line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the earth. This is the common account (τὰ γραφόμενα), as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus of Samos brought out a book consisting of some hypotheses, in which the premisses lead to the result that the universe is many times greater than now so called. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun in the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same centre as the sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the centre of the sphere bears to its surface. Now it is easy to see that this is impossible; for, since the centre of the sphere has no magnitude, we cannot conceive it to bear any ratio whatsoever to the surface of the sphere. We must however take Aristarchus to mean this: since we conceive the earth to be, as it were, the centre of the universe, the ratio which the earth bears to what we describe as the ‘universe’ is the same as the ratio which the sphere containing the circle in which he supposes the earth to revolve bears to the sphere of the fixed stars. For he adapts the proofs of his result to a hypothesis of this kind, and in particular he appears to suppose the magnitude of the sphere in which he represents the earth as moving to be equal to what we call the ‘universe.’²

Indeed, Sir Thomas Heath sums up Aristarchus of Samos and heliocentrism rather definitively, stating:

There is not the slightest doubt that Aristarchus was the first to put forward the heliocentric hypothesis. Ancient testimony is unanimous on the point, and the first witness is Archimedes [see above], who was a younger contemporary of Aristarchus, so there was no possibility of mistake. Copernicus himself admitted that the theory was attributed to Aristarchus, though this does not seem to be generally known.^3,4

In terms of Copernicus’ reference to Aristarchus of Samos (Aristarchum Samium), the footnote to line 19 of the following excerpt from the 1873 edition of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium should clarify the matter (in Latin followed by English):

[14] […] Quam ob causam [15] crediderunt aliqui, stellarum quoque fixarum sphaeram moveri, quibus [16] idcirco nona sphaera superior placuit; quae dum non sufficeret, nunc [17] recentiores decimam superaddunt, nedum tamen finem assecuti, quem [18] speramus ex motu terrae nos consecuturos, quo tamquam principio [19] et hypothesi utemur demonstrationibus aliorum.^5,6

The footnote reference to Aristarchus reads as follows:

[…] 19. Hunc versum sequuntur in Ms. paginae duae et dimidia obliteratae atramento pernigro, quibus Copernicus primo libro finem imponere in mente habuerat. Capita XII–XIV cum Canone subtensarum initio secundum librum effecerunt, quem partim delendo, partim contrahendo primo libro adiunxit. Quae a Copernico deleta sunt hic subiungere placuit:
     Et si fateamur solis lunaeque cursum in immobilitate quoque terrae demonstari posse, in caeteris vero errantibus minus congruit. Credibile est hisce similibusque causis Philolaum mobilitatem terrae sensisse, quod etiam nonnulli Aristarchum Samium ferunt in eadum fuisse sententia, non illa rationi moti, quam allegat reprobatque Aristoteles.⁷ […]

An English translation of the corresponding text (i.e., lines 14–19 as quoted above) reads as follows:

[…] For this reason some people believed that the sphere of the fixed stars also moves, and accordingly they adopted a surmounting ninth sphere. This having proved inadequate, more recent writers now add on a tenth sphere. Yet they do in the least attain their goal, which I hope to reach by the earth’s motion. This I shall use as a principle and hypothesis in the demonstration of the other [motions].⁸

An English translation of the corresponding footnote reference to Aristarchus of Samos reads as follows (with an annotation concerning the former four editions and latter three editions of Revolutions):

[Here Copernicus originally planned to include a little more than two handwritten pages which he later deleted from his autograph.^[9] This deleted material, which was not printed in the first four editions of the Revolutions (1543, 1566, 1617, 1854), but was incorporated in those published after the recovery of Copernicus’ autograph (1873, 1949, 1972), reads as follows].
     The motion of the sun and moon can be demonstrated, I admit, also with an earth that is stationary. This is, however, less suitable for the remaining planets. Philolaus believed in the earth’s motion for these and similar reasons. This is plausible because Aristarchus of Samos too held the view according to some people, who were not motivated by the argumentation put forward by Aristotle and rejected by him [Heavens, II, 13–14]^[10]].¹¹ […]

With Aristarchus of Samos having made heliocentrism a tenet of Greek philosophy, subsequent geographical works during the ancient period (even if geocentric-based as in the case of Ptolemy¹²) referred to the earth as a sphere.

Not surprisingly, the roots of heliocentrism are in the pre-Christian era. Also not surprisingly, heliocentrism re-emerges in the early modern period amidst the Renaissance influences of humanism and classical Greek philosophy; see The Early Modern Period: Copernicus to Newton (1543–1726).

The ancient origins, early modern revival, and contemporary hegemony of the heliocentric world view notwithstanding, PLANE GEODESY provides definitive evidence of the colossal error of heliocentrism and its allegedly spherical or spheroidal earth.

— FINIS —

---

1. Pythagoras is thought to have encountered heliocentrism in the East, probably India. This website, however, with the notable exceptions of Archimedes’ reference to Aristarchus of Samos and Cloemedes’ collection and publication of Eratosthenes’ fragments, generally excludes both secondary references to nonextant primary sources as well as references to non-Western sources, the scope being essentially limited to what has been documented in the Western scientific tradition.↩️

2. Archimedes, The Sand-Reckoner (Translated by Sir Thomas L. Heath) in Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 11, Euclid ∙ Archimedes ∙ Apollonius of Perga ∙ Nicomachus, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Editor in Chief, and Mortimer J. Adler, Associate Editor, and published with the editorial advice of the faculties of The University of Chicago (Chicago: William Benton, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952), p. 520, 1^st paragraph.↩️

3. Sir Thomas Heath, Aristarchus of Samos, The Ancient Copernicus (New York: Dover, 1981), p. 301. Originally published in 1913 by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, under the title, Aristarchus of Samos, The Ancient Copernicus, A History of Greek Astronomy to Aristarchus Together with Aristarchus’s Treatise on the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon, A New Greek Text with Translation and Notes.↩️

4. The reference to Aristarchus is not included in early editions of Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. The 1873 (Latin) and 1978 (English) editions cited in this paper do include Copernicus’ reference to Aristarchus.↩️

5. Nicolaus Copernicus, Nicolai Copernici Thorvnensis De Revolvtionibvs Orbivm Caelestivm Libri VI (Ex Avctoris Avtographo), Recvdi Cvravit Societas Copernicana Thorvnensis, Accedit Georgii Ioachimi Rhetici De Libris Revolutionvm Narratio Prima, Thoruni, Svmptibus Societatis Copernicanae, MDCCCLXXIII, Lib. I, Cap. XI, p. 34 (see https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HqoZqjHn0vEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR28&dq=De+revolutionibus+orbium+coelestium+&ots=7yCg3nfX1H&sig=yvUe6LQLxYVBfkLGo4ZSNt5nnd0#v=onepage&q=De%20revolutionibus%20orbium%20coelestium&f=false).↩️

6. Additional line numbers are inserted for clarity.↩️

7. Ibid.↩️

8. Nicolaus Copernicus of Toruń, On the Revolutions (Six Books on the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) in Nicolaus Copernicus Complete Works, Vol. II, Edited by Jerzy Dobrzycki, Translation and Commentary by Edward Rosen (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978), Book I, Chapter 11, p. 25.↩️

9. Only this first sentence of the footnote prefatory remarks has been translated into English in the above reference.↩️

10. For a publication of Aristotle’s Heavens, see for example, Aristotle, On the Heavens (De Caelo) (Translated by J. L. Stocks) in Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 8, Aristotle I, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Editor in Chief, and Mortimer J. Adler, Associate Editor, and published with the editorial advice of the faculties of The University of Chicago (Chicago: William Benton, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952), Book II, Chapters 13–14, pp. 384–389. Here, Aristotle reveals his inherently geocentric views (rejected by Aristarchus), notwithstanding that Aristotle otherwise believed the actual shape of the earth to be spherical.↩️

11. Nicolaus Copernicus of Toruń, op. cit., p. 25.↩️

12. Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus), The Almagest, translated by R. Catesby Taliaferro, in Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 16, Ptolemy ∙ Copernicus ∙ Kepler, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Editor in Chief, and Mortimer J. Adler, Associate Editor, and published with the editorial advice of the faculties of The University of Chicago (Chicago: William Benton, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952). See Book One: 4. That also the Earth, Taken as a Whole, Is Sensibly Spherical, pp. 8–9.↩️

---