An Essay On The Foundations of Geometry

THE
FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY,
SonDon: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVEKSITY PEESS WAKEHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
263, ARGYLE STREET.
ILdpjtg: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
$orfe: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
GEORGE BELL AND SONS.
AN ESSAY
ON THE
FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY
BY
BERTH AND A. W. RUSSELL, M.A.

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
CAMBRIDGE:
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
1897
[All Rights reserved.]

Camimlige :
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY,
Math. Stat.
Add l
GIFT
>
MATH.-
STAT.
PREFACE.
present work is based on a dissertation submitted at

the Fellowship Examination of Trinity College, Cam
bridge, in the year 1895. Section B of the third chapter is in
the main a reprint, with some serious alterations, of an article

in Mind (New Series, No. 17). The substance of the book has
been given in the form of lectures at the Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, and at Bryn Mawr College, Pennsyl

vania.
My chief obligation is to Professor Klein. Throughout the

first chapter, I have found his "Lectures on non-Euclidean
have accepted from him the
an invaluable guide
"
Geometry ;
I
division of Metageometry into three periods, and have found
my historical work much lightened by his references to previous

writers. In Logic, I have learnt most from Mr Bradley, and
next to him, from Sigwart and Dr Bosanquet. On several
important points, I have derived useful suggestions from

Professor James s "
Principles of Psychology."
My thanks are due to Mr G. F. Stout and Mr A. N.

Whitehead kindly reading my proofs, and helping me by
for
many useful criticisms. To Mr Whitehead I owe, also, the

inestimable assistance of constant criticism and suggestion
throughout the course of construction, especially as regards

the philosophical importance of projective Geometry.
HASLEMERE.
May, 1897.
351
TO
JOHN McTAGGART ELLIS McTAGGART
TO WHOSE DISCOURSE AND FRIENDSHIP IS OWING
THE EXISTENCE OF THIS BOOK.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
OUR PROBLEM DEFINED BY ITS RELATIONS TO LOGIC,
PSYCHOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS.
PAGE
modern form through Kant, who
1. The problem
A
first received a
connected the a priori with the subjective
mental state is subjective, for Psychology, when
.... its imme
1
2.
diate cause does not lie in the outer world

a priori, for Epistemology, when
...
3. A piece of knowledge is
without it knowledge would be impossible . . .
2
4. The subjective and the a priori belong respectively to

Psychology and to Epistemology. The latter alone
will be
investigated in this essay ....... . . . 3
My test of the a priori will be purely logical what knowledge

5.
is necessary for experience] ... :
we must
. . 3
6. But since the necessary is hypothetical, include, in
the a priori, the ground of necessity 4
7. This maybe the essential postulate of our science, or the

element, in the subject-matter, which is necessary to
:
. .
experience; .
8.
9. Forecast of the work ........

Which, however, are both at bottom the same ground . . 5
5
CHAPTER I.
A SHORT HISTORY OF METAGEOMETRY.

10. Metageometry began by rejecting the axiom of parallels f
. 7
be divided into three periods the synthetic,
11. Its history may
the metrical and the protective . .
:
>
....10 7
12. The first period was inaugurated by Gauss, . . .

Vlll CONTENTS.
PAGE
13.
14.
Whose
chewsky
And Bolyai
...........
suggestions were developed independently by Lobat-
10
11
15. The purpose of all three was to show that the axiom of parallels
could not be deduced from the others, since its denial did
not lead to contradictions . .. . . . .12
16. The second period had a more philosophical aim, and was
inspired chiefly by Gauss and Herbart . . . .13
17. The first work of this period, that of Riemann, invented two
new conceptions: . . . . . . .14 .
18. The first, that of a manifold, is a class-conception, containing

space as a species, . . . . . . . .14
19. And defined as such that its determinations form a collection
of magnitudes 15
20. The second, the measure of curvature of a manifold, grew out
of curvature in curves and surfaces . . . . .16
21.
22.
By means
surfaces,
Which
..........
of Gauss s analytical formula for the curvature of
enables us to define a constant measure of curvature

19
23.
dimension ..........
of a three-dimensional space without reference to a fourth
The main result of Riernann s mathematical work was to

20
show that, if magnitudes are independent of place, the

measure of curvature of space must be constant . . 21
24. Helmholtz, who was more of a philosopher than a mathe
matician, . . . . . . . . . .22
25. Gave a new but incorrect formulation of the essential axioms, . 23
26.
which Riemann had assumed ......
And deduced the quadratic formula for the infinitesimal arc,
24
27.
28.
pretation,
Which is
..........
Beltrami gave Lobatchewsky s planimetry a Euclidean inter
analogous to Cayley s theory of distance ; . .

25
26
29. And dealt with ^-dimensional spaces of constant negative
curvature .. . . . . . . . .27
The third period abandons the metrical methods of the second,
30.
and extrudes the notion of spatial quantity ... 27
31. Cay ley reduced metrical properties to projective properties,
relative to a certain conic or quadric, the Absolute ;
. 28
32. And Klein showed that the Euclidean or non- Euclidean systems
result, according to the nature of the Absolute ;
29
33. Hence Euclidean space appeared to give rise to all the kinds
of Geometry, and the question, which is true, appeared
reduced to one of convention 30
34. But this view is
coordinates employed ........
due to a confusion as to the nature of the
30
CONTENTS. ix
PAGE
35. Projective coordinates have been regarded as dependent oil
distance, and thus really metrical 31

36.
37.
But this is
projectively
not the case, since
denned ........ auharmonic
Projective coordinates, being purely descriptive, can give no

ratio can be
32
information as to metrical properties, and the reduction of

metrical to projective properties is purely technical . . 33
38. The true connection Cayley s measure of distance with
of
non-Euclidean Geometry is that suggested by Beltrami s
Saggio, and worked out by Sir R. Ball, . . . . .36
39. Which provides a Euclidean equivalent for every non-Euclidean
proposition, and so removes the possibility of contradictions
in Metageometry 38
40. Klein s elliptic Geometry has not been proved to have a corre
sponding variety of space . . .
..... .- . : 39
41. The geometrical use of imaginaries, of which Cayley demanded
a philosophical discussion, . . .
, . i
. .. .
*
. 41
42. Has a merely technical validity, . *
"
.
-.< . 42
43. And is capable of giving geometrical results only when it
begins and ends with real points and figures j . . : . 45

44. We have now seen that projective Geometry is logically prior
to metrical Geometry, but cannot supersede it . . . 46
45. Soph us Lie has applied projective methods to Helmholtz s
formulation of the axioms, and has shown the axiom of
Monodromy to be superfluous . ... . . 46
46. Metageometry has gradually grown independent of philosophy,
but has grown continually more interesting to philosophy . 50
47. Metrical Geometry has three indispensable axioms, .
-
. 50
48. Which we shall find to be not results, but conditions, of
measurement,. . . . , . , . . . 51
49. And which are nearly equivalent to the three axioms of
projective Geometry . , . . . . Kill) . 52
50. Both sets of axioms are necessitated, not by facts, but by logic . 52
CHAPTER II.
CRITICAL ACCOUNT OF SOME PREVIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL

THEORIES OF GEOMETRY.
51. A criticism of representative modern theories need not begin

before Kant 54
52. Kant s doctrine must be taken, in an argument about Geometry,
on its purely logical side . . -. -. . . ,.-
- ^ 55
X CONTENTS.
PAGE
53. Kant contends that since apodeictic, space must
Geometry is
be a priori and subjective, while since space is a priori

and subjective, Geometry must be apodeictic ... 55
54. Metageometry has upset the first line of argument, not the
second . . . .56
55. The second may be attacked by criticizing either the distinction
of synthetic and analytic judgments, or the first two argu
56.
ments of the metaphysical deduction of space
Modern Logic regards every judgment as both synthetic and
... 57
analytic, 57
57. But leaves the a priori, as that which is presupposed in the
possibility of experience 59
58. Kant s two arguments as to space suffice to prove soine
first
form of externality, but not necessarily Euclidean space, a

necessary condition of experience 60
59. Among the successors of Kant, Herbart alone advanced the
60.
theory of Geometry, by influencing Rieinann
Riemann regarded space as a particular kind of manifold,
... i.e.
62
wholly quantitatively . 63
61. He therefore unduly neglected the qualitative adjectives of
64
62.
63.
space
His philosophy rests on a vicious disjunction
His definition of a manifold is obscure,
... 65
66
64. And his definition of measurement applies only to space . 67
65.
66.
Though mathematically
manifold is
invaluable,
philosophically misleading
Helmholtz attacked Kant both on the mathematical and on
his
.....
view of space as a
69
the psychological side ;

. . . . . . . .70
67. But his criterion of apriority is changeable and often invalid ;
. 71
68. His proof that non-Euclidean spaces are imaginable is in
conclusive ; 72
And his assertion of the dependence of measurement on
69. ,
bodies, which may be taken in three senses,

Is wholly false if it means that the axiom of Congruence
... rigid
74
70.
71.
actually asserts the existence of rigid bodies,
Is untrue if it means that the necessary reference of geometrical
... 75
propositions to matter renders pure Geometry empirical, . 76

72. And is inadequate to his conclusion if it means, what is
true, that actual measurement involves approximately rigid

bodies 78
73. Geometry deals with an abstract matter, whose physical
properties are disregarded ;
and Physics must presuppose
Geometry 80
74. Erdmann accepted the conclusions of Riemann and Helm
holtz, 81
CONTENTS. XI
And regarded the axioms as necessarily successive steps in

75.
76.
classifying space as a species of manifold
His deduction involves four fallacious assumptions, namely
... : .
82
82
77. That conceptions must be abstracted from a series of instances ;
83
78. That all definition is classification ;
83
79. That conceptions of magnitude can be applied to space as
a whole; . 84
80. And that conceptions of magnitude could be so applied, .all
if
the adjectives of space would result from their application 86

Erdmann
81.
82.
the truth of the axiom of Congruence,
Which he affirms to be empirically proved by Mechanics
....
regards Geometry alone as incapable of deciding on
.
86
88
83. The variety and inadequacy of Erdmann s tests of apriority 89
84. Invalidate his final conclusions on the theory of Geometry 90
85. Lotze has discussed two questions in the theory of Geometry : 93
86. (1) He regards the possibility of non-Euclidean spaces as
suggested by the subjectivity of space, . . .. 93
87. And rejects it owing to a mathematical misunderstanding, 96
88. Having missed the most important sense of their possibility, 96
89. Which is that they fulfil the logical conditions to which any
form of externality must conform 97
90. (2) He attacks the mathematical procedure of Metageometry 98
91. The attack begins with a question-begging definition of
parallels 99
92. Lotze maintains that apparent departures from Euclid
all
could be physically explained, a view which really makes

Euclid empirical . . . * . . . 99
93. His criticism of Helmholtz s analogies rests wholly on
mathematical mistakes . . . . . 101
94.
neglect of different orders of infinity ....

His proof that space must have three dimensions rests on
104
95.
96.
He
that they are not homogeneous
Lotze s objections fall under four heads
.....
attacks non- Euclidean spaces on the mistaken ground
.... 107
108
97. Two other semi-philosophical objections may be urged, . 109
98. One of which, the absence of similarity, has been made the
basis of attack by Delbceuf, .110
99. But does not form a valid ground of objection . . . Ill
100. Recent French speculation on the foundations of Geometry
has suggested few new views . . . . . . 112
101. All homogeneous spaces are a pi*iori possible, and the decision
between them is empirical . . . . ... 114
Xll CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.
SECTION A. THE AXIOMS OF PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY.

PAGE
102. Project! ve Geometry does not deal with magnitude, and
applies to all spaces alike . . . . . .117
103. It will be found wholly a priori 117
104. Its axioms have not yet been formulated philosophically . 118
105. Coordinates, in projective Geometry, are not spatial magni
tudes, but convenient names for points . . . .118
106. The possibility of distinguishing various points is an axiom . 119
107. The qualitative relations
points, between
by dealt with
projective Geometry, are presupposed by the quantitative

treatment . . . . . . . . . .119
108. The only qualitative relation between two points is the
straight line, and all straight lines are qualitatively
similar 120
109. Hence follows, by extension, the principle of projective
transformation 121
110. By which figures qualitatively indistinguishable from a given
figure are obtained . . , . .- -..
t -^
,
.,; : . 122
111. Anharmonic ratio may and must be descriptively defined . 122
112. The quadrilateral construction is essential to the projective
113.
114.
definition of points,
And can be protectively
By the general principle
. .
defined, .......123
. .
of projective transformation.
. . .
.
124
126
115. The principle of duality is the mathematical form of a
philosophical circle, . . 127
116. Which is an inevitable consequence of the relativity of
space, and makes any definition of the point contra
dictory , 128
117. We define the point as that which is spatial, but contains
no space, whence other definitions follow . . .128
118. What is meant by qualitative equivalence in Geometry? . 129
119. Two pairs of points on one straight line, or two pairs of
straight lines through one point, are qualitatively equi
"
valent . 129
120. This explains why four collinear points are needed, to give
an intrinsic relation by which the fourth can be de
scriptively defined when the first three are given . . 130
121. Any two protectively related figures are qualitatively equi
valent, i.e. differ in no non-quantitative conceptual
property 131
122. Three axioms are used by projective Geometry, . . . 132
CONTENTS. Xlll
PAGE
123. And are required for qualitative spatial comparison, . . 132
124. Which involves the homogeneity, relativity and passivity
of space <-. . . .133
125. The conception of a form of externality, . . . .134
126. Being a creature of the intellect, can be dealt with by
pure mathematics . . . -. -. -/ >-. 134
127. The resulting doctrine of extension will be, for the moment,
hypothetical . .. .
. * V . . 135
128. But is rendered assertorical by the necessity, for experience,
of some form of externality . . . . . .

>
136
129. Any such form must be relational . . . ^
-
1 136
130. And homogeneous . . 137
131. And the relations constituting it must appear infinitely
divisible 137
132. It must have a finite integral number of dimensions, . 139
133. Owing to its passivity and homogeneity . . . . 140
134. And to the systematic unity of the world . , . 140
A
135.
136.
one-dimensional form alone would not
perience . . ..- .
Since its elements would be immovably fixed in a series

..... suffice for ex
.
141
142
137. Two positions have a relation independent of other positions, 143
138.
139. Hence
relations
protective
..........
Since positions are wholly defined by mutually independent
Geometry is wholly a priori, . . .146

143
140. Though metrical Geometry contains an empirical element . 146
SECTION B. THE AXIOMS OF METRICAL GEOMETRY.
141. Metrical Geometry is distinct from projective, but has the
same fundamental postulate 147

142. It introduces the new idea of motion, and has three a priori
axioms .-..-. 148
I. The Axiom of Free Mobility.
143. Measurement requires a criterion of spatial equality . . 149

144. Which is given by superposition, and involves the axiom
of Free Mobility . . . . C
-
. . .150
145. The denial of this axiom involves an action of empty
I 51
space on things . .
.
146. There is a mathematically possible alternative to the axiom, . 152

153
Which, however, is logically and philosophically untenable
.
147.
Though Free Mobility is a priori, actual measurement

is
148.
empirical . ; ; :
-
; - .154
XIV CONTENTS.
PAGE
149. Some objections remain to be answered, concerning . 154
150. (1) The comparison of volumes and of Kant s symmetrical
objects 154
151. (2) The measurement of time, where congruence is im
possible 156
152. (3) The immediate perception of spatial magnitude ;
and . 157
153. (4) The Geometry of non-congruent surfaces . . .158
154. Free Mobility includes Helmholtz s Monodromy . . .159
155. Free Mobility involves the relativity of space . . .159
156. From which, reciprocally, it can be deduced . . .160
157. Our axiom is therefore d priori in a double sense . . 160
II. The Axiom of Dimensions.
158. Space must have a finite integral number of dimensions 161 .
159. But the restriction to three is empirical . .162. .
160. The general axiom follows from the relativity of position 162 .
161. The limitation to three dimensions, unlike most empirical

knowledge, is accurate and certain 163
III. The Axiom of Distance.
162. The axiom of distance corresponds, here, to that of the
straight line in projective

Geometry . .164
. .
163. The measurement involves a magnitude

possibility of spatial
uniquely determined by two points, . .164. .
164. Since two points must have some relation, and the passivity
of space proves this to be independent of external reference 165
165. There can be only one such relation 166
166. This must be measured by a curve joining the two points, 166
167. And the curve must be uniquely determined by the two
points 167
168. Spherical Geometry contains an exception to this axiom, . 168
169. Which, however, is not quite equivalent to Euclid s . . 168
170. The exception due to the fact that two points, in spherical
is
space, may have an external relation unaltered by motion, 169

171. Which, however, being a relation of linear magnitude, pre
supposes the possibility of linear magnitude .170
. .
172. A relation between two points must be a line joining them 170 .
173. Conversely, the existence of a unique line between two

points can be deduced from the nature of a form of
externality, 171
174. And necessarily leads to distance, when quantity is applied
to it 172
CONTENTS. XV
PAGE
175. Hence the axiom of distance, also, is a priori in a double
sense -.-.-
.
:
. . . . 172
176. No metrical coordinate system can be set up without the
177.
straight line
Xo axioms
. . . \^ .
besides the above three are necessary to metrical

..... 174
Geometry . . . . .. . -.: .. . 175

178. But these three are necessary to the direct measurement
of any continuum . . . . . . . . 176
179. Two philosophical questions remain for a final chapter . 177
CHAPTER IV.
PHILOSOPHICAL CONSEQUENCES.
180. What is the relation to experience of a form of externality

in general? . . . . . . \. . * . 178
181. This form is the class-conception, containing every possible
intuition of externality ;
and some such intuition is
necessary to experience . .178
182. What relation does this view bear to Kant s? .. . . 179
183. It is less psychological, since it does not discuss whether
space is given in sensation, .180
184. And maintains that not only space, but any form of ex
ternality which renders experience possible, must be
given in sense-perception . . . . . . 181
185. Externality should mean, not externality to the Self, but
the mutual externality of presented things . . . 181
186. Would this be unknowable without a given form of ex
ternality? 182
187. Bradley has proved that space and time preclude the exist
ence of mere particulars, 182
188. And that knowledge requires the This to be neither simple
nor self-subsistent . . . . . . . .183
189. To provethat experience requires a form of externality, I
assume that all knowledge requires the recognition of
identity in difference . .184
190. Such recognition involves time "184
191. And some other form giving simultaneous diversity . . 185

192. The above argument has not deduced sense-perception from
the categories, but has shown the former, unless it con
tains a certain element, to be unintelligible to the latter 186
193. How to account for the realization of this element, is a
187
question for metaphysics . .,, . . .
XVI CONTENTS.
PAGE
194. What are we
to do with the contradictions in space? . 188
195. Three contradictions will be discussed in what follows . 188
196. (1) The antinomy of the Point proves the relativity of space, 189
197. And shows that Geometry must have some reference to
matter, 190
198.
199.
By which means
The
to empty space .........
it is made to refer to spatial order, not
causal properties of matter are irrelevant to Geometry,

191
which must regard it as composed of unextended atoms,

by which points are replaced 191
200. (2) The circle in defining straight lines and planes is over
come by the same reference to matter . . .192 .
201. (3) The antinomy that space is relational and yet more
than relational, 193
202. Seems to depend on the confusion of empty space with
spatial order 193
203. Kant regarded empty space as the subject-matter of Geometry, 194
204. But the arguments of the Aesthetic are inconclusive on this
point, 195
205. And are upset by the mathematical antinomies, which prove
that spatial order should be the subject-matter of Geo
:
metry . . v ;
196
206. The apparent thinghood a psychological illusion,
of space is
due to the fact that spatial relations are immediately

given 196
207. The apparent divisibility of spatial relations is either an
illusion, arisingout of empty space, or the expression
208.
lations
Externality is
..........
of the possibility of quantitatively different spatial re
not a relation, but an aspect of relations.

197
Spatial order, owing to its reference to matter, is a

real relation . . . . . . . . 198
209. Conclusion 199
INTRODUCTION.
OUR PROBLEM DEFINED BY ITS RELATIONS TO LOGIC,
PSYCHOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS.
GEOMETRY, throughout the 17th and 18th centuries,

1.
remained, in the war against empiricism, an impregnable

fortress of the idealists.Those who held as was generally
held on the Continent that certain knowledge, independent of
experience, was possible about the real world, had only to

point to Geometry: none but a madman, they said, would
throw doubt on its validity, and none but a fool would
deny
its objective reference. The English Empiricists, in this
matter, had, therefore, a somewhat difficult task ;

either they
had to ignore the problem, or if, like Hume and Mill, they
ventured on the assault, they were driven into the apparently
paradoxical assertion that Geometry, at bottom, had no cer
tainty of a different kind from that of Mechanics only the
perpetual presence of spatial impressions, they said, made
our experience of the truth of the axioms so wide as to seem
absolute certainty.
Here, however, as in many other instances, merciless logic
drove these philosophers, whether they would or no, into
glaring opposition to the common sense of their day. It was
only through Kant, the creator of modern Epistemology, that
the geometrical problem received a modern form. He reduced
the question to the following hypotheticals If Geometry has
:
apodeictic certainty, its matter, i.e. space, must be a priori, and

as such must be purely subjective and conversely, if space is
;
purely subjective, Geometry must have apodeictic certainty.

The latter hypothetical has more weight with Kant, indeed it
is
ineradicably bound up with his whole Epistemology never ;
theless it has, I think, much less force than the former. Let us
R. G. 1
2 INTRODUCTION.
accept, however, for the moment, the Kantian formulation, and

endeavour to give precision to the terms a priori and subjective.
2. One of the great difficulties, throughout this contro
versy, is the extremely variable use to which these words, as

well as the word empirical, are put by different authors. To
Kant, who was nothing of a psychologist, a priori and subjective
were almost interchangeable terms 1 in modern usage there is,
;
on the whole, a tendency to confine the word subjective to

Psychology, leaving a priori to do duty for Epistemology. If
we accept this differentiation, we may set up, corresponding
to the problems of these two sciences, the following provisional
definitions a priori applies to any piece of knowledge which,
:
though perhaps elicited by experience, is logically presupposed

in experience subjective applies to any mental state whose
:
immediate cause lies, not in the external world, but within

the limits of the subject. The latter definition, of course, is
framed exclusively for
Psychology from the point : of view
of physical Science all mental states are subjective. But for
a Science whose matter, strictly speaking, is only mental states,
we require, if we are to use the word to any purpose, some
differentia among mental states, as a mark of a more special
subjectivity on the part of those to which this term is applied.

Now the only mental states whose immediate causes lie
in the external world are sensations. A pure sensation is, of
course, an impossible abstraction we are never wholly passive
under the action of an external stimulus but for the purposes
of Psychology the abstraction is a useful one. Whatever, then,
is not sensation, we shall, in Psychology, call subjective. It
is in sensation alone that we are directly affected by the ex
ternal world, and only here does it give us direct information
about itself.
Let us now consider the epistemological question, as

3.
to the sort ofknowledge which can be called a priori. Here

we have nothing to do in the first instance, at any rate
with the cause or genesis of a piece of knowledge we accept ;
knowledge as a datum to be analysed and classified. Such

analysis will reveal a formal and a material element in
1
Cf. Erdmann, Axiome der Geometrie, p. Ill :
"
Fur Kant sind Aprioritat

und ausschliessliche Subjectivitat allerdings Wechselbegriffe.
"
INTRODUCTION. 3
knowledge. The formal element will consist of postulates which

are required to make knowledge possible at all, and of all
that can be deduced from these postulates the material ele
;
ment, on the other hand, will consist of all that comes to

fill in the form
given by the formal postulates all that is
contingent or dependent on experience, all that might have
been otherwise without rendering knowledge impossible. We
shallthen call the formal element a priori, the material element
empirical.
4. Now what is the connection between the subjective
and the a priori It is a connection, obviously
? if it exists
at all from the outside, i.e. not deducible directly from the
nature of either, but provable if it can be proved only by
a general view of the conditions of both. The question, what
knowledge is d priori, must, on the above definition, depend

on a logical analysis of knowledge, by which the conditions
of possible experience may be revealed but the question, what
;
elements of a cognitive state are subjective, is to be inves

tigated by pure Psychology, which has to determine what, in
our perceptions, belongs to sensation, and what is the work
of thought or of association. Since, then, these two questions
belong to different sciences, and can be settled independently,

will it not be wise to conduct the two ?
investigations separately
To decree that the d priori shall always be subjective, seems
dangerous, when we reflect that such a view places our results,
as to the d priori, at the mercy of
empirical psychology. How
serious this danger is, the controversy as to Kant s pure in
tuition sufficiently shows.
5. I shall, therefore,
throughout the present Essay, use
the word d priori without any psychological implication. My
test of apriority will be purely logical : Would experience be
impossible, if a certain axiom or postulate were denied ? Or,
in a more restricted sense, which within
gives apriority only
a particular science Would experience as to the subject-matter
:
of that science be impossible, without a certain axiom or pos

tulate ?
My results also, therefore, will be purely logical. If
Psychology declares that some things, which I have declared

d priori, are not subjective, then, failing an error of detail in
my proofs, the connection of the d priori and the subjective,
12
4 INTRODUCTION.
so far as those things are concerned, up. must be given

There
will be no discussion, accordingly, throughout this Essay, of
the relation of the a priori to the subjective a relation which
cannot determine what pieces of knowledge are d priori, but
rather depends on that determination, and belongs, in any
case, rather to Metaphysics than to Epistemology.
6. As I have ventured to use the word a priori in a
slightly unconventional sense, I will give a few elucidatory

remarks of a general nature.
priori, since Kant at any rate, has generally stood
The d
for the necessary or apodeictic element in knowledge. But
modern logic has shown that necessary propositions are always,
in one aspect at least, hypothetical. There may be, and usually
is, an implication that the connection, of which necessity is
predicated, has some existence, but still, necessity always points
beyond itself to a ground of necessity, and asserts this ground
rather than the actual connection. As Bradley points out,
"
"
arsenic poisons remains true, even if it is

poisoning no one.
If, d priori in knowledge be primarily the neces
therefore, the
sary, must beitthe necessary on some hypothesis, and the
ground of necessity must be included as d priori. But the

ground of necessity is, so far as the necessary connection in
question can show, a mere fact, a merely categorical judgment.

Hence necessity alone is an insufficient criterion of apriority.
To supplement this criterion, we must supply the hypothesis
or ground, on which alone the necessity holds, and this ground
will vary from one science to another, and even, with the pro
gress of knowledge, in the same science at different times.

For as knowledge becomes more developed and articulate, more
and more necessary connections are perceived, and the merely
categorical truths, though they remain the foundation of apo
deictic judgments, diminish in relative number. Nevertheless,
in a fairly advanced science such as Geometry, we can, I think,
pretty completely supply the appropriate ground, and establish,

within the limits of the isolated science, the distinction be
tween the necessary and the merely assertorical.
There are two grounds, I think, on which necessity
7.
may be sought within any science. These may be (very

roughly) distinguished as the ground which Kant seeks in the
INTRODUCTION. 5
Prolegomena, and that which he seeks in the Pure Reason.

We may start from the existence of our science as a fact, and
analyse the reasoning employed with a view to discovering
the fundamental postulate on which its logical possibility de
pends ;
in this case, the postulate, and all which follows from
it be d priori.
alone, will Or we may accept the existence of
the subject-matter of our science as our basis of fact, and
deduce dogmatically whatever principles we can from- the
essential nature of this subject-matter. In this latter case,
however, not the whole empirical nature of the subject-
it is
matter, as revealed by the subsequent researches of our science,

which forms our ground for if it were, the whole science
;
would, of course, be d priori. Rather it is that element, in the

subject-matter, which makes possible the branch of experience
1
dealt with by the science in question The importance of this .
clearly as we proceed more

2
distinction will appear .
8. These two grounds of necessity, in ultimate analysis, fall

together. The methods of investigation in the two cases differ
widely, but the results cannot differ. For in the first case, by
analysis of the science, we discover the postulate on which alone
its reasonings are possible. Now if reasoning in the science
is impossible without some postulate, this postulate must be
essential to experience of the subject-matter of the science,
and thus we get the second ground. Nevertheless, the two
methods are useful as supplementing one another, and the
first, as starting from the actual science, is the safest and
easiest method of investigation, though the second seems the

more convincing for exposition.
9. The course of my argument, therefore, will be as follows:
In the chapter, as a preliminary to the logical analysis of
first
Geometry, shall give a brief history of the rise and development

I
of non-Euclidean systems. The second chapter will prepare the
ground for a constructive theory of Geometry, by a criticism

of some previous philosophical views; in this chapter, I shall
1
I use "experience" here in the widest possible sense, the sense in which
the word is used by Bradley.
-
Where the branch of experience in question is essential to all experience,
the resulting apriority may be regarded as absolute where it is necessary only
;
to some special science, as relative to that science.

6 INTRODUCTION.
endeavour to exhibit such views as partly true, partly false,

and so to establish, by preliminary polemics, the truth of such
parts of my own theory as are to be found in former writers.
A large part of this theory, however, cannot be so introduced,
since the whole field of protective Geometry, so far as I am
aware, has been hitherto unknown to philosophers. Passing,

in the third chapter, from criticism to construction, I shall
deal first with projective Geometry. This, I shall maintain,
is
necessarily true of any form of externality, and is, since
some such form necessary to experience, completely a priori.
is
In metrical Geometry, however, which I shall next consider,

the axioms will fall into two classes :
(1) Those common to
Euclidean and non-Euclidean spaces. These will be found,
on the one hand, essential to the possibility of measurement
in any continuum, and on the other hand, necessary properties
of any form of externality with more than one dimension.
They will, therefore, be declared a priori. (2) Those axioms

which distinguish Euclidean from non-Euclidean spaces. These
will be regarded as
wholly empirical. The axiom that the
number of dimensions is three, however, though empirical,
will be declared, since small errors are here
impossible, exactly
and certainly true of our actual world while the two remaining
;
axioms, which determine the value of the space-constant, will

be regarded as only approximately known, and certain
only
within the errors of observation 1
. The fourth chapter, finally,
will endeavour to prove, what was assumed in Chapter III.,
that some form of externality is
necessary to experience, and
conclude by exhibiting the logical
impossibility, if know
will
ledge of such a form is to be freed from contradictions, of

wholly abstracting this knowledge from all reference to the
matter contained in the form.
I shall hope to have touched, with this discussion, on all
the main points relating to the Foundations of
Geometry.
1
have given 110 account of these empirical proofs, as they seem to be con
I
stitutedby the whole body of physical science. Everything in physical science,
from the law of gravitation to the building of bridges, from the spectroscope to
the art of navigation, would be profoundly modified by any considerable in
accuracy in the hypothesis that our actual space is Euclidean. The observed
truth of physical science, therefore, constitutes overwhelming empirical evidence
that this hypothesis is very approximately correct, even if not rigidly true.
CHAPTER I.
A SHORT HISTORY OF METAGEOMETRY.
10. WHEN
a long established system is attacked, it usually
happens that the attack begins only at a single point, where
the weakness of the established doctrine is peculiarly evident.
But criticism, when once invited, is apt to extend much further
than the most daring, at first, would have wished.
"First cut the liquefaction, what comes last,

But Fichte s clever cut at God himself?"
So has been with Geometry. The liquefaction of Euclidean

it
orthodoxy is the axiom of parallels, and it was by the refusal

toadmit this axiom without proof that Metageometry began.
The first effort in this direction, that of Legendre 1 was inspired ,
by the hope of deducing this axiom from the others a hope

which, as we now know, was doomed to inevitable failure.
Parallels are denned by Legendre as lines in the same plane,
such that, if a third line cut them, it makes the sum of the
interior and opposite angles equal to two right angles. He
proves without difficulty that such lines would not meet, but
is unable to
prove that non-parallel lines in a plane must meet.
Similarly he can prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle
cannot exceed two right angles, and that if any one triangle has
a sum equal to two right angles, all triangles have the same
sum ;
but he is unable to prove the existence of this one
triangle.
11. Thus Legendre s attempt broke down; but mere failure
1
V. Memoires de 1 Academie royale des Sciences de Institut de France,
1
T. XIL 1833, for a full statement of his results, with references to former
writings.
8 FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY.
could prove nothing. A

bolder method, suggested by Gauss,
was carried out by Lobatchewsky and Bolyai 1 If the axiom .
of parallels is logically deducible from the others, we shall, by

denying it and maintaining the rest, be led to contradictions.
These three mathematicians, accordingly, attacked the problem
indirectly they denied the axiom of parallels, and yet obtained
:
a logically consistent Geometry. They inferred that the axiom

was logically independent of the others, and essential to the
Euclidean system. Their works, being all inspired by this
motive, may be distinguished as forming the first period in
the development of Metageometry.
The second by Riemann, had a much
period, inaugurated
deeper import was
:
largely philosophical in its aims and
it
constructive in its methods. It aimed at no less than a logical
analysis of all the essential axioms of Geometry, and regarded
space as a particular case of the more general conception of

a manifold. Taking its stand on the methods of analytical
metrical Geometry, it established two non-Euclidean systems,
the first that of Lobatchewsky, the second in which the axiom
of the straight line, in Euclid s form, was also denied a new
variety,by analogy called spherical. The leading conception in

this period is the measure of curvature, a term invented by
Gauss, but applied by him only to surfaces. Gauss had shown
that free mobility on surfaces was only possible when the
measure of curvature was constant Riemann and Helm hoi tz
;
extended this proposition to n dimensions, and made it the

fundamental property of space.
In the third period, which begins with Cayley, the philo
sophical motive, which had moved the first pioneers, is less
apparent, and replaced by a more technical and mathematical
is
spirit. This period is chiefly distinguished from the second, in

a mathematical point of view, by its method, which is projective
instead of metrical. The leading mathematical conception here
1
This bolder method, it appears, had been suggested, nearly a century
earlier, by an Italian, Saccheri. His work, which seems to have remained

completely unknown until Beltrami rediscovered it in 1889, is called Euclides
"
ab omni naevo vindicatus, etc." Mediolani, 1733. (See Veronese, Grundziige

der Geometrie, German translation, Leipzig, 1894, p. 636.) His results
included spherical as well as hyperbolic space but they alarmed him to such
;
an extent that he devoted the last half of his book to disproving them.
A SHORT HISTORY OF METAGEOMETRY. 9
is the Absolute (Grundgebild-), a figure by relation to which all
metrical properties become

projective. Cayley work, which s
was very brief, and attracted little attention, has been perfected
and elaborated by F. Klein, and through him has found general
acceptance.Klein has added to the two kinds of non-Euclidean
Geometry already known, a third, which he calls elliptic this ;
third kind closely resembles Helmholtz s spherical

Geometry,
but is distinguished by the important difference that, in it,
two straight lines meet
one point 1 The distinctive
in only .
mark of the spaces represented by both is that, like the surface

of a sphere, they are finite but unbounded. The reduction of
metrical to projective properties, as will be proved hereafter,
has only a technical importance at the same time, projective;
Geometry is able to deal directly with those purely descriptive

or qualitative properties of space which are common to Euclid
and Metageometry alike. The third period has, therefore, great
philosophical importance, while its method has, mathematically,

much greater beauty and unity than that of the second it is ;
able to treat kinds of space at once, so that every symbolic

all
proposition is, according to the meaning given to the symbols,

a proposition in whichever Geometry we choose. This has the
advantage of proving that further research cannot lead to con

tradictions in non-Euclidean systems, unless it at the same
moment reveals contradictions in Euclid. These systems, there
fore, are logically as sound as that of Euclid himself.
After this brief sketch of the characteristics of the three
periods, I will proceed to a more detailed account. It will be
my aim to avoid, as far as possible, all technical mathematics,

and bring into relief only those fundamental points in the
1
Klein s first account of elliptic Geometry, as a result of Cayley s projective
theory of distance, appeared in two articles entitled Ueber die sogenannte
"
Nicht-Euklidische Geometrie, I, Math. Annalen

II," 4, 6 (18712). It was
afterwards independently discovered by Newcomb, in an article entitled Ele "
mentary Theorems relating to the geometry of a space of three dimensions, and

of uniform positive curvature in the fourth dimension,"C relic s Journal fiir die
reine und angewandte Mathematik, Vol. 83 (1877). For an account of the
mathematical controversies concerning elliptic Geometry, see Klein s "Vor-
lesungen iiber Nicht-Euklidische Geometrie," Gottingen 1893, i. p. 284 ff. A
bibliography of the relevant literature up to the year 1878 was given by Halsted
in the American Journal of Mathematics, Vols. 1, 2.
mathematical development, which seem of logical or philo

sophical importance.
First Period.
12. The originator of the whole system, Gauss, does not

appear, as regards strictly non-Euclidean Geometry, in any of
his hitherto published papers, to have given more than results ;
his proofs remain unknown to us. Nevertheless he was the

first to investigate the
consequences of denying the axiom of
parallels
1
and in his letters he communicated these consequences
,
to some of his friends, among whom was Wolfgang Bolyai. The

first mention of the subject in his letters occurs when he was
only 18 four years later, in 1799, writing to W. Bolyai, he
;
enunciates the important theorem that, in hyperbolic Geometry,

there is a maximum to the area of a triangle. From later
writings appears that he had worked out a system nearly, if

it
not quite, as complete as those of Lobatchewsky and Bolyai 2 .
It is important to remember, however, that Gauss s work on
curvature, which was published, laid the foundation for the

whole method second period, and was undertaken,
of the
according to Riemann and Helmholtz 3 with a view to an ,
(unpublished) investigation of the foundations of Geometry.

His work in this direction will, owing to its method, be better
treated of under the second period, but it is interesting to
observe that he stood, like many pioneers, at the head of two
tendencies which afterwards diverged.
13. Lobatchewsky, a professor in the University of Kasan,
first published his results, in their native Russian, in the
proceedings of that learned body for the years 1829 1830.

Owing to this double obscurity of language and place, they
attracted little attention, until he translated them into French 4
1
Veronese (op. cit. p. 638) denies the priority of Gauss in the invention of
a non-Euclidean system, though he admits him to have been the first to
regard the axiom of parallels as indemonstrable. His grounds for the former
assertion seem scarcely adequate on the evidence against
:
it, see Klein, Nicht-
Euklid, i. pp. 171-174.
-
V. Briefwechsel mit Schumacher, Bd. n. p. 268.
3
Cf. Helmholtz, Wiss. Abh. n. p. 611.
4
Crelle s Journal, 1837.
and German 1
: even then, they do not appear to have obtained
the notice they deserved, until, in 1868, Beltrami unearthed
the article in Crelle, and made it the theme of a brilliant
interpretation.
In the introduction to his little German book, Lobatchewsky
laments the slight interest shown in his writings by his com
patriots, and the inattention of mathematicians, since Legendre s
abortive attempt, to the difficulties in the theory of parallels.
The body work begins with the enunciation of several
of the
important propositions which hold good in the system proposed

as well as in Euclid of these, some are in any case independent
:
of the axiom of parallels, while others are rendered so by
substituting, for the word the phrase

"
not inter
"
parallel,"
secting, however far produced." Then follows a definition,

intentionally framed so as to contradict Euclid s With respect :
to a given straight line, all others in the same plane

may be
divided into two classes, those which cut the given straight line,
and those which do not cut it a line which is the limit between
;
the two classes is called parallel to the given straight line. It

follows that, from any external point, two parallels can be
drawn, one in each direction. From this starting-point, by

the Euclidean synthetic method, a series of propositions are
deduced the most important of these is, that in a triangle the
;
sum of the angles

is
always less than, or always equal to two
right angles, while in the latter case the whole system becomes
orthodox. A
certain analogy with spherical Geometry whose
meaning and extent will appear later is also proved, consisting
roughly in the substitution of hyperbolic for circular functions.
is the system of Johann
Very similar
14. Bolyai, so similar,
indeed, as to make
the independence of the two works, though
a well-authenticated fact, seem all but incredible. Johann
Bolyai first published his results in 1832, in an appendix to
a work by his father Wolfgang, entitled Appendix, scientiam ;
"
spatii absolute veram exhibens : a veritate aut falsitate

Axiomatis XI. Euclidei (a priori hand unquam decidenda)
independentem adjecta ad casum falsitatis, quadratura circuli
;
geometrica." Gauss, whose bosom friend he became at college

1
Theorie der Parallellinieu, Berlin, 1840. Republisbed, Berlin, 1887.
Translated by Halsted, Austin, Texas, U.S.A. 4th edition, 1892.
and remained through life, was, as we have seen, the inspirer of
Wolfgang Bolyai, and used to say that the was the onlylatter
man who appreciated his philosophical speculations on the
axioms of Geometry nevertheless, Wolfgang appears to have
;
left to his son Johann the detailed

working out of the hyper
bolic system. The works of both the Bolyai are very rare, and
their method and results are known to me only through the
renderings of Frischauf and Halsted

l
Both as to method and
.
as to results, the system is very similar to Lobatchewsky s, so

that neither need detain us here. Only the initial postulates,
which are more explicit than Lobatchewsky s, demand a brief
attention. Frischauf introduction, which has a philosophical
s
and Newtonian air, begins by setting forth that Geometry deals

with absolute (empty) space, obtained by abstracting from the
bodies in it, that two figures are called congruent when they
differ only in position, and that the axiom of Congruence is
indispensable in all determination of spatial magnitudes. Con
gruence was to refer to geometrical bodies, with none of the
properties of ordinary bodies except impenetrability (Erdmann,
Axiome der Geometric, p. 26). A
straight line is defined as
determined by two of its points 2 and a plane as determined by
,
three. These premisses, with a slight exception as to the straight
line, we shall hereafter find essential to every Geometry. I have

drawn attention often supposed that non-
to them, as it is
Euclideans deny the axiom of Congruence, which, here and
elsewhere, is The stress laid on this axiom by
never the case.
Bolyai is
probably due to the influence of Gauss, whose work on
the curvature of surfaces laid the foundation for the use made
of congruence by Helmholtz.
15. It is important to remember that, throughout the
period we have reviewed, the purpose of hyperbolic
just
Geometry not the truth of the latter, but the
is indirect:
logical independence of the axiom of parallels from the rest, is
Frischauf, Absolute Geometric, nach Johann Bolyai, Leipzig, 1872. Halsted,

1
The Science Absolute of Space, translated from the Latin, 4th edition, Austin,
Texas, U.S.A. 1896.
2
Both Lobatchewsky and Bolyai, as Veronese remarks, start rather from
the point-pairthan from distance. See Frischauf, Absolute Geometric,
Anhang.
the guiding motive of the work. If, by denying the axiom of
parallels while retaining the rest, we can obtain a system free

from logical contradictions, it follows that the axiom of parallels
cannot be implicitly contained in the others. If this be so,
attempts to dispense with the axiom, like Legendre s, cannot be
successful Euclid must stand or fall with the suspected axiom.
;
Of course, it remained possible that, by further development,

latent contradictions might have been revealed in these systems.
This possibility, however, was removed by the more direct and
constructive work of the second period, to which we must now
turn our attention.
Second Period.
16. The work of Lobatchewsky and Bolyai remained, for
nearly a quarter of a century, without issue indeed, the

investigations of Riemann and Helmholtz, when they came,
appear to have been inspired, not by these men, but rather by
1
Gauss and Herbart. We find, accordingly, very great difference,
both of aim and method, between the first period and the second.
The former, beginning with a criticism of one point in Euclid s
system, preserved his synthetic method, while it threw over one
of his axioms. The latter, on the contrary, being guided by a
philosophical rather than a mathematical spirit, endeavoured to
classify the conception of space as a species of a more general
conception it treated space algebraically, and the properties it
:
gave to space were expressed in terms, not of intuition, but of

algebra. The aim of Riemann and Helmholtz was to show, by
the exhibition of logically possible alternatives, the empirical
nature of the received axioms. For this purpose, they conceived
space as a particular case of a manifold, and showed that various
relations of magnitude (Massverhdltnisse) were mathematically
possible in an extended manifold. Their philosophy, which

seems to me not always irreproachable, will be discussed in
Chapter II. ; here, while it is important to remember the
philosophical motive of Riemann and Helmholtz, we shall
confine our attention to the mathematical side of their work.
In so doing, while we shall, I fear, somewhat maim the system
of their thoughts, we shall secure a closer unity of subject, and
1
Compare Stallo, Concepts of Modern Physics, p. 248,
a more compact account of the purely mathematical develop

ment. But there is, in my opinion, a further reason for
separating their philosophy from their mathematics. While
their philosophical purpose was, to prove that all the axioms
of Geometry are empirical, and that a different content of our
experience might have changed them all, the unintended result
of their mathematical work was, if I am not mistaken, to afford
material for an a priori proof of certain axioms. These axioms,
though they believed them to be unnecessary, were always

introduced in their mathematical works, before laying the
foundations of non-Euclidean systems. I shall contend, in
Chapter III., that this retention was logically inevitable, and

was not merely due, as they supposed, to a desire for conformity
with experience. If I am right in this, there is a divergence
between Riemann and Helmholtz the philosophers, and Riemann
and Helmholtz the mathematicians. This divergence makes it
the more desirable
to trace the mathematical development
apart from the accompanying philosophy.

17. Riemann s epoch-making work, Ueber die Hypothesen, "
welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen*", was written, and read

to a small circle, in 1854 owing, however, to some changes
;
which he desired to make in it, it remained unpublished till

1867, when it was published by his executors. The two
fundamental conceptions, on whose invention rests the historic
importance of this dissertation, are that of a manifold, and
that of the measure of curvature of a manifold. The former
conception serves a mainly philosophical purpose, and is de
signed, principally, to exhibit space as an instance of a more
general conception. On this aspect of the manifold, I shall
have much to say in Chapter II. ;
its mathematical aspect,
which alone concerns us here, is less complicated and less
fruitful of controversy. The latter conception also serves a
double purpose, but its mathematical use is the more prominent.
We will consider these two conceptions successively.
18. (1) Conception of a manifold*. The general purpose
of Riemann s dissertation is, to exhibit the axioms as successive
1
Gesammelte Werke, pp. 255-268.
2
On the history of this word, see Stallo, Concepts of Modern Physics,
p. 258. It was used by Kant, and
adapted by Herbart to almost the same
steps in the classification of the species space. The axioms of

Geometry, like the marks of a scholastic definition, appear as
successive determinations of class-conceptions, ending with
Euclidean space. We have thus, from the analytical point of
view, about as logical and precise a formulation as can be
desired a formulation in which, from its classificatory character,
we seem certain of having nothing superfluous or redundant, and
obtain the axioms explicitly in the most desirable form, namely
as adjectives of the conception of space. At the same time, it
is a pity that Riemann, in accordance with the metrical bias
1
of his time, regarded space as primarily a magnitude ,
or
assemblage of magnitudes, in which the main problem consists

in assigning quantities to the different elements or points,
without regard to the qualitative nature of the quantities
assigned. Considerable obscurity thus arises as to the whole
nature of magnitude 2 This view of Geometry underlies the
.
definition of the manifold, as the general conception of which
space forms a special case. This definition, which is not very

clear, may be rendered as follows.
Conceptions of magnitude, according to Riemann, are
19.
possible there only, where we have a general conception,

capable of various determinations (Bestimmungsweisen). The
various determinations of such a conception together form a
manifold, which is continuous or discrete, according as the pas

sage from one determination to another is continuous or discrete.
Particular bits of a manifold, or quanta, can be compared by
counting when discrete, and by measurement when continuous.

"
Measurement consists in a superposition of the magnitudes to

be compared. If this be absent, magnitudes can only be
compared when one is part of another, and then only the more
or less, not the how much, can be decided
"
(p. 256). We thus

reach the general conception of a manifold of several dimensions,
of which space and colours are mentioned as special cases.
meaning as it bears in Riemann. Herbart, however, also uses the word

Reihenform to express a similar idea. See Psychologic als Wissenschaft, i.
100 and n. 139, where Riemann s analogy with colours is also suggested.
Compare Erdmann s Grossenbegriff vom Raum."
1 "
3
Compare Veronese, op. cit. p. 642: "Riemann ist in seiner Definition
des Begrififs Grb sse dunkel." See also Veronese s whole following ciiticism.
To the absence of this conception Riemann attributes the

"
which, on the subject of the axioms, lasted from

"
obscurity"
Euclid to Legendre" (p. 254). And Riemann
certainly has
succeeded, from an algebraic point of view, in exhibiting, far
more clearly than any of axioms which
his predecessors, the
distinguish spatial quantity from other quantities with which

mathematics is conversant. But by the assumption, from the
start, that space can be regarded as a quantity, he has been led
to state the problem as : What sort of magnitude is space ?
rather than : What must space be in order that we may be able
to regard it as a magnitude at all ? He does not realise,
either indeed in his day there were few who realized that
an elaborate Geometry is possible which does not deal with
space as a quantity at all. His definition of space as a species
of manifold, therefore, though for analytical purposes it defines,
most satisfactorily, the nature of spatial magnitudes, leaves
obscure the true ground for this nature, which lies in the
nature of space as a system of relations, and is anterior to the
possibility of regarding it as a system of magnitudes at all.
But to proceed with the mathematical development of
Riemann s ideas. We have seen that he declared measurement
to consist in a superposition of the magnitudes to be compared.
But in order that this may be a possible means of determining
magnitudes, he continues, these magnitudes must be inde
pendent of their position in the manifold (p. 259). This can
occur, he says, in several ways, as the simplest of which, he
assumes that the lengths of lines are independent of their
position. One would be glad to know what other ways are
possible for my part, I am unable to imagine any other
:
hypothesis on which magnitude would be independent of place.

Setting this aside, however, the problem, owing to the fact that
measurement consists in superposition, becomes identical with
the determination of the most general manifold in which
magnitudes are independent of place. This brings us to
Riemann s other fundamental conception, which seems to me
even more fruitful than that of a manifold.
20.
(2) Measure of curvature. This conception is due to
Gauss, but was applied by him only to surfaces the novelty in ;
Riemann s dissertation was its extension to a manifold of n

dimensions. This extension, however, is rather briefly and
obscurely expressed, and has been further obscured by Helm-

holtz s attempts at popular exposition. The term curvature,
also, is misleading, so that the phrase has been the source of
more misunderstanding, even among mathematicians, than any
other in Pangeometry. It is often forgotten, in spite of
Helmholtz s explicit statement *, that the measure of cur "
"
vature of an ?i-dimensional manifold is a purely analytical
expression, which has only a symbolic affinity to ordinary

curvature. As applied to three-dimensional space, the implica
"
tion of a four-dimensional
"
plane space is wholly misleading ;
I shall, therefore, generally use the term space-constant instead 2 .
Nevertheless, as the conception grew, historically, out of that

of curvature, I will give a very brief exposition of the historical
development of theories of curvature.

Just as the notion of length was originally derived from the
straight line, and extended to other curves by dividing them
into infinitesimal straight lines, so the notion of curvature was
derived from the circle, and extended to other curves by
dividing them Curvature may
into infinitesimal circular arcs.
be regarded, originally, as a measure of the amount by which a
curve departs from a straight line in a circle, which is similar
;
throughout, this amount is evidently constant, and is measured

by the reciprocal of the radius. But in all other curves, the
amount of curvature varies from point to point, so that it
cannot be measured without infinitesimals. The measure
which at once suggests itself is, the curvature of the circle most
nearly coinciding with the curve at the point considered.
Since a circle is determined by three points, this circle will
pass through three consecutive points of the curve. have We

thus defined the curvature of any curve, plane or tortuous for, ;
since any three points lie in a plane, such a circle can always
be described.
If we now pass to a surface, what we want is, by analogy,
a measure of its departure from a plane. The curvature, as
above defined, has become indeterminate, for through any point
of the surface we can draw an infinite number of arcs, which
2
Vortrage und Reden, Vol. n.
1
p. 18. Cf. Klein, Nicht-Enklid, i. p. 160.
R. G. 2
will not, in general, all have the same curvature. Let us, then,
draw the geodesies joining the point in question to neigh
all
bouring points of the surface in all directions. Since these

arcs form a singly infinite manifold, there will be among
them, they have not all the same curvature, one arc of
if
maximum, and one of minimum curvature The product of

1
.
these maximum and minimum curvatures is called the measure
of curvature of the surface at the point under consideration.

To illustrate by a few simple examples on a sphere, the :
curvatures of all such lines are equal to the reciprocal of the

radius of the sphere, hence the measure of curvature every
where is the square of the reciprocal of the radius of the sphere.
On any surface, such as a cone or a cylinder, on which straight
lines can be drawn, these have no curvature, so that the
measure of curvature is everywhere zero this is the case, in
particular, with the plane. In general, however, the measure
of curvature of a surface varies from point to point.
2
Gauss, the inventor of this conception proved that, in ,
order that two surfaces may be developable upon each other

i.e.
may be such that one can be bent into the shape of the
other without stretching or tearing it is necessary that
the two surfaces should have equal measures of curvature at
corresponding points. When this is the case, every figure
which is
possible on the one is, in general, possible on the
other, and the two have practically the same Geometry 3 As .
a corollary, it follows that a necessary condition, for the free
mobility of figures on any surface, is the constancy of the
1
Since we are considering the curvature at a point, we are only concerned
with the first infinitesimal elements of the geodesies that start from such a
point.
2
Disquisitiones generales circa superficies curvas, Werke, Bd. iv. SS. 219-
258, 1827.
3
Nevertheless, the Geometries of different surfaces of equal curvature are
liable to important differences. For example, the cylinder is a surface of zero
curvature, but since its lines of curvature in one direction are finite, its
Geometry coincides with that of the plane only for lengths smaller than the
circumference of its generating circle (see Veronese, op. cit. p. 644). Two
geodesies on a cylinder may meet in many points. For surfaces of zero
curvature on which this is not possible, the identity with the plane may be
allowed to stand. Otherwise, the identity extends only to the properties of
figures not exceeding a certain size.
A SHORT HISTORY OF METAOEOMETRY. 19
measure of curvature 1 . This condition was proved to be

2
sufficient, as well as necessary, by Minding .
21. So far, all has been plain sailing we have been dealing
with purely geometrical ideas in a purely geometrical manner
but we have not, as yet, found any sense of the measure of
curvature, in which it can be extended to space, still less to
an ^^-dimensional manifold. For this purpose, we must examine
Gauss s method, which enables us to determine the measure
of curvature of a surface at any point as an inherent property,
quite independent of any reference to the third dimension.

The method of determining the measure of curvature from
within is, briefly, as follows : If any point on the surface be
determined by two coordinates, u, v, then small arcs of the
surface are given by the formula
ds- = Edu- + 2Fdu dv + Gdv*,

where E, F, G are, in general, functions of u, v.
3
From this
formula alone, without reference to any space outside the sur
face, we can determine the measure of curvature at the point
u, v, as a function of E, F, G and their differentials with respect

to u and v. Thus we may regard the measure of curvature of
a surface as an inherent property, and the above geometrical
definition, which involved a reference to the third dimension,
may be dropped. But at this point a caution is necessary. It

will appear in Chap. III. ( 176), that it is logically impossible
to set up a precise coordinate system, in which the coordinates
represent spatial magnitudes, without the axiom of Free
Mobility, and this axiom, as we have just seen, holds on sur
faces only when the measure of curvature is constant. Hence
our definition of the measure of curvature will only be really
freefrom reference to the third dimension, when we are dealing
with a surface of constant measure of curvature a point which
1
For we may consider two different parts of the same surface as corre
sponding parts of different surfaces ; the above proposition then shows that a
figure can be reproduced in one part when it has been drawn in another,
if the
measures of curvature correspond in the two parts.

2
Crelle, Vols. xix., xx., 1839-40.
3
In this formula, u, v may be the lengths of lines, or the angles between
lines, drawn on the surface, and having thus no necessary reference to a third
dimension,
22
Riemann entirely overlooks. This caution, however, applies
only in space, and if we take the coordinate system as presup
posed in the conception of a manifold, we may neglect the

caution altogether while remembering that the possibility of
a coordinate system in space involves axioms to be investi
gated later. We can thus see how a meaning might be found,

without reference to any higher dimension, for a constant
measure of curvature of three-dimensional space, or for any
measure of curvature of an ?i-dimensional manifold in general.
22. Such a meaning is supplied by Riemann s dissertation,
to which, after this long digression, we can now return. We
may define a continuous manifold as any continuum of elements,
such that a single element is defined by n continuously variable
magnitudes. This definition does not really include space, for
coordinates in space do not define a point, but its relations to
the origin, which is itself arbitrary. It includes, however, the
analytical conception of space with which Riemann deals, and
may, therefore, be allowed to stand for the moment. Riemann
then assumes that the difference or distance, as it may be
loosely called between any two elements is comparable, as
regards magnitude, to the difference between any other two.
He assumes further, what it is Helmholtz s merit to have
proved, that the difference ds between two consecutive elements
can be expressed as the square root of a quadratic function of
the differences of the coordinates : i.e.
ds2 = ^n 2i
w a ik dxi dxky.
where the coefficients a^ are, in general, functions of the coordi

nates a?! #2 xn 1 The question is How are we to obtain a
. . . . :
definition of the measure of curvature out of this formula ? It is
noticeable, in the first place, that, just as in a surface we found

an infinite number of radii of curvature at a point, so in a
manifold of three or more dimensions we must find an infinite
number of measures of curvature at a point, one for every two-
dimensional manifold passing through the point, and contained
in the higher manifold. What we have first to do, therefore, is
1
In what follows, I have given rather Klein s exposition of Eiemann, than
Eiemann s own account. The former is much clearer and fuller, and not
substantially different in any way. V. Klein, Nicht-Euklid, i. pp. 20fi ff.
to define such two-dimensional manifolds. They must consist,

as we saw on the surface, of a singly infinite series of geodesies
through the point. Now a geodesic is completely determined

by one point and its direction at that point, or by one point
and the next consecutive point. Hence a geodesic through
the point considered is determined by the ratios of the in
crements of coordinates, da^ dx.2 ... dxn Suppose we have two
.
such geodesies, in which the i th increments are respectively
dxi and d"^. Then all the geodesies given by
form a singly infinite series, since they contain one para

meter, namely X V. Such a series
:
of geodesies, therefore,
must form a two-dimensional mani
fold, with a measure of curvature
in ordinary Gaussian sense.
the
This measure of curvature can be
determined from the above for
mula the elementary arc, by

for
the help of Gauss s general formula
alluded to above. We thus obtain an infinite number of
measures of curvature at a point, but from - - of these,
the rest candeduced (Riemann, Gesammelte Werke,

be
p. 262). When the measures of curvature at a point are
all
constant, and equal to all the measures of curvature at any

other point, we get what Riemann calls a manifold of constant
curvature. In such a manifold free mobility is possible, and
positions do not differ intrinsically from one another. If a
be the measure of curvature, the formula for the arc becomes,
in this case,
In this case only, as I pointed out above, can the term "measure
of curvature" be properly applied to space without reference
to a higher dimension, since free mobility is logically indis
pensable to the existence of quantitative or metrical Geometry.

23. The mathematical result of Riemann s dissertation
22 FOUNDATIONS OP GEOMETRY.
may be summed up as follows. Assuming it possible to apply

magnitude to space, i.e. to determine its elements and figures
by means of algebraical quantities, it follows that space can be
brought under the conception of a manifold, as a system of
quantitatively determinable elements. Owing, however, to the
peculiar nature of spatial measurement, the quantitative deter
mination of space demands that magnitudes shall be independent
of place in so far as this is not the case, our measurement will
be necessarily inaccurate. If we now assume, as the quantitative
relation of distance between two elements, the square root of a
quadratic function of the coordinates a formula subsequently

proved by Helmholtz and Lie then it follows, since magnitudes
are to be independent of place, that space must, within the
limits of observation, have a constant measure of curvature, or
must, in other words, be homogeneous in all its parts. In the

infinitesimal, Riemann says (p. 267), observation could not
detect a departure from constancy on the part of the measure
of curvature but he makes no attempt to show how Geometry
;
could remain possible under such circumstances, and the only
Geometry he has constructed is based entirely on Free Mobility.

I shall endeavour to prove, in Chapter III., that any metrical
Geometry, which should endeavour to dispense with this axiom,

would be logically impossible. At present I will only point out
that Riemann, in spite of his desire to prove that all the axioms
can be dispensed with, has nevertheless, in his mathematical
work, retained three fundamental axioms, namely, Free Mobility,
the finite integral number of dimensions, and the axiom that
two points have a unique relation, namely distance. These, as
we shall see hereafter, are retained, in actual mathematical
work, by metrical Metageometers, even when they believe,
all
like Riemann and Helmholtz, that no axioms are philosophically
indispensable.
24. Helmholtz, the historically nearest follower of Riemann,
was guided by a similar empirical philosophy, arid arrived
independently at a very similar method of formulating the

axioms. Although Helmholtz published nothing on the subject
until Riemann s death, he had then only just seen
after
Riemann s dissertation (which was published posthumously),
and had worked out his results, so far as they were then
completed, in entire independence both of Riemann and of

Lobatchewsky. Helmholtz is by far the most widely read of
all writers on Metageometry, and his writings, almost alone,
represent to philosophers the modern mathematical standpoint

on this subject. But his importance is much greater, in this
domain, as a philosopher than as a mathematician almost his ;
only original mathematical result, as regards Geometry, is his

proof of Riemann s formula for the infinitesimal arc, and even
this proof was far from rigid, until Lie reformed it by his
method of continuous groups. In this chapter, therefore, only
two of his writings need occupy us, namely the two articles
in the Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Vol. II., entitled respec
tively "Ueber die thatsachlichen Grundlagen der Geometric,"

1866 (p. 610 ff.), and "
Ueber die Thatsachen, die der Geometric

zum Grunde liegen,"
1868 (p. 618 ff.).
25. In the first of these, which is chiefly philosophical,

Helmholtz gives hints of his then uncompleted mathematical
work, but in the main contents himself with a statement of
results. He announces that he will prove Riemann s quadratic
formula for the infinitesimal arc but for this purpose, he says, ;
we have to start with Congruence, since without it spatial

measurement is impossible. Nevertheless, he maintains that
Congruence is proved by experience. How we could, without
the help of measurement, discover lapses from Congruence, is a
point which he leaves undiscussed. He then enunciates the
four axioms which he considers essential to Geometry, as
follows :
(1) As regards continuity and dimensions. In a space of

n dimensions, a point is
uniquely determined by the measure
ment of n continuous variables (coordinates).
(2) As regards the existence of moveable rigid bodies.
Between the 2n coordinates of any point-pair of a rigid body,

there exists an equation which is the same for all congruent
point-pairs. By considering a sufficient number of point-pairs,

we get more equations than unknown quantities this gives us :
a method of determining the form of these equations, so as to

make it possible for them all to be satisfied.
(3) As regards free mobility. Every point can pass freely
and continuously from one position to another. From (2) and
(3) it follows, that if two systems A and B can be brought into

congruence in any one position, this is also possible in every
other position.
As
regards independence of rotation in rigid bodies
(4)
(Monodromy). If (n l) points of a body remain fixed, so that
every other point can only describe a certain curve, then that
curve is closed.
These axioms, says Helmholtz, suffice to give, with the
axiom of three dimensions, the Euclidean and non-Euclidean
systems as the only alternatives. That they suffice, mathe
matically, cannot be denied, but they seem, in some respects,
to go too far. In the first place, there is no necessity to make
the axiom of Congruence apply to actual rigid bodies on this
subject I have enlarged in Chapter II.
1
Again, Free Mobility,
as distinct from Congruence, hardly needs to be specially
formulated what barrier could empty space offer to a point s
:
progress ? The axiom is involved in the homogeneity of

which is the same thing as the axiom of
space, Congruence.
Monodromy, also, has been severely criticized not only is it ;
evident that might have been included in Congruence, but

it
even from the purely analytical point of view. Sophus Lie has
proved it to be superfluous
2
Thus the axiom of Congruence,
.
rightly formulated, includes Helmholtz s third and fourth

axioms and part of his second axiom. All the four, or rather,
as much of them as is relevant to Geometry, are consequences,
as we shall see hereafter, of the one fundamental principle of
the relativity of position.
26. The second article, which is
mainly mathematical,
supplies the promised proof of the arc-formula, which is Helm
holtz s most important contribution to Geometry. Kiemann
had assumed this formula, as the simplest of a number of
alternatives : Helmholtz proved it to be a necessary conse
quence of his axioms. The present paper begins with a short

repetition of the first, including the statement of the axioms, to
which, at the end of the paper, two more are added, (5) that
space has three dimensions, and (6) that space is infinite. It
1
See 69-73.
2 end of
Grundlagen der Geometric, i. and n., Leipziger Berichte, 1890; v.
present chapter, 45.

is supposed in the text, as also in the first paper, that the

measure of curvature cannot be negative, and, consequently,
that an infinite space must be Euclidean. This error in both
papers is corrected in notes, added after the appearance of
Beltrami s paper on negative curvature. It is a sample of
the slightly unprofessional nature of Helmholtz s mathematical
work on this subject, which elicits from Klein the following
1
remarks :
"
Helmholtz is not a mathematician by profession,

but a physicist and physiologist From this non-mathematical
quality of Helmholtz, it follows naturally that he does not
treat the mathematical portion of his work with the thorough
ness which one would demand of a mathematician by trade
(von Fach)" He tells us himself that it was the physiological
study of vision which led him to the question of the axioms,
and it is as a physicist that he makes his axioms refer to actual
rigid bodies. Accordingly, we find errors in his mathematics,
such as the axiom of Monodromy, and the assumption that the
measure of curvature must be positive. Nevertheless, the
proof of Riemann s arc-formula is extremely able, and has, on

the whole, been substantiated by Lie s more thorough investi
gations.
27. other writings on Geometry are almost
Helmholtz s
wholly philosophical, and will be discussed at length in

Chapter II. For the present, we may pass to the only other
important writer of the second period, Beltrami. As his work is
purely mathematical, and contains few controverted points, it
need not, despite its great importance, detain us long.
The Saggio di Interpretazione della Geometria non-
"
principally confined to two dimensions,

5
2
Euclidea ,
which is
characteristic method
interprets Lobatchewsky s results by the
of the second period. It shows, by a development of the work
3
of Gauss and Minding that all the propositions in plane ,
Geometry, which Lobatchewsky had set forth, hold, within

ordinary Euclidean space, on surfaces of constant negative
1
Nicht-Euklid, i. pp. 258-9.
2
Giornale di Matematiche, Vol. vi., 1868. Translated into French by
J. Hoiiel in the "
Annales Scientifiques de 1 Ecole Normale Superieure,"
Vol. vi. 1869.

3
Crelle s Journal, Vols. xix. xx., 1839-40.
curvature. It is strange, as Klein points out 1 that this inter ,
pretation, which was known to Riemann and perhaps even to

Gauss, should have remained so long without explicit statement.
This is the more strange, as Lobatchewsky s Geometrie "
2
Imaginaire" had appeared in Crelle, Vol. XVII. and Minding s ,
article, from which the interpretation follows at once, had

appeared in Crelle, Vol. XIX. Minding had shewn that the
Geometry of surfaces of constant negative curvature, in par
ticular as regards geodesic triangles, could be deduced from
that of the sphere by giving the radius a purely imaginary
3
value ia This result, as we have seen, had also been obtained
.
by Lobatchewsky for his Geometry, and yet it took thirty years

for the connection to be brought to general notice.
28. In Beltrami s Saggio, straight lines are, of course,
replaced by geodesies ;
his coordinates are obtained through
a point-by-point correspondence with an auxiliary plane, in
which straight lines correspond to geodesies on the surface.
Thus geodesies have linear equations, and are always uniquely
determined by two points. Distances on the surface, however,
are not equal to distances on the plane thus while the surface ;
the corresponding portion of the plane is contained

is infinite,
within a certain finite circle. The distance of two points on

,
the surface is a certain function of the coordinates, not the

ordinary function of elementary Geometry. These relations
of plane and surface are important in connection with Cayley s
theory of distance, which we shall have to consider next. If

we were on the plane as that function of
to define distance
the coordinates which gives the corresponding distance on the
surface, we should obtain what Klein calls plane with a "a
hyperbolic system of measurement (Massbestimmung)" in which

Cayley s theory of distance would hold. It is evident, however,
that the ordinary notion of distance has been presupposed in
setting up the coordinate system, so that we do not really

1
Nicht-Euklid, i. p. 190.
2
more trigonometrical and analytical than the German book,
This article is
and therefore makes the above interpretation peculiarly evident.

3
Such surfaces are by no means particularly remote. One of them, for
example, is formed by the revolution of the common Tractrix
=a (
log tan ^ + cos
get alternative Geometries on one and the same plane. The

bearing of these remarks will appear more fully when we come
to consider Cayley and Klein.
29. of Beltrami s Saggio, in his own eyes, lies in
The value
the intelligible Euclidean sense which it gives to Lobatchewsky s
planimetry the corresponding system of Solid Geometry, since

:
it has no meaning for Euclidean space, is barely mentioned in

1
this work. In a second paper however, almost contemporaneous
,
with the first, he proceeds to consider the general theory of

?i-dimensional manifolds of constant negative curvature. This
paper is greatly influenced by Riemann s dissertation it
begins ;
with the formula for the linear element, and proves from this
that Congruence holds for such spaces, and next, that
first,
they have, according to Riemann s definition, a constant negative

measure of curvature. (It is instructive to observe, that both
in this and in the former Essay, great stress is laid on the
necessity of the Axiom of Congruence.)
This work has less philosophical interest than the former,
since more than repeat, in a general form, the
it does little
results which the Saggio had obtained for two dimensions

results which sink, when extended to n dimensions, to the
level of mere mathematical constructions. Nevertheless, the
paper is important, both as a restoration of negative curvature,
which had been overlooked by Helmholtz, and as an analytical
treatment of Lobatchewsky s results a treatment which, to
gether with the Saggio, at last restored to them the prominence
they deserved.
Third Period.
30. The third period differs radically, alike in its methods

and aims, and in the underlying philosophical ideas, from the
period which it replaced. Whereas everything, in the second
period, turned on measurement, with its apparatus of Con
gruence, Free Mobility, Rigid Bodies, and the rest, these
vanish completely in the third period, which, swinging to the
opposite extreme, regards quantity as a perfectly irrelevant
1 "
Teoria fondamentale degli spazii di curvatura costanta," Annali di

Matematica, n. Vol. 2, 18G8-9. Also translated by J. Hoiiel, loc. cit.
category in Geometry, and dispenses with congruence and the

method of superposition. The ideas of this period, unfortu
nately, have foundno exponent so philosophical as Riemann
or Helmholtz, but have been set forth only by technical
mathematicians. Moreover the change of fundamental ideas,
which is immense, has not brought about an equally great
change in actual procedure for though spatial quantity is no
;
longer a part of projective Geometry, quantity is still employed,

and we still have equations, algebraic transformations, and so
on. This is apt to give rise to confusion, especially in the
mind of the student, who fails to realise that the quantities
used, so far as the propositions are really projective, are mere

names for points, and not, as in metrical Geometry, actual
spatial magnitudes.
Nevertheless, the fundamental difference between this period
and the former must strike any one at once. Whereas Riemanri
and Helmholtz dealt with metrical ideas, and took, as their
foundations, the measure of curvature and the formula for the
linear element both purely metrical the new method is
erected on the formulae for transformation of coordinates re
quired to express a given collineation. It begins by reducing

all so-called metrical notions distance, angle, etc. to projective
forms, and obtains, from this reduction, a methodological unity

and simplicity before impossible. This reduction depends,
however, except where the space-constant is negative, upon
imaginary figures in Euclid, the circular points at infinity; it is
moreover purely symbolic and analytical, and must be regarded
as philosophically irrelevant. As the question concerning the
import of this reduction is of fundamental importance to our

theory of Geometry, and as Cayley, in his Presidential Address
to the British Association in 1883, formally challenged philo
sophers to discuss the use of imaginaries, on which it depends,

I will treat this question at some length. But first let us see
how, as a matter of mathematics, the reduction is effected.
31. We shall throughout this period, that almost

find,
every important proposition, though misleading in its obvious

interpretation, has nevertheless, when rightly interpreted, a
wide philosophical bearing. So it is with the work of Cayley ,
the pioneer of the projective method.

The protective formula for angles, in Euclidean Geometry,

was first obtained by Laguerre, in 1853. This formula had,
however, a perfectly Euclidean character, and it was left for
Cayley to generalize it so as to include both angles and
distances in Euclidean and non-Euclidean systems alike 1 .
Cayley was, to the last, a staunch supporter of Euclidean

space, though he believed that non-Euclidean Geometries could
be applied, within Euclidean space, by a change in the definition
of distance 2 He has thus, in spite of his Euclidean orthodoxy,
.
provided the believers in the possibility of non-Euclidean spaces

with one of their most powerful weapons. In his Sixth
"
Memoir upon Quantics" (1859), he set himself the task of

"establishing the notion
of distance upon purely descriptive
principles."
He showed that, with the ordinary notion of
it can be rendered projective
distance, by reference to the
circular points and the line at infinity, and that the same is
3
true of angles Not content with this, he suggested a new
.
definition of distance, as the inverse sine or cosine of a certain

function of the coordinates ;
with this definition, the properties
usually known as metrical become prujective properties, having
reference to a certain conic, called by Cayley the Absolute.
(The circular points are, analytically, a

degenerate conic, so
that ordinary Geometry forms a particular case of the above.)
He proves that, when the Absolute is an imaginary conic, the
Geometry so obtained for two dimensions is spherical Geometry.
The correspondence with Lobatchewsky, in the case where
the Absolute is real, is not worked out indeed there is, :
throughout, no evidence of acquaintance with non-Euclidean

systems. The importance of the memoir, to Cayley, lies
entirely in its proof that metrical is only a branch of de
scriptive Geometry.
32. The connection of Cayley s Theory of Distance with
4
Metageometry was pointed out by Klein
first Klein showed .
in detail that, if the Absolute be real, we get Lobatchewsky s
1
See Klein, Nieht-Euklid, i. p. 47 f., and the references there given.
2
See quotation below, from his British Association Address.
3
Compare the opening sentence, due to Cayley, of Salmon s Higher Plane
Curves.
4 V. Nicht-Euklid, i. Chaps, i. and n.
(hyperbolic) system
if it be
imaginary, we get either spherical
;
Geometry or a new system, analogous to that of Helmholtz,

called by Klein elliptic if the Absolute be an
imaginary
;
point-pair, we get
parabolic Geometry, and if, in particular,
the point-pair be the circular points, we get ordinary Euclid.
In elliptic Geometry, two straight lines in the same plane meet
in only one point, not two as in Helmholtz s The
system.
distinction between the two kinds of Geometry is difficult,
and will be discussed later.
33. Since these systems are all obtained from a Euclidean

plane, by a mere alteration in the definition of distance, Cayley
and Klein tend to regard the whole question as one, not of
the nature of space, but of the definition of distance. Since
this definition, on their view, is perfectly
arbitrary, the phi
losophical problem vanishes Euclidean space is left in un
disputed possession, and the only problem remaining is one
of convention and mathematical convenience 1 This view has .
been forcibly expressed by Poincare What ought one to :

"
think," he says, of this question Is the Euclidean Geometry

"
true ? The question is nonsense." Geometrical axioms, ac

cording to him, are mere conventions they are
"
definitions :
in disguise 2
Thus Klein blames Beltrami for regarding his
."
auxiliary plane as merely auxiliary, and remarks that, if he

had known Cayley s Memoir, he would have seen the relation
between the plane and the pseudosphere to be far more intimate
than he supposed 3 A view which removes the problem entirely
.
from the arena of philosophy demands, plainly, a full dis

cussion. To this discussion we will now proceed.
34. The view in question has arisen,
it would seem, from
a natural confusion as to the nature of the coordinates em

ployed. Those who hold the view have not adequately realised,
I believe, that their coordinates are not spatial quantities, as
in metrical Geometry, but mere conventional signs, by which
different can be distinctly designated. There is no
points
reason, therefore, until we already have metrical Geometry,
1
See p. 9 of Cayley s address to the Brit. Ass. 1883. Also a quotation from
Klein in Erdmann s Axiome der Geometric, p. 124 note.
2
Nature, Vol. XLV. p. 407.
3
Nicht-Euklid, i. p. 200.
for regarding one function of the coordinates as a better ex

pression of distance than another, so long as the fundamental
addition- equation 1is preserved. Hence, if our coordinates are
regarded as adequate for all Geometry, an indeterminateness
arises in the expression of distance, which can only be avoided
by a convention. But projective coordinates so our argument

will contend though perfectly adequate for all projective
properties, and entirely free from any metrical presupposition,
are inadequate to express metrical properties, just because they
have no metrical presupposition. Thus where metrical pro
perties are in question, Beltrami remains justified as against
Klein the reduction of metrical to projective properties is
;
only apparent, though the independence of these last, as against

metrical Geometry, is perfectly real.
35. But what are projective coordinates, and how are they
introduced ? This question was not touched upon in Cayley s
Memoir, and it seemed, therefore, as if a logical error were
involved in using coordinates to define distance. For coor
dinates, in all previous systems, had been deduced from dis
tance to use any existing coordinate system in defining distance
;
was, accordingly, to incur a vicious circle. Cayley mentions

this in a note, where he
difficulty only remarks, however,
that he had regarded his coordinates as numbers arbitrarily
assigned, on some system not further investigated, to different
points. The difficulty has been treated at length by Sir R.
Ball (Theory of the Content, Trans. R. I. A. 1889), who
urges
that if the values of our coordinates
already involve the usual
measure of distance, then to give a new definition, while retain
ing the usual coordinates, is to incur a contradiction. He says

(op. cit. p. 1) In the study of non-Euclidean Geometry I have
:
"
often felt a difficulty which has, I know, been shared by others.

In that theory it seems as if we try to replace our ordinary
notion of distance between two points by the logarithm of
a certain anharmonic ratio-. But this ratio itself involves the
notion of distance measured in the ordinary way. How, then,
1
I.e. the equation AB + BC = AC, for three points in one straight line.
2
The formula substituted by Klein for Cayley s inverse sine or cosine.
The two are equivalent, but Klein s is mathematically much the more
convenient.
can we supersede our old notion of distance by the non-

Euclidean notion, inasmuch as the very definition of the latter
"
involves the former ?
This objection is valid, we must admit, so

36. long as
anharmonic ratio is defined in the ordinary metrical manner.
It would be valid, for example, against any attempt to found
a new definition of distance on Cremona s account of an
harmonic in which it appears as a metrical property
ratio 1 ,
unaltered by projective transformation. If a logical error is

to be avoided, in fact, all reference to spatial magnitude of
any kind must be avoided; for all spatial magnitude, as will

be shown hereafter 2 is logically dependent on the fundamental
,
magnitude of distance. Anharmonic ratio and coordinates

must alike be defined by purely descriptive properties, if the
use afterwards made of them is to be free from metrical pre
suppositions, and therefore from the objections of Sir R. Ball.
Such a definition has been satisfactorily given by Klein
3
,
who appeals, for the purpose, to quadrilateral con

v. Staudt s
struction 4 .
By this construction, which I have reproduced in
outline in Chapter ill. Section A, 112 ff., we obtain a purely de
scriptive definition of harmonic and anharmonic ratio, and, given

a pair of points, we can obtain the harmonic conjugate to any
third point on the same straight line. On this construction, the
introduction of projective coordinates is based. Starting with
any three points on a straight line, we assign to them arbitrarily
the numbers 0, 1, oo . We then find the harmonic conjugate to
the first with respect to 1, oo ,
and assign to it the number 2.
The object of assigning this number

rather than any other, is
to obtain the value 1 for the anharmonic ratio of the four
numbers corresponding We then find the to the four points 5 .
harmonic conjugate to the point 1, with respect to 2, oo and ,
assign to it the number 3 and so on. Klein has shown that ;
by this construction, we can obtain any number of points, and

1
Elements of Projective Geometry, Second Edition, Oxford, 1893,
Chap. ix.
2
Chap. in. Section B.
3
See Nicht-Euklid, i. p. 338 ff.
4
See his Geometrie der Lage, 8, Harmonische Gebilde.
5
The anharmonic ratio of four numbers, p, q, r, s, is denned as
can construct a point corresponding to any given number,

fractional or negative. Moreover, when two sets of four points
have the same anharmonic ratio, descriptively defined the 1
,
corresponding numbers also have the same anharmonic ratio.
By introducing such a numerical system on two straight lines,

or on three, we obtain the coordinates of any point in a plane,
or in space. By this construction, which is of fundamental
importance to protective Geometry, the logical error, upon

which Sir R. Ball bases his criticism, is satisfactorily avoided.
Our coordinates are introduced by a purely descriptive method,
and involve no presupposition whatever as to the measurement
of distance.
37. With this coordinate system, then, to define distance
as a certain function of the coordinates is not to be guilty of
a vicious circle. But it by no means follows that the defi
nition of distance is
arbitrary. All reference to distance has
been excluded, to avoid metrical ideas; but when
hitherto
distance is introduced, metrical ideas inevitably reappear, and
we have to remember that our coordinates give no information,
primd facie, as to any of these metrical ideas. It is open to
we choose, to continue to exclude distance in
us, of course, if
the ordinary sense, as the quantity of a finite straight line,
and to define the ivord distance in any way we please. But
the conception, for which the word has hitherto stood, will
then require a new name, and the only result will be a con
fusion between the apparent meaning of our propositions, to
those who
retain the associations belonging to the old sense
of the word, and the real meaning, resulting from the new
sense in which the word is used.
This confusion, I believe, has actually occurred, in the case
of those who regard the question between Euclid and Meta-
geometry as one of the definition of distance. Distance is a

quantitative relation, and as such presupposes identity of
quality. But protective Geometry deals only with quality

for which reason it is called descriptive and cannot distinguish
between two figures which are qualitatively alike. Now the
meaning of qualitative likeness, in Geometry, is the possibility
1
I.e. as transformable into each other by a collineation. See Chap. in.
Sec. A, 110.
R. G. 3
of mutual transformation by a collineation Any two pairs of *.
points on the same straight line, therefore, are qualitatively

alike their only qualitative relation is the straight line, which
;
both pairs have in common and it is exactly the qualitative

;
identity of the relations of the two pairs, which enables the

difference of their relations to be exhaustively dealt with by
quantity, as a difference of distance. But where quantity is

excluded, any two pairs of points on the same straight line
appear as alike, and even any two sets of three for any three :
points on a straight line can be protectively transformed into

any other three. It is only with four points in a line that we
acquire a projective property distinguishing them from other
sets of four, and this property is anharmonic ratio, descript
ively defined. The projective Geometer, therefore, sees no

reason to give a name to the relation between two points, in so
anything over and above the unlimited

far as this relation is
straight lineon which they lie; and when he introduces the

notion of distance, he defines it, in the only way in which
projective principles allow him to define it, as a relation between
four points. As he nevertheless wishes the word to give him
the power of distinguishing between different pairs of points,
he agrees to take two out of the four points as fixed. In this
way, the only variables in distance are the two remaining
and distance appears, therefore, as a function of two
points,
namely the coordinates of the two variable points.
variables,
When we have further defined our function so that distance
may be additive, we have a function with many of the proper
the ordinary sense. This function, therefore,
ties of distance in
the projective Geometer regards as the only proper definition of

distance.
We can see, in fact, from the manner in which our projective
coordinates were introduced, that some function of these
coordinates must express distance in the ordinary sense. For
they were introduced serially, so that, as we proceeded from the
zero-point towards the infinity-point, our coordinates continually
grew. To every point, a definite coordinate corresponded to :
the distance between

two variable points, therefore, as a
function dependent on no other variables, must correspond
1
See Chap. in. Sec. A.
some definite function of the coordinates, since these are

themselves functions of their points. The function discussed
above, therefore, must certainly include distance in the ordinary
sense.
But the arbitrary and conventional nature of distance, as
maintained by Poincare and Klein, arises from the fact that the
two fixed points, required to determine our distance in the
may be arbitrarily chosen, and although, when
project! ve sense,
our choice once made, any two points have a definite distance,
is
yet, according as we make that choice, distance will become a

different function of the two variable points. The ambiguity
thus introduced is unavoidable on projective principles; but
are we to conclude, from this, that it is really unavoidable ?
Must we not rather conclude that projective Geometry cannot
adequately deal with distance ? If A, B, C. be three different
points on a line, there must be some difference between the
relation of A to B and of A to C, for otherwise, owing to the
qualitative identity of all points, B and C could not be dis

tinguished. But such a difference involves a relation,
between
A and B, which is independent of other points on the line ;
for unless sve have such a relation, the other

points cannot be
distinguished as different. Before we can distinguish the two
fixed points, therefore, from which the
projective definition
starts, we must already suppose some relation, between any
two points on our line, in which they are independent of other
points and this relation is distance in the ordinary sense
;
l
.
When we have measured this quantitative relation by the

ordinary methods of metrical Geometry, we can proceed to
decide what base-points must be chosen, on our line, in order
that the projective function discussed above may have the
same value as ordinary distance. But the choice of these base-
points, when we are discussing distance in the ordinary sense,

is not arbitrary, and their introduction is only a technical
device. Distance, in the ordinary sense, remains a relation
between two points, not between four ; and it is the failure to
perceive that the projective sense differs from, and cannot
1
It follows from this, that the reduction of metrical to projective properties,
even when, as in hyperbolic Geometry, the Absolute is real, is only apparent,
and has a merely technical validity.
32
supersede, the ordinary sense, which has given rise to the

views
of Klein and Poincare The question is not one
.
of convention,
but of the irreducible metrical properties of space. To sum
up: Quantities, as used in projective Geometry, do not stand
for spatial magnitudes, but are conventional symbols for purely
qualitative spatial relations. But distance, qua quantity,

presupposes identity of quality, as the condition of quantitative
comparison. Distance in the ordinary sense is, in short, that
quantitative relation, between two points on a line, by which
their difference from other points can be defined. The pro
a
jective definition, however, being unable to distinguish
collection of less than four points from any other on the same
straight line, makes distance depend on two other points

besides those whose relation it defines. No name remains,
therefore, for distance in the ordinary sense, and many pro
jective Geometers, having abolished the name, believe the

thing to be abolished also, and are inclined to deny that two
points have a unique relation at all. This confusion, in
projective Geometry, shows the importance of

a name, and
should make us chary of allowing new meanings to obscure one
of the fundamental properties of space.
38. It remains to discuss the manner in which non-
Euclidean Geometries result from the projective definition of
distance, as also the true interpretation to be given to this view
of Metageometry. It is to be observed that the projective
methods which follow Cayley deal throughout with a Euclidean

plane, on which they introduce different measures of distance.
Hence arises, in any interpretation of these methods, an
apparent subordination of the non-Euclidean spaces, as though
these were less self-subsistent than Euclid s. This subordi
nation is not intended in what follows ;
on the contrary, the
correlation with Euclidean space regarded as valuable, first,
is
because Euclidean space has been longer studied and is more

familiar, but secondly, because this correlation proves, when
truly interpreted, that the other spaces are self-subsistent.

We may confine ourselves chiefly, in discussing this inter
pretation, to distances measured along a single straight line.

But we must be careful to remember that the metrical defi
nition of distance which, according to the view here advocated,

is the only adequate definition is the same in Euclidean and

in non- Euclidean spaces to argue in its favour is not, there
:
fore, to argue in favour of Euclid.

The project! ve scheme of coordinates consists of a series of
numbers, of which each represents a certain anharmonic ratio

and denotes one and only one point, and which increase
uniformly with the distance from a fixed origin, until they
become infinite on reaching a certain point. Now Cayley
showed that, in Euclidean Geometry, distance may be ex
pressed as the limit of the logarithm of the anharmonic
ratio of the two points and the (coincident) points at infinity
on their straight line while, if we assumed that the points at
;
infinity were distinct, we obtained the formula for distance in
hyperbolic or spherical Geometry, according as these points

were real or imaginary. Hence it follows that, with the
project! ve definition of distance, we shall obtain precisely the
formulae of hyperbolic, parabolic or spherical Geometry, accord
ing as we choose the point, to which the value + oc is assigned,
at a finite, infinite or imaginary distance (in the ordinary sense)
from the point to which we assign the value 0. Our straight
line remains, all the while, an ordinary Euclidean straight line.
But we have seen that the projective definition of distance fits

with the true definition only when the two fixed points to
which it refers are suitably chosen. Now
the ordinary meaning
of distance is
required in non-Euclidean as in Euclidean
Geometries indeed, only in metrical properties that these
it is
Geometries differ. Hence our Euclidean straight line, though

it may serve to illustrate other Geometries than Euclid s, can
only be with correctly by Euclid.
dealt Where we give a
different definition of distance from Euclid s, we are still in the
domain of purely projective properties, and derive no information
as to the metrical properties of our straight line. But the
importance, to Metageometry, of this new interpretation, lies in
the fact that, having independently established the metrical
formulae of non-Euclidean spaces, we find, as in Beltrami s
Saggio, that these spaces can be related, by a homographic
correspondence, with the points of Euclidean space and that ;
this can be effected in such a manner as to give, for the

distance between two points of our non-Euclidean space, the
hyperbolic or spherical measure of distance for the corresponding

points of Euclidean space.
39. On the whole, then, a modification of Sir R. Ball s view,
which is
practically a generalized statement of Beltrami s method,
seems the most tenable. He imagines what, with Grassmann, he
calls a Content, i.e. a perfectly general three-dimensional mani
fold, and then correlates its elements, one by one, with points
in Euclidean space. Thus every element of the Content ac
quires, as its coordinates, the ordinary Euclidean coordinates
of the corresponding point in Euclidean space. By means of
this correlation, our calculations, though they refer to the
Content, are carried on, as in Beltrami s Saggio, in ordinary

Euclidean space. Thus the confusion disappears, but with it,
the supposed Euclidean interpretation also disappears. Sir
R. Ball s Content, if it is to be a space at all, must be a space
radically different from Euclid s to speak, as Klein does, of

1
ordinary planes with hyperbolic or elliptic measures of distance,

is either to incur a contradiction, or to
forego any metrical
meaning of distance. Instead of ordinary planes, we have sur
faces like Beltrami s, of constant measure of curvature ;
instead
of Euclid s space, we have hyperbolic or spherical space. At
the same time, it remains true that we
can, by Klein s method,
give a Euclidean meaning to every symbolic proposition in non-
Euclidean Geometry. For by substituting, for distance, the
logarithm above alluded to, we obtain, from the non-Euclidean
result, a result which follows from the ordinary Euclidean

axioms. This correspondence removes, once for all, the possi
bility of a lurking contradiction in Metageometry, since,

to a
proposition in the one, corresponds one and only one proposition

in the other, and contradictory results in one system, therefore,
would correspond to contradictory results in the other. Hence
Metageometry cannot lead to contradictions, unless Euclidean
Geometry, at the same moment, leads to corresponding contra
dictions. Thus the Euclidean plane with hyperbolic or elliptic
measure of distance, though either contradictory or not metrical
1
Sir E. Ball does not regard his non-Euclidean content as a possible space
(v. op. cit. p. 151). In this important point I disagree with his interpretation,
holding such a content to be a space as possible, a priori, as Euclid s, and
perhaps actually true within the margin due to errors of observation.
as an independent notion, has, as a help in the interpretation of

non-Euclidean results, a very high degree of utility.
40. We have still to discuss Klein s third kind of non-
Euclidean Geometry, which he calls elliptic. The difference
between and spherical Geometry is difficult to grasp, but
this
it may be illustrated
by a simpler example. A plane, as every
one knows, can be wrapped, without stretching, on a cylinder,
and straight lines in the plane become, by this operation,
geodesies on the cylinder. The Geometries of the plane and
the cylinder, therefore, have much in common. But since the
generating circle of the cylinder, which is one of its geodesies,
only a portion of the plane is used up in wrapping it
is finite,
once round the cylinder. Hence, if we endeavour to establish

a point-to-point correspondence between the plane and the
cylinder, we shall find an infinite series of points on the plane
for a single point on the cylinder. Thus it happens that
geodesies, though on the plane they have only one point in

common, may on the cylinder have an infinite number of inter
sections. Somewhat similar to this is the relation between the
spherical and elliptic Geometries. To any one point in elliptic
space, two points correspond in spherical space. Thus geodesies,
which in spherical space may have two points in common, can
never, in elliptic space, have more than one intersection.
But Klein s method can only prove that elliptic Geometry
holds of the ordinary Euclidean plane with elliptic measure
of distance. Klein has made great endeavours to enforce the
distinction between the spherical and elliptic Geometries 1 but,
it is not immediately evident that the latter, as distinct from

the former, is valid.
In the first place, Klein Geometry, which arises as
s elliptic
one of the alternative metrical systems on a Euclidean plane or

in a Euclidean space, does not by itself suffice, if the above
discussion has been correct, to prove the possibility of an
elliptic i.e. of a
space, space having a point-to-point corre
spondence with the Euclidean space, and having as the ordinary
distance between two of its points the elliptic definition of the
distance between corresponding points of the Euclidean space.
To prove this possibility, we must adopt the direct method of
1
See Nicht-Euklid, i. p. 97 if. and p. 292 ff.
Newcomb (Crelle s Journal, Vol. 83). Now in the first place

Newcomb has not proved that his postulates are self-consistent ;
1
he has only failed to prove that they are contradictory This .
would leave elliptic space in the same position in which Lobat-

chewsky and Bolyai left hyperbolic space. But further there
seems to be, at first sight, in two- dimensional elliptic space, a
positive contradiction. To explain this, however, some account

of the peculiarities of the elliptic plane will be necessary.
The elliptic plane, regarded as a figure in three-dimensional
elliptic space, is what iscalled a double surface 2 i.e. as Newcomb ,
says 298) The two sides of a complete plane are

(loc. cit. p. :
"
not distinct, as in a Euclidean surface.... If. ..a being should

travel to distance 2D, he would, on his return, find himself on
the opposite surface to that on which he started, and would
have to repeat his journey in order to return to his original
position without leaving the surface." Now if we imagine a
1
Newcomb says (loc. cit. p. 293): "The system here set forth is founded
on the following three postulates.
I assume that space is triply extended, unbounded, without properties
"1.
dependent either on position or direction, and possessing such planeness in its

smallest parts that both the postulates of the Euclidean Geometry, and our
common conceptions of the relations of the parts of space are true for every
indefinitely small region in space.
"2. I assume that this space is affected with such curvature that a right
line shallalways return into itself at the end of a finite and real distance 21)
without losing, in any part of its course, that symmetry with respect to space
on all sides of it which constitutes the fundamental property of our con
ception of it.
"3. I assume that

if two right lines emanate from the same point, making
the indefinitely small angle a with each other, their distance apart at the
distance r from the point of intersection will be given by the equation
2aZ> rir
*
.
&m
TT 2D
The right line thus has this property in common
with the Euclidean right line
that two such lines intersect only in a single point. It may be that the number
of points in which two such lines can intersect admit of being determined from
the laws of curvature, but not being able so to determine it, I assume as a
postulate the fundamental property of the Euclidean right line."
It is plain that in the absence of the determination spoken of, the possibility
of elliptic space is not established. It may be possible, for example, to prove
that, in a space where there is a maximum to distance, there must be an infinite

number of straight lines joining two points of maximum distance. In this
event, elliptic space would become impossible.
2
For an elucidation of this term, see Klein, Nicht-Euklid, i. p. 99 ff.
A SHORT HISTORY OF METAGEOMETRY. 4-1
w;0-dimensional elliptic space, the distinction between the sides

of a plane becomes unmeaning, since it only acquires significance
by reference to the third dimension. Nevertheless, some such

distinction would be forced upon us. Suppose, for example,
that we took a small circle provided with an arrow,
as in the figure, and moved this circle once round
the universe. Then the sense of the arrow would
be reversed. We should thus be forced, either to
regard the new position as distinct from the former,
which transforms our plane into a spherical plane,
or to attribute the reversal of the arrow to the action of a
motion which restores our circle to its
original place. It is
to be observed that nothing short of moving round the
universe would suffice to reverse the sense of the arrow. This
reversal seems likean action of empty space, which would force
us to regard the points which, from a three-dimensional point
of view, are coincident though opposite, as really distinct, and
so reduce the elliptic to the spherical plane. But motion, not
space, really causes the change, and the elliptic plane is there
fore not proved to be impossible. The question is not, however,
of any great philosophic importance.
In connection with the reduction of metrical to pro-
41.
jective Geometry, we have one more topic for discussion. This

is the
geometrical use of imaginaries, by means of which, except
in the case of hyperbolic space, the reduction is effected. I
have already contended, on other grounds, that this reduction,

in spite of its immense technical importance, and in spite of
the complete logical freedom of protective Geometry from
metrical ideas, is purely technical, and is not philosophically
valid. The same conclusion will appear, if we take up Cayley s
challenge at the British Association, in his Presidential Address
of 1883.
In this address, Professor Cayley devoted most of his time
to non-Euclidean systems. Non-Euclidean spaces, he declared,
1
seemed to him mistaken a priori but non-Euclidean Geometries,
:
1
Cf. p. 9 of Report:
"My
own view is that Euclid s twelfth axiom, in
Playfair s form ofdoes not need demonstration, but is part of our notion of
it,
space, of the physical space of our experience, but which is the representation
lying at the bottom of all external experience."
here as in his mathematical works, were accepted as

flowing
from a change in the definition of distance. This view has
been already discussed, and need not, therefore, be further
criticised here. What I wish to speak about, is the question
with which Cayley himself opened his address, namely, the geo
metrical use and meaning of imaginary quantities. From the
manner in which he spoke of this question, it becomes im
perative to treat it somewhat at length. For he said (pp. 8-9):
"... The notion which the really fundamental one (and
is
I cannot too strongly emphasize the assertion) underlying and

pervading the whole notion of modern analysis and Geometry,
[is]that of imaginary magnitude in analysis, and of imaginary
space (or space as the locus in quo of imaginary points and

figures) in Geometry I use in each case the word imaginary
:
as including real.... Say even the conclusion were that the

notion belongs to mere technical mathematics, or has reference
to nonentities in regard to which no science is possible, still
it seems to me that (as a
subject of philosophical discussion)
the notion ought not to be thus ignored it should at least ;
be shown that there is a right to ignore it."
This right it is now my purpose to demonstrate. But

42.
for fear non -mathematicians should miss the point of Cay ley s
remark (which has sometimes been erroneously supposed to
refer to non-Euclidean spaces), I may as well explain, at the
outset, that this question is radically distinct from, and only

indirectly connected with, the validity or import of Meta-
geometry. An
imaginary quantity is one which involves
V 1 most general form is a + V 1 b where a and b are
: its
real Cayley uses the word imaginary so as to include real, in

;
order to cover the special case where 6 0. It will be con
venient, in what follows, to exclude this wider meaning, and

assume that b is not zero. An imaginary point is one whose
coordinates involve V 1, i.e. whose coordinates are imaginary
quantities. An imaginary curve is one whose points are ima

ginary or, in some special uses, one whose equation contains
imaginary coefficients. The mathematical subtleties to which
this notion leads need not be here discussed the reader who ;
is interested in themwill find an excellent elementary account
of their geometrical uses in Klein s Nicht-Euklid, 1 1.

pp. 38-46.
But for our present purpose, we may confine ourselves to
imaginary points. If these are found to have a merely technical

import, and to be destitute of any philosophical meaning, then
the same will hold of any collection of imaginary points, i.e.
of any imaginary curve or surface.

That the notion of imaginary points is of supreme im
portance in Geometry, will be seen by any one who reflects
that the circular points are imaginary, and that the reduction
of metrical to project! ve Geometry, which is one of Cay ley s
greatest achievements, depends on these points. But to discuss

adequately their philosophical import is difficult to me, since
I am unacquainted with any satisfactory philosophy of ima-
ginaries in pure Algebra. I will therefore adopt the most

favourable hypothesis, and assume that no objection can be
successfully urged against this use. Even on this hypothesis,

I think, no case can be made out for imaginary points in
Geometry.
In the first place, we must exclude, from the imaginary
points considered, those whose coordinates are only imaginary
with certain special systems of coordinates. For example, if
one of a point s coordinates be the tangent from to a sphere,
it
this coordinate will be imaginary for any point inside the

sphere, and yet the point is
perfectly real. A point, then, is
only to be called imaginary, when, whatever real system of
coordinates we adopt, one or more of the quantities expressing
these coordinates remains imaginary. For this purpose, it is
mathematically sufficient to suppose our coordinates Cartesian
a point whose Cartesian coordinates are imaginary, is a true
imaginary point in the above sense.

To discuss the meaning of such a point, it is necessary to
consider briefly the fundamental nature of the correspondence
between a point and its coordinates. Assuming that elementary
Geometry has proved what I think it does satisfactorily
prove that spatial relations are susceptible of quantitative

measurement, then a given point will have, with a suitable
system of coordinates, in a space of n dimensions, n quantitative
relations to the fixed spatial figure forming the axes of co
ordinates, and these n quantitative relations will, under certain

reservations, be unique i.e., no other point will have the
same
quantities assigned to it. (With many possible coordinate

systems, this latter condition is not realized but for that :
very reason they are inconvenient, and employed only in special

problems.) Thus given a coordinate system, and given any set
of quantities, these quantities, if they determine a point at all,
determine it uniquely. But, by a natural extension of the
method, the above reservation is dropped, and it is assumed
that to every set of quantities some point must correspond.
For this assumption there seems to me no vestige of evidence.
As well might a postman assume that, because every house in a
street is uniquely determined by number, therefore there
its
must be a house every imaginable number. We must

for
know, in fact, that a given set of quantities can be the co

ordinates of some point in space, before it is legitimate to give
any spatial significance to these quantities and this knowledge,

:
obviously, cannot be derived from operations with coordinates

alone, on pain of a vicious circle. We
must, to return to the
above analogy, know the number of houses in Piccadilly, before
we know whether a given number has a corresponding house or
not ;
and arithmetic alone, however subtly employed, will never
give us this information.
Thus the distinction which is important is, not the dis
tinction between real and imaginary quantities, but between
quantities to which points correspond and quantities to which
no points correspond. We can conventionally agree to denote
real pointsby imaginary coordinates, as in the Gaussian method
of denoting by the single quantity (a + V 1 6) the point whose
ordinary coordinates are a, b. But this does not touch Cayley s

meaning. Cayley means that it is of great utility in mathe
matics to regard, as points with a real existence in space, the
assumed spatial correlates of quantities which, with the
coordinate system employed, have no correlates in e very-day
space; this utility is supposed, by many mathema

and that
ticians, to indicate the validity of so fruitful an assumption.
To tix our ideas, let us consider Cartesian axes in three-
dimensional Euclidean space. Then it appears, by inspection,
that a point may be situated at any distance to right or left of
any of the three coordinate planes ; taking this distance as a

coordinate, therefore, it
appears that real points correspond to
all quantities from x to +00. The same appears for the

other two coordinates; and since elementary Geometry proves
their variations mutually independent, we know that one and
only one real point corresponds to any three real quantities.

But we also know, from the exhaustive method pursued, that
all space is covered by the range of these three variable
quantities : a fresh set of quantities, therefore, such as is
introduced by the use of imaginaries, possesses no spatial
correlate, and can be supposed to possess one only by a
convenient fiction.
43. The fact that the fiction is convenient, however, ma}
be thought to indicate that it is more than a fiction. But this
presumption, I think, can be easily explained away. For all
the fruitful uses of imaginaries, in Geometry, are those which
begin and end with real quantities, and use imaginaries only
for the intermediate steps. Now in all such cases, we have a
real spatial interpretation at the beginning and end of our
argument, where alone the spatial interpretation is important :
in the intermediate links, we are dealing in a purely algebraical

manner with purely algebraical quantities, and may perform
any operations which are algebraically permissible. If the
quantities with which we end are capable of spatial inter

pretation, then, and only then, our result may be regarded as
geometrical. To use geometrical language, in any other case,
is only a convenient
help to the imagination. To speak, for
example, of projective properties which refer to the circular
points, is mere inemoria technica for purely algebraical
a
properties the circular points are not to be found in space,

;
but only in the auxiliary quantities by which geometrical

equations are transformed. That no contradictions arise from
the geometrical interpretation of imaginaries, is not wonderful :
for they are interpreted

solely by the rules of Algebra, which
we may admit as valid in their application to imaginaries. The
perception of space being wholly absent, Algebra rules supreme,
and no inconsistency can arise. Wherever, for a moment, we
allow our ordinary spatial notions to intrude, the grossest
absurdities do arise every one can see that a circle, being a
closed curve, cannot get to infinity. The metaphysician, who
should invent anything so preposterous as the circular points,
would be hooted from the field. But the mathematician may

steal the horse with impunity.
Finally, then, only a knowledge of space, not a knowledge of
Algebra, can assure us that any given set of quantities will have
a spatial correlate, and in the absence of such a correlate,
operations with these quantities have no geometrical import.

This is the case with imaginaries in Cayley s sense, and their
use in Geometry, great as are its technical advantages, and
rigid as is its technical validity, is wholly destitute of philo

sophical importance.
44. We
have now, I think, discussed most of the questions
concerning the scope and validity of the projective method. We
have seen that it is independent of all metrical presuppositions,
and that its use of coordinates does not involve the assumption
that spatial magnitudes are measured or expressed by them.
We have seen that it is able to deal, by its own methods alone,
with the question of the qualitative likeness of geometrical
figures, which is logically prior to any comparison as to quantity,
since quantity presupposes qualitative likeness. have seen We
also that, so far as its legitimate use extends, it applies equally
to all homogeneous and that its criterion of an indepen
spaces,
dently possible space the determination of a straight line by
two points 1
is not subject to the
qualifications and limitations
which belong, as we have seen in the case of the cylinder, to
the metrical criterion of constant curvature. But we have also
seen that, when projective Geometry endeavours to grapple
with spatial magnitude, and bring distance and the measure
ment of angles beneath its sway, its success, though technically
valid and important, is philosophically an apparent success only.
Metrical Geometry, therefore, if quantity is to be applied to
space at all, remains a separate, though logically subsequent
branch of Mathematics.
45. It only remains to say a few words about Sophus Lie.
As a mathematician, as the inventor of a new and immensely
powerful method of analysis, he cannot be too highly praised.
Geometry is only one of the numerous subjects to which his
The exception to this axiom, in
1
spherical space, presupposes metrical
Geometry, and does not destroy the validity of the axiom for projective
Geometry. See Chap. in. Sec. B, 171.
A SHORT HISTORY OF M ETA GEOMETRY. 47
theory of continuous groups applies, but its application to

Geometry has made a revolution in method, and has rendered
such problems as Helmholtz s, a treatment infinitely
possible, in
more precise and exhaustive than any which was possible
before.
The general definition of a group is as follows If we have :
any number of independent variables x .r2 ...&v and any series

l rt ,
of transformations of these into new variables the trans

formations being defined by equations of specified forms, with
parameters varying from one transformation to another then

the series of transformations form a group, if the successive
application of any two is equivalent to a single member of the

original series of transformations. The group is continuous,
when we can pass, by infinitesimal gradations within the group,
from any one of the transformations to an} other.
Now, in Geometry, the result of two successive motions
or collineations of a figure can always be obtained by a single
motion or collmeation, and any motion or collineation can be
builtup of a series of infinitesimal motions or collineations.
Moreover the analytical expression of either is a certain trans
formation of the coordinates of the points of the figure 1
all .
Hence the transformations determining a motion or a col

lineation are such as to form a continuous group. But the
question of the protective equivalence of two figures, to which
all projective
Geometry is reducible, must always be dealt
with by a collineation ;
and the question of the equality of
two figures, to which all metrical Geometry is reducible, must
always be decided by a motion such as to cause superposition ;
hence the whole subject of Geometry may be regarded as a

theory of the continuous groups which define all possible
collineations and motions.
NowSophus Lie has developed, at great length, the purely
analytical theory of groups; he has therefore, by this method
of formulating the problem, a very powerful weapon ready for
1
Mathematicians of Lie s school have a habit, at first somewhat confusing,
of speaking of motions of space instead of motions of bodies, as though space
as a whole could move. All that is meant is, of course, the equivalent
motion of the coordinate axes, i.e. a change of axes in the usual elementary
sense.
the attack. In two papers On the foundations of Geometry "

1
,"
undertaken at Klein s urgent request, he takes premisses which

roughly correspond to those of Helmholtz, omitting Mono-
dromy, and applies the theory of groups to the deduction of
their consequences 2 Helmholtz s work, he says, can hardly be .
looked upon as proving its conclusions, and indeed the more
searching analysis of the group-theory reveals several possi

bilities unknown to Helmholtz. Nevertheless, as a pioneer,
devoid of Lie s machinery, Helmholtz deserves, I think, more
praise than Lie is willing to give him 3 .
Lie s method
perfectly exhaustive omitting the premiss
is ;
of Monodroray, the others show that a

body has six degrees of
freedom, i.e. that the group giving all possible motions of a
body will have six independent members ;
if we keep one point
fixed, the number
of independent members is reduced to three.
He then, from his general theory, enumerates all the groups
which satisfy this condition. In order that such a group should
1
Ueber die Grundlagen der Geometrie," Leipziger Berichte, 1890. The
"
problem of these two papers is really metrical, since it is concerned, not with
collineations in general, but with motions. The problem, however, is dealt
with by the projective method, motions being regarded as collineations which
leave the Absolute unchanged. It seemed impossible, therefore, to discuss Lie s
work, until some account had been given of the projective method.
2
Lie s premisses, to be accurate, are the following :
Let
x i=f(x,y, , i, 2 ---)
.r
a
= 0(ar, y, z, a t ,
a2 ...)
r 3=^(*. y,z, i, ">..-)
give an infinite family of real transformations of space, as to which we make the

following hypotheses :
A. The functions /, 0, \j/,

are analytical functions of
x, y, z, a lf flo....
B. Two points x^y l z l ,

X 2y 2z 2 possess an invariant, i.e.
fi(-î> ?A> n a, y-i, z.2 )=0(aV 2//, Zi, -V> 2/ 2 ,

z2 )
where are the transformed coordinates of the two points.

.r/..., x.2 ,...
C. Free Mobility: i.e., any point can be moved into any other position ;
when one point is fixed, any other point of general position can take up oo 2
positions; when two points are fixed, any other of general position can take up
positions ; when three, no motion is possible
l
oo these limitations being results
of the equations given by the invariant ft.
3
On this point, cf. Klein, Hohere Geometrie, Gottingen, 1893, n. pp. 225-
244, especially pp. 230-1.
give possible motions, it is necessary, by Helmholtz s second

axiom, that it should leave invariant some function of the
coordinates of any two points. This -eliminates several of the
groups previously enumerated, each of which he discusses in
turn. He is thus led to the following results:
I. In two dimensions, if free mobility is to hold uni
versally, there are no groups satisfying Helmholtz s first three
axioms, except those which give the ordinary Euclidean and
non-Euclidean motions but if it is to hold only within a
;
certain region, there is also a possible

group in which the
curve described by any point in a rotation is not closed, but
an equiangular spiral. To exclude this possibility, Helmholtz s
axiom of Monodromy is required.
II.In three dimensions, the results go still more against
Helmholtz. Assuming free mobility only within a certain region,
we have to distinguish two cases Either free mobility holds,
:
within that region, absolutely without exception, i.e. when one
point is held fast, every other point within the region can
move freely over a surface : in this case the axiom of Mo
nodromy unnecessary, and the first three axioms suffice to
is
define our group as that of Euclidean and non-Euclidean mo

tions. Or free mobility, within the specified region, holds
only of every point of general position, while the points of a
certain line, when one point is fixed, are only able to move
on that line, not on a surface when this is the case, other
;
groups are possible, and can only be excluded by Helmholtz s
fourth axiom.
Having now stated the purely mathematical results of Lie s

investigations, we may return to philosophical considerations,
by which Helmholtz s work was mainly motived. It becomes
obvious, not only that exceptions within a certain region, but
also that limitation to a certain region, of the axiom of Free
Mobility, are philosophically quite impossible and inconceivable.

How can a certain a certain surface, form an impassable
line, or
barrier in space, or have any mobility different in kind from
that of all other lines or surfaces ? The notion cannot, in
philosophy, be permitted for a moment, since it destroys that

most fundamental of all the axioms, the homogeneity of space.
We not only may, therefore, but must take Helmholtz s axiom
R. G. 4
of Free Mobility in its very strictest seuse ;

the axiom of
Monodromy thus becomes mathematically, as philo well as
sophically, superfluous. This is, from a philosophical standpoint,

the most important of Lie s results.
46. I have now come to the end of my history of M eta-
geometry. It has not been my aim to give an exhaustive
account of even the important works on the subject in the
third period, especially, the names of Poincare, Pasch, Cremona,
Veronese, and others who might be mentioned, would have
cried shame upon me, had had any such object. But I have
I
tried to set forth, as clearly as I could, the principles at work
in the various periods, the motives and results of successive
theories. We have seen how the philosophical motive, at first
predominant, has been gradually extruded by the purely mathe
matical and technical spirit of most recent Geometers. At
first, to discredit the Transcendental Aesthetic seemed, to Meta-
geometers, as important as to advance their science but from ;
the works of Cayley, Klein or Lie, no reader could gather that

Kant had ever We
have also seen, however, that as
lived.
the interest in philosophy waned, the interest for philosophy

increased as the mathematical results shook themselves free
:
from philosophical controversies, they assumed gradually a

stable form, from which further development, we may reason
ably hope, will take the form of growth, rather than trans
formation. The same gradual development out of philosophy
might, I believe, be traced in the infancy of most branches of
mathematics ;
when philosophical motives cease to operate,
this in general, a sign that the stage of uncertainty as to
is,
premisses is past, so that the future belongs entirely to mathe

matical technique. When this stable stage has been attained,
it is timePhilosophy to borrow of Science, accepting its
for
final premisses as those imposed by a real

necessity of fact
or logic.
47. Now in discussing the systems of Metageometry, we
have found two kinds, radically distinct and subject to different
axioms. The historically prior kind, which deals with metrical
ideas, discusses, to begin with, the conditions of Free Mobility,
which is essential to all measurement of space. It finds the
analytical expression of these conditions in the existence of
a space -constant, or constant measure of curvature, which is

equivalent to the homogeneity of space. This is its first
axiom.
Itssecond axiom states that space has a finite integral
number of dimensions, i.e. in metrical terms, that the position
of a point, relative to any other figure in space, is
uniquely
determined by a finite number of spatial magnitudes, called
coordinates.
The third axiom of metrical
Geometry may be called, to
distinguish from the
it
corresponding protective axiom, the
axiom of distance. There exists one relation, it says, between
any two points, w hich can be preserved unaltered in a combined
r
motion of both points, and which, in any motion of a system

as one rigid body, is always unaltered. This relation we call
distance.
The above statement of the three essential axioms of
metrical Geometry taken from Helmholtz as amended by Lie.
is
Lie s own statement of the axioms, as quoted above, has been

too much influenced by project! ve methods to give a historically
correct rendering of the spirit of the second period; Helmholtz s
statement, on the other hand, requires, as Lie has shewn, very

considerable modifications. The above compromise may, there
fore, I hope be taken as accepting Lie s corrections while
retaining Helmholtz s spirit.

48. But metrical Geometry, though it is historically prior,
is logically subsequent For project! ve
to protective Geometry.
Geometry deals directly with that qualitative likeness, which
the judgment of quantitative comparison requires as its basis.
Now the above three axioms of metrical Geometry, as we shall
see in Chapter Section B, do not presuppose measurement,
ill.
but are, on the contrary, the conditions presupposed by

measurement. Without these axioms, which are common to
allthree spaces, measurement would be impossible with them, :
so I shall contend, measurement is able, though only empirically,

to decide approximately which of the three spaces is valid of
our actual world. But if these three axioms themselves express,
not results, but conditions, of measurement, must they not be
equivalent to the statement of that qualitative likeness on
which quantitative comparison depends ? And if so, must we
42
not expect to find the same axioms, though perhaps under a

different form, in protective Geometry ?
49. This expectation will not be disappointed. The above

three axioms, as we shall see hereafter, are one and all
philosophically equivalent to the homogeneity of space, and

this in turn is equivalent to the axioms of projective Geometry.
The axioms of projective Geometry, in fact, may be roughly
stated thus :
I. continuous and infinitely divisible the zero of

Space is ;
extension, resulting from infinite division, is called a Point.

All points are qualitatively similar, and distinguished by the
mere fact that they lie outside one another.
Any two points determine a unique figure, the straight
II.
line two straight lines, like two points, are qualitatively

;
similar, and distinguished by the mere fact that they are
mutually external.
III. Three points not in one straight line determine a
unique figure, the plane, arid four points not in one plane
determine a figure of three dimensions. This process may, so
far as can be seen a priori, be continued, without in any way
interfering with the possibility of projective Geometry, to five
or to n points. But projective Geometry requires, as an axiom,
that the process should stop with some positive integral number
of points, after which, any fresh point is contained in the
figure determined by those already given. If the process stops

with (n 4- 1) points, our space is said to have n dimensions.
These three axioms, it will be seen, are the equivalents of
the three axioms of metrical Geometry 1 expressed without ,
reference to quantity. We shall find them to be deducible, as

before, from the homogeneity of space, or, more generally still,
from the possibility of experiencing externality. They will
therefore appear as a priori, as essential to the existence of any

Geometry and to experience of an external world as such.
50. That some logical necessity is involved in these axioms
might, be inferred as probable, from their historical
I think,
development alone. For the systems of Metageometry have

not, in general, been set up as more likely to fit facts than the
1
Axiom ii. of the metrical triad corresponds to Axiom in. of the projective,
and vice versa.

A SHORT HISTORY OF METAGEOMETRV. 53
system of Euclid with the exception of Zollner, for example, I

;
know of no one who has regarded the fourth dimension as

required to explain phenomena. As regards the space-constant
again, though a small space-constant is regarded as empirically
possible, it is not usually regarded as probable and the finite ;
space-constants, with which Metageometry is equally con

versant, are not usually thought even possible, as explanations
of empirical fact Thus the motive has been throughout not
.
one of fact, but one of logic. Does not this

give a strong
presumption, that those axioms which are retained, are retained
because they are logically indispensable ? If this be so, the
axioms common to Euclid and Metageometry will be d priori,
while those peculiar to Euclid will be After a
empirical.
criticism of some differing theories of Geometry, I shall proceed,
in Chapters HI. and iv., to the proof and consequences of this
thesis, which will form the remainder of the present work.
1
Cf. Helniholtz, Wiss. Abh. Vol. n. p. 640, note: "Die Bearbeiter
der Nicht-Euklidischen Geometric (haben) deren Wahrheit nie
objective
behauptet."
CHAPTER II.
CRITICAL ACCOUNT OF SOME PREVIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL

THEORIES OF GEOMETRY.
51. WE have now traced the mathematical development

of the theory of geometrical axioms, from the revolt against
first
Euclid to the present day. We may hope, therefore, to have

at our command the technical knowledge required for the
philosophy of the subject. The importance of Geometry, in
the theories of knowledge which have arisen in the past, can
scarcely be exaggerated. In Descartes, we find the whole
theory of method dominated by analytical Geometry, of whose
fruitfulness he was justly proud. In Spinoza, the paramount
influence of Geometry is obvious to require comment.
too
Among mathematicians, Newton s belief in absolute space was
long supreme, and is still responsible for the current formu

lation of the laws of motion. Against this belief on the one
hand, and against Leibnitz s theory of space on the other, and
not, as Caird has pointed out 1 against Hume s empiricism,
,
was directed that keystone of the Critical Philosophy, the

Kantian doctrine of space. Thus Geometry has been, through
supreme importance in the theory of knowledge.
out, of
But in a criticism of representative modern theories of
Geometry, which is designed to be, not a history of the subject,
but an introduction to, and defence of, the views of the author,
it not be necessary to discuss any more ancient theory
will
than that of Kant. Kant s views on this subject, true or false,
have so dominated subsequent thought, that whether they were
1
The Critical Philosophy of Kant, Vol. I.
p. 287.
PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES OF GEOMETRY. 55
accepted or rejected, they seemed equally potent in forming

the opinions, and the manner of exposition, of almost all later
writers.
Kant.
52. It is not my purpose, in this chapter, to add to the
voluminous literature of Kantian criticism, but only to discuss
the bearing of Metageometry on the argument of the Tran
scendental Aesthetic, and the aspect under which this argument
must be viewed in a discussion of Geometry 1 On this point .
several misunderstandings seem to me to have had wide pre
valence, both among friends and foes, and these misunder
standings I shall endeavour, if I can. to remove.

In the first place, what does Kant s doctrine mean for
Geometry Obviously not the aspect of the doctrine which

?
has been attacked by psychologists, the Kantian machine- "
James
"
shop as calls it at any rate, if this can be clearly

separated from the logical aspect. The question whether space
is
given in sensation, or whether, as Kant maintained, it is
given by an intuition to which no external matter corresponds,
may for the present be disregarded. If, indeed, we held the
view which seems crudely to sum up the standpoint of the
Critique, the view that all certain knowledge is self-knowledge,
then we should be committed, if we had decided that Geometry
was apodeictic, to the view that space is subjective. But even
then, the psychological question could only arise when the
epistemological question had been solved, and could not, there
fore, be taken into account in our first
investigation. The
question before us is
precisely the question whether, or how
far,Geometry apodeictic, and for the moment we have only
is
to investigate this question, without fear of psychological con
sequences.
53. Now on this question, as on almost all questions in the
Aesthetic or the Analytic, Kant s argument is twofold. On
the one hand, he says, Geometry known to have apodeictic
is
certainty: therefore space must be a priori and subjective.

On the other hand, it follows, from grounds independent of
1
For a iliseussion of Kant from a less purely mathematical standpoint, see
Chap. iv.
Geometry, that space is subjective and a priori therefore ;
Geometry must have apodeictic certainty. These two argu

ments are not clearly distinguished in the Aesthetic, but a
little analysis, I think, will disentangle them. Thus in the first
edition, the two arguments deduce, from non-geometrical
first
grounds, the apriority of space the third deduces the apodeictic

;
certainty of Geometry, and maintains, conversely, that no other

view can account for this certainty the last two arguments
1
;
only maintain that space is an intuition, not a concept. In

the second edition, the double argument is clearer, the apriority
of space being proved independently of Geometry in the meta
physical deduction, and deduced from the certainty of Geometry,
as the only possible explanation of this, in the transcendental
deduction. In the Prolegomena, the latter argument alone is
used, but in the Critique both are employed.
54. Now it must be admitted, I think, that Metageometry
has destroyed the legitimacy of the argument from Geometry
to space we can no longer affirm, on purely geometrical
;
grounds, the apodeictic certainty of Euclid. But unless Meta

geometry has done more than this unless it has proved, what
I believe it alone cannot prove, that Euclid has not apodeictic
certainty then Kant s other line of argument retains what

force it may ever have had. The actual space we know, it
may
say, admittedly Euclidean, and is proved, without any reference
is
to Geometry, to be cl priori; hence Euclid has apodeictic
certainty, and non-Euclid stands condemned. To this it is no

answer to urge, with the Metageometers, that nod-Euclidean
systems are logically self-consistent ;
for Kant is careful to
argue that geometrical reasoning, by virtue of our intuition

of space, is synthetic, and cannot, though a priori, be upheld
2
by the principle of contradiction alone Unless non-Euclideans .
can prove, what they have certainly failed to prove up to the

present, that we can frame an intuition of non-Euclidean spaces,
1
Cf. Vaihinger s Commentai, n. pp. 202, 265. Also p. 336 if.
2
E.g. second edition, p. 3 J: "So wcrden auck alle geometrisclieii (miud-
satze, z. B. dass in einem Triaugel zwei Seiten zusammen grosser sind als die
dritte, nieiuals aus allgenieiiien Begriffen von Linie uud Triangel, sondern
aus der Anscliauung, und zvvar a priori mit apodiktisolier Gewissheit
abgeleitet."
Kant s position cannot be upset by Metageometry alone, but

must also be attacked, if it is to be successfully attacked, on
its purely philosophical side.
55. For such an attack, two roads lie open either we may :
disprove the two arguments of the Aesthetic, or we may

first
criticize,, from the standpoint of general logic, the Kantian doc
trine of synthetic a priori judgments and their connection with
subjectivity. Both these attacks, I believe, could be conducted

with some success ;
but if we are to disprove the apodeictic cer
tainty of Geometry, one or other is essential, and both, I believe,

will be found only partially successful. It will be my aim to
prove, in discussing these two lines of attack, (1) that the

dis
tinction of synthetic and analytic judgments is untenable, and
further, that the principle of contradiction can only give fruitful

results on the assumption that experience in general, or in a :
particular science, some

special branch of experience, is to be
formally possible (2) that the first two arguments of the Tran
;
scendental Aesthetic suffice to prove, not Euclidean space,

but some form of externality which may be sensational or
intuitional, but not merely conceptual a necessary prerequisite
of experience of an external world. In the third and fourth
chapters, I shall contend, as
a result of these conclusions, that
those axioms, which Euclid and Metageometry have in common,
coincide with those properties of any form of externality which
are deducible, by the principle of contradiction, from the possi
bility of experience of an external world. These properties,

then, may be said, though not quite in the Kantian sense, to be
a priori properties of space, and as to these, I think, a modified
Kantian position may be maintained. But the question of the
subjective or objective nature of space may

be left wholly out
of account during the course of this discussion, which will gain
by dealing exclusively with logical, as opposed to psychological

points of view.
56. (1) Kant s logical position.
The doctrine of synthetic
and analytic judgments at any rate if this is taken as the
corner-stone of Epistemology has been so completely rejected
it would demand little attention
1
by most modern logicians that ,
Cf. Bradley s Logic, Bk. in. Pt.

1 i. Chap. vi. ; Bosanquet s Logic, Bk. i.
Chap. i. pp. 07-103.

here, but for the fact that an enthusiastic French Kantian,

M. Renouvier, has recently appealed to it, with perfect con
fidence, on the very question of Geometry And it must be 1
.
owned, with M. Renouvier, that if such judgments existed, in

the Kantian sense, non- Euclidean Geometry, which makes no
appeal to intuition, could have nothing to say against them.

M. Renouvier s contention, therefore, forces us briefly to review
the arguments against Kant s doctrine, and briefly to discuss
what logical canon is to replace it.
Every judgment so modern logic contends is both syn
thetic and analytic ;

it combines parts into a whole, and analyses
2
a whole into parts If this be .
so, the distinction of analysis
and synthesis, whatever may be its importance in pure Logic,
can have no value in Epistemology. But such a doctrine, it
must be observed, allows full scope to the principle of contra
diction this criterion, since all judgments, in one aspect at
:
least, are analytic, is applicable to all judgments alike. On

the other hand, the whole which is analysed must be supposed
already given, before the parts can be mutually contradictory :
for only by connection in a given whole can two parts or

adjectives be incompatible. Thus the principle of contradiction
remains barren until we already have some judgments, and
even some inference for the parts may be regarded, to some
:
extent, as an inference from the whole, or vice versa. When

once the arch of knowledge is constructed, the parts support
one another, and the principle of contradiction is the keystone :
but until the arch is built, the keystone remains suspended,

unsupported and unsupporting, in the empty air. In other
words, knowledge once existent can be analysed, but knowledge
which should have to win every inch of the way against a criti
cal scepticism, could never begin, and could never attain that
circular condition in which alone it can stand.
But Kant s designed to restrain a critical
doctrine, if true, is
scepticism even where it might be effective. Certain funda

mental propositions, he says, are not deducible from logic,
Philosophic de la Kegle et du Compas, Annee Philosophise, n. pp. 1-66.

1
2 I
have stated this doctrine dogmatically, as a proof would require a whole
treatise on Logic. I accept the proofs offered by Bradley and Bosanquet, to
which the reader is referred.
i.e.their contradictories are not

self-contradictory; they com
bine a subject and predicate which cannot, in any purely logical
way, be shewn to have any connection, and yet these judgments
have apodeictic certainty. But concerning such judgments,
Kant is generally careful not to rely upon the mere subjective
conviction that they are undeniable he proves, with every
:
precaution, that without them experience would be impossible.

Experience consists in the combination of terms which formal
and presupposes, therefore, certain judgments
logic leaves apart,
which a framework is made for bringing such terms together.
by
Without these judgments so Kant contends all synthesis
and all experience would be impossible. If, therefore, the
detail of the Kantian reasoning be sound, his results may be
obtained by the principle of contradiction plus the possibility
of experience, as well as by his distinction of synthetic and
analytic judgments.
at once a wider
Logic, at the present day, arrogates to itself
and a narrower sphere than Kant allowed to it. Wider, because
it condemning any false principle or
believes itself capable of
because it believes that its law of contra
postulate narrower,
;
diction, without a given whole or a given hypothesis, is power
less, and that two terms, per se, though they may be different,
cannot be contradictories, but acquire this relation only by
combination in a whole about which something is known, or
some must
by connection with a postulate which, for reason,
be preserved. Thus no judgment, per se, iseither analytic or
synthetic, for the severance of a judgment

from its context robs
it of its vitality, and makes it not truly a judgment at all.
nor
But in its proper context it is neither purely synthetic
for while it is the further determination of a
purely analytic ;
it also involves the

given whole, and thus in so far analytic,
of new relations within this whole, and is so far
emergence
synthetic.
57. We may retain, however, a distinction roughly cor
responding to the Kantian a priori and
a posteriori, though
less rigid, and more liable to change with the degree of organ
isation of knowledge. Kant usually endeavoured to prove,

as observed above, that his synthetic a priori propositions were
necessary prerequisites of experience ;
now although we cannot
retain the term synthetic, we can retain the term a priori.

for those assumptions, or those postulates, from which alone
the possibility of experience follows. Whatever can be deduced

from these postulates, without the aid of the matter of ex
perience, will also, of course, be a priori. From the standpoint
of general logic, the laws of thought and the categories, with
the indispensable conditions of their applicability, will be alone
d priori but from the standpoint of any special science, we
,
may a priori whatever renders possible the experience

call
which forms the subject-matter of our science. In Geometry,

to particularize, we may call a priori whatever renders possible
experience of externality as such.

It is to be observed that this use of the term is at once
more rationalistic and less precise than that of Kant. Kant
would seem to have supposed himself immediately aware, by
inspection, that some knowledge was apodeictic, and its subject-
matter, therefore, a priori but he did not always deduce its
:
apriority from any further principle. Here, however, it is to

be shown, before admitting apriority, that the falsehood of the
judgment in question would not be effected by a mere change
in the matter of experience, but only by a change which should
render some branch of experience formally impossible, i.e. in
accessible to our methods of cognition. The above use is also
less precise, for it varies according to the specialization of the
experience we are assuming possible, and with every progress
of knowledge some new connection is perceived, two previously
isolatedjudgments are brought into logical relation, and the
a priori may thus, at any moment, enlarge its sphere, as more
is found deducible from fundamental postulates.
58.
(2) Kant s arguments for the apriority of space.
Having now discussed the logical canon to be used as regards
the a priori, we may proceed to test Kant s arguments as
regards space. The argument from Geometry, as remarked

above, is upset by Metageometry, at least so far as those
properties are concerned, which belong to Euclid but not to

non-Euclidean spaces as regards the common properties of
;
both kinds of space, we cannot decide on their apriority till

we have discussed the consequences of denying them, which
will be done in Chapter ill. As regards the two arguments
which prove that space is an intuition, not a

concept, they
would call for much discussion in a special criticism of Kant,
but here they may be passed by with the obvious comment
that infinite homogeneous Euclidean space is a concept, not
an intuition a concept invented to explain an intuition, it
is true, but still a pure concept 1 . And it is this pure concept
which, in all discussions of Geometry, is

primarily to be dealt
with the intuition need only be referred to where it throws
;
light on the functions or the nature of the concept. The

second of Kant s arguments, that we can imagine empty space,
though not the absence of space, is false if it means a space
without matter anywhere, and irrelevant if it merely means
a space between matters and regarded as empty 2 The only .
argument of importance, then, is the first argument. But

I must insist, at the outset, that our problem is purely logical,
and that all psychological implications must be excluded to
the utmost possible extent. Moreover, as will be proved in
Chapter iv., the proper function of space is to distinguish
between different presented things, not between the Self and
the object of sensation or perception. The argument then
becomes the following: consciousness of a world of mutually
external things demands, in presentations, a cognitive but non-
inferentialelement leading to the discrimination of the objects
presented. This element must be non-inferential, for from
whatever number or combination of presentations, which did
not of themselves demand diversity in their objects, I could
never be led to infer the mutual externality of their objects.
Kant says In order that sensations may be ascribed to some
:
"
thing external to me.,. and similarly in order that I may be

able to present them as outside and beside one another,...
the presentation of space must be already present."
But
this goes rather too far: in the first place, the question
should be only as to the mutual externality of presented
3
things, not as to their externality to the Self and in the ;
second place, things will appear mutually external if I have

the presentation of any form of externality, whether Euclidean
1
For a further discussion of this point, see Chaps, m. and iv.
2
See Chap. iv. for a discussion of this argument.
3
See Chap. iv. 185,
or non-Euclidean. Whatever may be true of the psychological
scope of this argument whose validity is here irrelevant

the logical scope extends, not to Euclidean space, but only to
any form of externality which could exist intuitively, and
permit knowledge, in beings with our laws of thought, of a
world of diverse but interrelated things.
Moreover externality, to render the scope of the argument
wholly logical, must not be left with a sensational or intuitional
it must be
meaning, though supposed given in sensation or
intuition. must mean, in this argument, the fact of Other
It
1
ness the fact of being different from some other thing: it must
,
involve the distinction between different things, and must be

that element, in a cognitive state, which leads us to discrimi
nate constituent parts in its object. So much, then, would
appear to result from Kant s argument, that experience of
diverse but interrelated things demands, as a necessary prere
quisite, some sensational or intuitional element, in perception,

by which we are led to attribute complexity to objects of
2
perception that this element, in its isolation may be called
;
a form of externality and that those properties of this form,

;
if any such be found, which can be deduced from its mere

function of rendering experience of interrelated diversity pos
sible, are to be regarded as a priori. What these properties
are, and how the various lines of argument here suggested con
verge to a single result, we shall see in Chapters in. and iv.
59. In the philosophers who followed Kant, Metaphysics,
for the most part, so predominated over Epistemology, that
little was added to the theory of Geometry. What was added,

came indirectly from the one philosopher who stood out against
the purely ontological speculations of his time, namely Herbart.
Herbart s actual views on Geometry, which are to be found
chiefly in the first section of his Synechologie, are not of any
great value, and have borne no great fruit in the development
of the subject. But his psychological theory of space, his
construction of extension out of series of points, his comparison
of space with the tone and colour-series, his general preference
1
An Otherness of substance, rather than of attribute, is here intended ;
an
Otherness which may perhaps be called real as opposed to logical diversity.
2
This proposition will be argued at length in Chap. iv.
for the discrete above the continuous, and finally his belief
in the great importance of classifying space with other forms
of series (Reihenformen 1 ), gave rise to many of Riemann s
epoch-
making speculations, and encouraged the attempt to explain
the nature of space by its analytical and quantitative aspect
alone 2 Through his influence on Riemann, he acquired, in
.
directly, a great importance in geometrical philosophy. To

Riemann s dissertation, which we have already discussed in
itsmathematical aspect, we must now return, considering, this
time, only its philosophical views.
Riemann.
60. The aim of Riemann s dissertation, as we saw in
Chapter I., was

to define space as a species of manifold, i.e.
as a particular kind of collection of magnitudes. It was thus
assumed, to begin with, that spatial figures could be regarded
as magnitudes, and the axioms which emerged, accordingly,
determined only the particular place of these among the many
algebraically possible varieties of magnitudes. The resulting
formulation of the axioms while, from the mathematical
standpoint of metrical Geometry, it was almost wholly laud

able must, from the standpoint of philosophy, be regarded,
in my opinion, as a petitio principii. For when we have
arrived regarding spatial figures as magnitudes, we have
at
already traversed the most difficult part of the ground. The

axioms of metrical Geometry and it is metrical Geometry,
exclusively, which is considered in Riemann s Essay will
appear, in Chapter ill., to be divisible into two classes. Of

these, the first class which contains the axioms common to
Euclid and Metageometry, the only axioms seriously discussed
by Riemann are not the results of measurement, nor of any
conception of magnitude, but are conditions to be fulfilled
beforemeasurement becomes possible. The second class only
those which express the difference between Euclidean and non-
1
See Psychologic als Wissenscbaft, i. Section in. Chap. vn. ; n. Section i.
Chap. in. and Section n. Chap. in. Compare also Synechologie, Section i.
Chaps, n. and in.
2
On the influence of Herbart on Riemann, compare Erdmann, Die Axiome
der Geometric, p. 30.
Euclidean spaces can be deduced as results of measurement

or of conceptions of
magnitude. As regards the first class, on
the contrary, we shall see that the relativity of position
by
which space is distinguished from all other known manifolds,
except time leads logically to the necessity of three of the
most distinctive axioms of Geometry, and yet this relativity
cannot be called a deduction from conceptions of magnitude.
In analytical Geometry, owing to the fact that coordinate
systems start from points, and hence build up lines and surfaces,
it is
easy to suppose that points can be given independently
of lines and of each other, and thus the relativity of position
is lost sight of. The error thus suggested by mathematics
was probably reinforced by Herbart s theory of space, which,
by its serial character, as we have seen, appeared to him to
facilitate a construction out of successive
points, and to which
Riemann acknowledges his indebtedness both in his Disser
The same error reappears
tation and elsewhere. in Helmholtz,
in whom it is
probably due wholly to the methods of analytical
Geometry. It is a striking fact that, throughout the writings
of these two men, there is not, so far as I know, one allusion
to the relativity of position, that property of space from which,
as our next chapter will shew, the richest quarry of conse
quences can be extracted. This is not a result of any con

ception of magnitude, bat follows from the nature of our space-
intuition ; yet no one, surely, could call it empirical, since it
is bound up in the very
possibility of locating things there
as opposed to here.
61. Indeed we can see, from a purely logical consideration
of the judgment of quantity, that Riemann s manner of ap
proaching the problem can never, by legitimate methods, attain
to a philosophically sound formulation of the axioms. For
quantity is a result of comparison of two qualitatively similar
objects,and the judgment of quantity neglects altogether the

qualitative aspect of the objects compared. Hence a knowledge
of the essential properties of space can never be obtained from
judgments of quantity, which neglect these properties, while

they yet presuppose them. As well might one hope to learn
the nature of man from a census. Moreover, the judgment of
quantity is the result of comparison, and therefore presupposes
the possibility of comparison. To know whether, or by what

means, comparison is possible, we must know the qualities of
the things compared and of the medium in which comparison
is effected while to know that quantitative comparison is pos
;
sible, we must know that there is a qualitative identity be

tween the things compared, which again involves a previous
qualitative knowledge. When spatial figures have once been
reduced to quantity, their quality has already been neglected,
as known and similar to the quality of other figures. To hope,
therefore, for the qualities of space, from a comparison of its
expression as pure quantity with other pure quantities, is an
eiTor natural to an analytical geometer, but an error, none
the less, from which there is no return to the qualitative basis
of spatial quantity.
62. We must entirely dissent, therefore, from the dis
junction which underlies Riemann s philosophy of space. Either

the axioms must be consequences of general conceptions of
magnitude, he thinks, or else they can only be proved by
experience 255).
(p.Whatever can be derived from general
conceptions of magnitude, we may retort, cannot be an a priori
adjective of space for all the necessary adjectives of space are
:
presupposed in any judgment of spatial quantity, and cannot,

therefore, be consequences of such a judgment. Riemann s dis
junction, accordingly, since one of its alternatives obviously is
impossible, really begs the question. In formulating the axioms

of metrical Geometry, .our question should be What axioms, :
i.e. what
adjectives of space, must be presupposed, in order that
quantitative comparison of the parts of space may be possible
at all ? And only when we have determined these conditions,
which are a priori necessary to any quantitative science of
space, does the second question arise what inferences can we
:
draw, as to space, from the observed results of this quantitative

science, i.e. of this measurement of spatial figures ? The con
ditions ofmeasurement themselves, though not results of any
conception of magnitude, will be a priori, if it can be shown that,
without them, experience of externality would be impossible.
After this initial protest against Riemann s general philo
sophical position, let us proceed to examine, in detail, his use of
the notion of a manifold.
R. G. 5
63. In the place there is, if I am not mistaken,

first
considerable obscurity in the definition of a manifold, of

which an almost verbal rendering was given in Chapter i.
What is meant, to begin with, by a general conception capable
of various determinations ? Does not this property belong to
all conceptions ? It affords, certainly, a basis for counting, but
if continuous quantity is to arise, we must, surely, have some
less discrete formulation. It might afford a basis, for example,
for the distinction of points in projective Geometry, but pro-
jective Geometry has nothing to do with quantity. Something
more fluid and flexible than a conception, one would think, is
necessary as the basis of continua. Then, again, what is meant
a
by quantum of a manifold ? In space, the answer is obvious :
what is meant is a piece of volume. But how about Riemann s

other continuous manifold, colour? Does a quantum of colour
mean a single line in the spectrum, or a band of finite thickness?
In either case, what are the magnitudes to be compared ? And
how is
superposition necessary, or even possible ? A colour is
fixed by its position in the spectrum two lines in the same :
spectrum cannot be superposed, and two lines in different

spectra need not be their positions in their respective spectra
suffice, or even, roughly, their immediate sense-quality. The

fact is, Riemann had space in his mind from the start, and
many of the properties, which he enunciates as belonging to all

manifolds, belong, as a matter of fact, only to space. It is far
from clear what the magnitudes are which the various deter
minations make possible. Do these magnitudes measure the
elements of the manifold, or the relations between elements ?
This is surely a very fundamental point, but it is one which
Riemann never touches on. In the former case, the super
position which he speaks of becomes unnecessary, since the
magnitude is inherent in the element considered. We do not
require superposition to measure quantities corresponding to
different tones or colours ;
these can be discovered by analysis of
single tones or colours. With space, on the other hand, if we
seek elements, we can find none except points, and no
for
analysis of a point will find magnitudes inherent in it such
magnitudes are a fiction of coordinate Geometry. The magni

tudes which space deals with, as we shall see in Chapter ill.,
are relations between points, and it is for this reason that

super
position essential to space-measurement.
is There is no inherent
quality in a single point, as there is in a single colour, by which
it can be quantitatively distinguished from another. Thus the
conception of a manifold, as defined by Riemann, either does not
include colours, or does not involve superposition as the
only
means of measurement. From this dilemma there is no escape.
64. But if measurement consists in a superposition of the
"
"
magnitudes compared (p. 256), does it not follow immediately

that measurement is logically possible only where such super
position leaves the magnitudes unchanged? And therefore that

measurement, as above defined, involves, as an a priori condition,
that magnitudes are unchanged by motion ? This consequence
is not drawn by Riemann indeed he proceeds immediately ;
(pp. 256-7) to consider what he calls a general portion of the

doctrine of magnitude (Grossenlehre), independent of measure
ment. But how is any doctrine of magnitude possible, in which
the magnitudes cannot be measured ? The reason of the con
fusion is, that Riemann s definition of measurement is applicable
to no single manifold except space, .since it depends on the
noteworthy property that what we measure in Geometry is
not points, but relations between points, and the latter, though
not the former, may of course be unaltered by motion. Let us
try, in illustration, to apply Riemann s definition of measurement
to colours. We
must remember that motion, in dealing with
the colour manifold, means not motion in space but motion
in the colour manifold Now
since every point of the
itself.
colour manifold is
completely determined by three magnitudes,
which are given in fact, and cannot be arbitrarily chosen, it is
plain that measurement by superposition involving, as it does,
motion, and therefore change in these determining magnitudes
is totally out of the
question. The superposition of one colour
on another, as a means of measurement, is sheer nonsense. And
yet measurement is possible in the colour-manifold, by means of
Helmholtz s law of mixture (Mischuugsgesetz); but the measure
ment is of every separate element, not of the relations between
elements, and is thus radically different from space-measure
ment 1
. The elements are not, like points in space, qualitatively
1
I do not mean that measurement of colours is effected without reference to
52
alike, and distinguished by the mere fact of their mutual

externality. What we have, in colours, is three fundamental
qualitatively distinct elements, out of certain proportions of

which we can build up all the other elements of the manifold
each of the resulting elements having the same combination of

qualitative diversity and similarity as the three original elements.
But what could we make of such a procedure? Given
in space,
three points, how are we to combine them in certain proportions?
The phrase is meaningless. If some one makes the obvious
retort, that we have to combine lines, not points, my rejoinder
is equally obvious. To begin with, lines are not elements.
Metaphysically, space has no elements, being, as the sequel

will show, mere relations between non-spatial elements. Mathe
matically, this fact exhibits itself in the self- contradictory notion

of the point, or zero magnitude in space, as the limit in our
vain search for spatial elements. But even if we allow the line
to pass as the spatial element, what does the combination of
three lines in definite proportions give us ? It gives us, simply,
the coordinates of a point. Here again we see a great difference
between the colour and space- manifolds. In colours, the com
bination of magnitudes gives a new magnitude of the same
kind in space, it defines, not a magnitude at all, but a would-
;
be element of a different kind from the defining magnitudes.

In the tone-manifold, we should find still different conditions.
Here, no one of the measuring magnitudes can vanish without
the tone vanishing too, and all three are so bound up together,
in the single resulting sensation, that none can exist without
a quantity of the others. They are all qualitatively
finite
different, both from each other, and from any possible tone,
being constituents of it, as mass and velocity are constituents

of momentum. All these different conditions require to be
examined, before a manifold can be completely defined and ;
until we have conducted such an examination in detail, we

cannot pronounce as to the a priori or empirical nature of the
laws of the manifold. As regards space, I have attempted such
an examination in the third and fourth chapters of this Essay.
their relations, since all measurement is essentially comparison. But in
colours, the elements which are compared, while in space,

it is it is the relations
between elements,
I do not wish to deny, however, the

65.
great value of the
conception of space as a manifold. On the contrary, this con
ception seems to have become essential to any treatment of the
question. only wish to urge that the purely algebraical
I
treatment of any manifold, important as it may be in deducing

fresh consequences from known premisses, tends rather to
conceal than to make clear the basis of the premisses them
selves, and is therefore misleading in a philosophical investi
gation. For mathematics, where quantity reigns supreme,
Riemann s conception has proved itself abundantly fruitful ;
for philosophy, on the contrary, where quantity appears rather

as a cloak to conceal the qualities it abstracts from, the
conception seems to me more productive of error and con

fusion than of sound doctrine.
We are thus brought back to the point from which we
started, namely, the falsity of Riemann s initial disjunction,
and the consequent fallacy in his proof of the empirical nature
of the axioms. His philosophy is chiefly vitiated, to my mind,
by this fallacy, and by the uncritical assumption that a metrical
coordinate system can be set up independently of any axioms
1
as tospace-measurement . Riemann has failed to observe,
what have endeavoured to prove in the next chapter, that,
I
unless space had a strictly constant measure of curvature,
Geometry would become impossible; also that the absence

of constant measure of curvature involves absolute position,
which is an absurdity. Hence he is led to the conclusion
that all geometrical axioms are empirical, and may not hold
in the infinitesimal, where observation is impossible. Thus he
says 267): "Now the empirical conceptions, on which
(p.
spatial measurements are based, the conceptions of the rigid
body and the light-ray, appear to lose their validity in the

infinitesimal:it is therefore
quite conceivable that the relations
of spatial magnitudes in the infinitesimal do not correspond to
the presuppositions of Geometry, and this would, in fact, have
to be assumed, as soon as it would enable us to explain the
phenomena more simply."

From this conclusion I must,
entirely dissent. In very large spaces, there might be a

departure from Euclid ;
for they depend upon the axiom of
1
For a discussion of this point, see Chap. in. Sec. B, 176.
parallels, which is not contained in the axiom of Free Mobility ;
but in the infinitesimal, departures from Euclid could only be

due to the absence of Free Mobility, which, as I hope my third
chapter will show, is once for all impossible.
Helmholtz.
Helmholtz, like Riemann, was important both in the

66.
mathematics and in the philosophy of Geometry. From the
mathematical point of view, his work has been already con
sidered in Chapter I. the consideration of his philosophy,
;
which must occupy us here, will be a more serious task. Like

Riemann, he endeavoured to prove that all the axioms are
empirical, and like Riemann, he based his proof chiefly on
Metageometry. He had an additional resource, however, in
the physiology of the senses, which first led him to reject the
Transcendental Aesthetic, and enabled him to attack Kant
from the psychological as well as the mathematical side 1 .
The a criticism of Helmholtz, are three

principal topics, for :
First, his criterion of the a priori second, his discussion with ;
"
Land as to the imaginability of non-Euclidean spaces third

"
and this is by far the most important of the three his
1
The works ofHelmholtz on geometrical philosophy comprise, in addition
to the articles quoted in Chap, i., the following articles Ursprung uud Sinn
"
der geometrischen Axiome, gegen Land," Wiss. Abh. Vol. n. p. 640, 1878.
(Also Mind, Vol. m.: an answer to Land in Mind, Vol. n.) Urspruug und
"
Bedeutung der geometrischen Axiome," 1870, Vortrage und Reden, Vol. n. p. 1.

(Also Mind, Vol. i.) Two Appendices to "Die Thatsachen in der Wahrneh-
mung," entitled :II. Der Kaum kann transcendental sein, ohne dass es die
"
Axiome sind"; and III. "Die Anwendbarkeit der Axiome auf die physische
Welt," 1878, Vortrage und Eeden, Vol. n. p. 256 ff.
The two Appendices last mentioned are popularizings and expansions of the
article in Mind, Vol. in. The most widely read, though also, to my mind, the
least valuable, of all Helmholtz s writings on Geometry, is the article in Mind,
Vol. i. This contains the famous and much misunderstood analogies of
Flatland and Sphereland, which will be discussed, and as far as possible
defended, in answering Lotze s attack on Metageometry an attack based,
apparently, almost entirely on this one popular article. The present discussion,
therefore, may be confined almost entirely to Mind, Vol. in., and the philo
sophical portions of the two papers quoted in Chap, i., i.e. to the articles in
Wiss. Abh. Vol. n. pp. 610-660. His other works are popular, and important
only because of the large public to which they appeal.
theory of the dependence of Geometry on Mechanics. Let us

discuss these three points successively.
67. Helmholtz s criterion of apriority is difficult to discover,
as he never, to
my knowledge, gives a precise statement of it.
From his discussion of physical and transcendental Geometry 1
,
however, would appear that he regards as empirical whatever

it
applies to empirical matter. For he there maintains, that even

if space were an a
priori form, yet any Geometry, which aimed
at an application to Physics, would, since the actual
places of
bodies are not known a priori, be necessarily empirical
2
It .
seems the more probable that he regards this as a possible

criterion, as it is adopted, in several passages,
by his disciple
Erdmann 3 and so strange a test could hardly be
,
accepted by
a philosopher, unless he had found it in his master. I have
called this a strange test, because it seems to me
completely
to ignore the work of the Critical Philosophy. For if there
is one thing which, one might have hoped, had been made
sufficiently clear by Kant s Critique, it is this, that knowledge
which a priori, being itself the condition of possible experience,
is
applies and in Kant s view, applies only to empirical matter.

Helmholtz and Erdmann. therefore, in setting up this test with
out discussion, simply ignore the existence of Kant and the
possibility of a transcendental argument. Helmholtz assumes

always that empirical knowledge must be wholly empirical, that
there can be no a priori conditions of the experience in question,
that experience will always be possible, and may give any kind
Thus in discussing physical Geometry, he assumes
"
of result. "
that the possibility of empirical measurement involves no

a priori axioms, and that no a priori element can be contained
in the process.This assumption, as we shall see in Chapter ill.,
is
quite unwarrantable certain properties of space, in fact, are
:
involved in the possibility of measuring matter. In spite of

the that we apply measurement to empirical
fact, therefore,
matter, and that our results are therefore empirical, there
1
In the answer to Laud, Mind, Vol. in. and Wiss. Abb. n. p. 640.
2
See also Die Tbatsachen in der Wabrnehinung, Zusatz n., Der Eauin kaiin
transcendental sein, obne dass es die Axiome sind. Vortrage uud Reden,
Vol. n.
3
See below, criticism of Erdmann. 84.
may a priori element in measurement, which is

well be an
presupposed in its
possibility. Such a criterion, therefore, must
pronounce everything empirical, but must itself be pronounced
worthless.
Another and a better criterion, it is true, is also to be found
in Helmholtz,and has also been adopted by Erdmann. What
ever might, by a different experience, have been rendered
different so this criterion contends must itself be dependent
on experience, and so empirical. This criterion seems perfectly
sound, but Helmholtz s use of it is usually vitiated by his
neglecting to prove the possibility of the different experience
in question. He says, for example, that if our experience
showed us only bodies which changed their shapes in motion,
we should not arrive at the axiom of Congruence, which he
pronounces accordingly to be empirical. But I shall endeavour
to prove, in Chapter in., that without the axiom of Congruence,
experience of spatial magnitude would be impossible. If my
proof be correct, follows that no experience can ever reveal

it
spatial magnitudes which contradict this axiom a possibility

which Helmholtz nowhere discusses, in setting up his hypo
thetical experience. Thus
second criterion, though per
this
fectly sound, requires always an accompanying transcendental

argument, as to the conditions of possible experience. But
this accompaniment is seldom to be found in Helmholtz.
68. One of the few cases, in which Helmholtz has at
tempted such an accompaniment, occurs in connection with
our second point, the imaginability of non- Euclidean spaces.
The argument on this point was elicited by Helmholtz s Kantian
opponents, who maintained that the merely logical possibility
of these spaces was irrelevant, since the basis of Geometry was
not logic, but intuition. The axioms, they said, are synthetic
propositions, and their contraries are, therefore, not self-contra

dictory ; they are nevertheless apodeictic propositions, since no
1
other intuition than the Euclidean possible to us
is I have .
already criticized this line of argument in the beginning of the

present chapter. Helmholtz s criticism, however, was different :
admitting the internal consistency of the argument, he denied

one of its premisses. We can imagine non-Euclidean spaces,
1
See Prof. Land, in Mind, Vol. n.
he said, though their unfamiliarity makes this difficult. From

this view it followed, of course, that Kant s argument, even if it
were formally valid, could not prove the apriority of Euclidean
space in particular, but only of that general space which in

cluded Euclid and non-Euclid alike 1 .
Although agree with Helmholtz in thinking the distinction

I
between Euclidean and non-Euclidean spaces empirical, I cannot

"
think his argument on the "
imaginability of the latter a very
happy one. The any proof must turn, obviously, on

validity of
the definition of imaginability. The definition which Helmholtz
gives in his answer to Land is as follows Imaginability requires :
vollstandige Vorstellbarkeit derjenigen Sinneseindrucke,

"die
welche das betreffende Object in uns nach den bekannten

Gesetzen unserer Sinnesorgane unter alien denkbaren Beding-
ungen der Beobachtung erregen, und wodurch es sich von
anderen ahnlichen Objecten unterscheiden wlirde" (Wiss. Abh.
II.
p. 644). This definition is not very clear, owing to the am
biguity of the word
"
Vorstellbarkeit" The following definition

seems less ambiguous :
"
Wenn die Reihe der Sinneseindriicke
vollstandig und eindeutig angegeben werden kann, muss man

"
m. E. die Sache fur coischaulich vorstellbar erklaren (Vortrage

und Reden, II.
p. 234). This makes clear, what also appears from
his manner of proof, that he regards things as imaginable which
can be described in conceptual terms. Such, as Land remarks
not the sense required for argumenta
"
(Mind, Vol. II.

p. 45), is
tion in this case." That Land

s criticism is just, is shown by
Helmholtz s proof for non-Euclidean spaces, for it consists only

in an analogy to the volume inside a sphere, which is mathe
matically obtained thus : We take the symbols representing

(hyperbolic) space, and give
"
"
magnitudes in pseudo-spherical
them a new Euclidean meaning thus all our symbolic propo ;
sitions become capable of two interpretations, one for pseudo-
spherical space, and one for the volume inside a sphere. It is,
however, sufficiently obvious that this procedure, though it

enables us to describe our new space, does not enable us to
imagine in the sense of calling up images of the way things
it,
would look in it. We

really derive, from this analogy, no more
knowledge than a man born blind may derive, as to light, from
1
See concluding paragraph of Helmholtz s article in Miiid, Vol. m.
FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY.
an analogy with heat. The dictum "Nihil est in intellectu

quod non fuerit ante in sensu," would unquestionably be true,
if for intellect we were to substitute imagination ;
it is vain,
therefore, if our actual space be Euclidean, to hope for a power
of imagining a non-Euclidean space. What Helmholtz might,
I believe with perfect truth, have
urged against Land, is that
the image we actually have of space is not sufficiently accurate
to exclude, in the actual space we know, all possibility of a
slight departurefrom the Euclidean type. But in maintaining
that we cannot imagine, though we can conceive and describe,
a space different from that we actually have, Land is, in my
opinion, unquestionably in the right. For a pure Kantian,
who maintains, with Land, that none of the axioms can be
proved, this question is of great importance. But if, as I have
maintained, some of the axioms are susceptible of a transcen
dental proof, while the others can be verified empirically, the
question is freed from psychological implications, and the

imaginability or non-imaginability of metageometrical spaces
becomes unimportant.
69. We come now to the third and most important ques
tion, the relation of Geometry to Mechanics. There are three
senses in which Helmholtz s appeal to rigid bodies may be
taken : the first, I think, is the sense in which he originally

intended it ;
the second seems to be the sense which he adopted
in his defence against Land; while the third is admitted by
Land, and will be admitted in the following argument. These
three senses are as follows :
(1) It may be asserted that the actual meaning of the

axiom of Free Mobility lies in the assertion of empirical rigid
bodies, and that the two propositions are equivalent to one
another. This is certainly false.
(2) The axiom of Free Mobility, it may be said, is logically
distinguishable from the assertion of rigid bodies, and may

even be not empirical but it is barren, even for pure Geometry,
;
without the aid of measures, which must themselves be em

pirical rigid bodies. This sense is more plausible than the
first, but I believe we can show that, in this sense also, the
proposition is false.
(3) For pure Geometry and the abstract study of space,

it
may be said, Free Mobility, as applied to an abstract geo
metrical matter, gives a sufficient possibility of quantitative
comparison but the moment we extend our results to mixed

;
mathematics, and apply them to empirically given matter, we

require also, as measures, empirically given rigid bodies, or
bodies, at least, whose departures from rigidity are empirically
known. In this sense, I admit, the proposition is correct 1 .
In discussing these three meanings, I shall not confine

myself strictly to the text of Helmholtz or Land: if I en
deavoured to do so, I should be met by the difficulty that
neither of them d priori, and that each is too much
defines the
inclined, in my
opinion, to test it by psychological criteria.
I shall, therefore, take the three
meanings in turn, without
laying stress on their historical adequacy to the views of Land
or Helmholtz.
70. (1) Congruence may be taken to mean as Helm
holtz would certainly seem to desire that we find actual
bodies, in our mechanical experience, to preserve their shapes
with approximate constancy, and that we infer, from this
experience, the homogeneity of space. This view, in my
opinion, radically misconceives the nature of measurement,
and of the axioms involved in it. For what is meant by the
non-rigidity of a body ? We mean, simply, that it has changed
its shape. But this involves the possibility of
comparison with
its former shape, in other words, of measurement. In order,
therefore, that there may be any question of rigidity or non-
rigidity, the measurement of spatial magnitudes must be

already possible. It follows that measurement cannot, without
a vicious circle, be itself derived from
experience of rigid bodies.
Geometrical measurement, in fact, is the comparison of spatial
magnitudes, and such comparison involves, as will be proved
at length inChapter in., the homogeneity of space. This is,
therefore, the logical prerequisite of all experience of rigid
bodies, and cannot be the result of such experience. Without
the homogeneity of space, the very notion of
rigidity or non-
rigidity could not exist, since these mean, respectively, the
constancy or inconstancy of spatial magnitude in pieces of
1
Cf. Veronese, Grundziige der Geometric (German translation), p. ix.
Also pp. xxxiv, 304, and Note n. pp. 692-4.

matter, and both alike, therefore, presuppose the possibility

of spatial measurement. From the homogeneity of space, we
learn that a body, when it moves, will not change its shape
without some physical cause that it actually does not change
;
its shape, is never asserted, and is indeed known to be false.
As soon as measurement is possible, actual changes of shape

can be estimated, and their empirical causes can be sought.
But if space were not homogeneous, measurement would be
impossible, constant shape would be a meaningless phrase, and
rigidity could never be experienced. Congruence asserts, in
short, that a body can, so far as mere space is concerned, move
without change of shape rigidity asserts that it actually does
;
so move a very different proposition, involving obviously, as

its logical prius, the former geometrical proposition.
This argument may be summed up by the following dis
junction If bodies change their shapes in motion
: and to some
extent, since no body is perfectly rigid, they must all do so
then one of two cases must occur. Either the changes of
shape, as bodies move from place, follow no geo
place to
metrical law, are not, for instance, functions of the amount
or direction of motion ;
in which case the law of causation
requires that they should not be effects of the change of place,

but of some simultaneous non-geometrical change, such as
temperature. Or the changes are regular, and the shape S
becomes, in a new position p, Sf(p). In this case, the law
of concomitant variations leads us to attribute the change of
shape to the mere motion, and shape thus becomes a function

of absolute position. But this is absurd, for position means
a
merely relation or set of relations it is impossible, therefore,
;
that mere position should be able to effect changes in a body.

Position is one term in a relation, not a thing per se ;
it
cannot, therefore, act on a thing, nor exist by itself, apart from

the other terms of the relation. Thus Helmholtz s view, that
Congruence depends on the existence of rigid bodies, must, since
it involves absolute position, be condemned as a logical fallacy.
Congruence, in fact, as I shall prove more fully in Chapter ill.,

is an a priori deduction from the relativity of position.
71. (2) The above argument seems to me to answer

satisfactorily Helmholtz s contention in the precise form which
he first gave it. The axiom

of Congruence, we must agree,
is logically distinguishable from the existence of rigid bodies.
Nevertheless some reference to matter is logically involved in

Geometry
1
,
but whether this reference makes Geometry em
pirical, does not, rather, show an a priori element in
or
dynamics, is a further question.

The reference to matter is necessitated by the homogeneity
of empty space. For so long as we leave matter out of account,
one position is perfectly indistinguishable from another, and
a science of the relations of positions is impossible. Indeed,
before spatial relations can arise at all, the homogeneity of
empty space must be destroyed, and this destruction must be

by matter. The blank page is useless to the geometer
effected
until he defaces its homogeneity by lines in ink or pencil.
No spatial figures, in short, are conceivable, without a reference
to a not purely spatial matter. Again, if Congruence is ever
to be used, there must be motion but a purely geometrical :
point, being defined solely by its spatial attributes, cannot be

supposed to move without a contradiction in terms. What
moves, therefore, must be matter. Hence, in order that motion
may afford a test of equality, we must have some matter which
is known to be unaffected throughout the motion, that is, we
must have some rigid bodies. And the difficulty is, that these
bodies must not only undergo no change due solely to the
nature of space, but must, further, be unchanged by their
changing relation to other bodies. And here we have a requi

site which can no longer be fulfilled a priori :
which, indeed,
we know For the forces acting on
to be, in strictness, untrue.
a body depend upon its spatial relations to other bodies, and
changing forces are liable to produce changing configuration.
Hence, it would seem, actual measurement must be purely
empirical, and must depend on the degree of rigidity to be
obtained, during the process of measurement, in the bodies
with which we are conversant.
This conclusion, I believe, is valid of all actual measurement.
But the possibility of such empirical and approximate rigidity,
I must insist, depends on the d priori law that mere motion,
cannot effect a change
apart from the action of other matter,
i
See Chap. iv. 197 if.
of shape. For without this law, the effect of other matter

would not be discoverable; the laws of motion would be absurd,
and Physics would be impossible. Consider the second law, for
example How could we measure the change of motion, if motion
:
produced a change in our measures ? Or consider the law

itself
of gravitation How could we establish the inverse square, unless

:
we were able, independently of Dynamics, to measure distances ?

The whole science of Dynamics, in short, is fundamentally de
pendent on Geometry, and but for the independent possibility
of measuring spatial magnitudes, none of the magnitudes of
Dynamics could be measured. Time, force, and mass are alike

measured by spatial correlates : these correlates are given, for
time, by the first law, for force and mass, by the second and
third. It is true, then, that an empirical element appears
unavoidably in all actual measurement, inasmuch as we can
only know empirically that a given piece of matter preserves
its shape throughout the necessary change of dynamical relations
to other matter involved in motion but it is further true that,

;
for Geometry which regards matter simply as supplying the

necessary breach in the homogeneity of space, and the necessary
term for spatial relations, not as the bearer of forces which change
the configuration of other material systems for Geometry, which
deals with this abstract and merely kinematical matter, rigidity
is a priori, in so far as the only changes with which it is cog
nizant changes of mere position, namely are incapable of

affecting the shapes of the imaginary and abstract bodies with
which it deals. To use a scholastic distinction, we may say that
matter is the causa essendi of space, but Geometry is the causa
cognoscendi of Physics. Without a Geometry independent of
Physics, Physics itself, which necessarily assumes the results
of Geometry, could never arise but when Geometry is used in
;
Physics, it loses some of its a priori certainty, and acquires the

empirical and approximate character which belongs to all
accounts of actual phenomena.

72. This argument leads us to Land s distinction of
(3)
physical and geometrical rigidity. The distinction may be
expressed and I think it is better expressed by distinguish
ing between the conceptions of matter proper to Dynamics and
to Geometry respectively. In Dynamics, we are concerned with
matter as subject to and as causing motion, as affected by and

as exerting/orce. We are therefore concerned with the changes
of spatial configuration to which material systems are liable :
the description and explanation of these changes is the proper

subject-matter of all Dynamics. But in order that such a
science mayexist, it is obviously necessary that spatial con
figuration should be already measurable. If this were not

the case, motion, acceleration and force would remain perfectly
indeterminate. Geometry, therefore, must already exist before
Dynamics becomes possible to make Geometry dependent for
:
on the laws of motion or any of their consequences,

its possibility
is a
gross varepov irpbrepov. Nevertheless, as we have seen,
some sort of matter is essential to Geometry. But this geometri
cal matter is a more abstract and
wholly different matter from
that of Dynamics. In order to study space by itself, we reduce
the properties of matter to a bare minimum we avoid entirely
:
the category of causation, so essential to Dynamics, and retain
nothing, in our matter, but its spatial adjectives

1
The kind of .
rigidity affirmed of this abstract matter a kind which suffices

for the theory of our science,
though not for its application to
the objects of daily life is purely geometrical, and asserts no
more than this That since our matter is devoid, ex hypothesi,
:
of causal properties, there remains nothing, in mere empty space,

which is capable of changing the configuration of any geometrical
system. A
change of absolute position, it asserts, is nothing ;
therefore the only real change involved in motion is a change of

relation to other matter ;
but such other matter, for the purposes
of our science, regarded as destitute of causal powers
is ;
hence
no change can occur, in the configuration of our system, by the
mere motion through empty space. The necessity of
effect of
such a principle may be shown by a simple reductio ad absurduni,
as follows. A
motion of translation of the universe as a whole,
with constant direction and velocity, is dynamically negligeable:
indeed it is, philosophically, no motion at all, for it involves no
change in the condition or mutual relations of the things in the
universe. But if our geometrical rigidity were denied, the
change in the parameter of space might cause all bodies to
1
Cf. the opinion of Bolyai, quoted by Erdmann, Axiome, 28 cf. also ib.
p. ;
p. 60.
change their shapes owing to the mere change of absolute

position, which is obviously absurd.
To make quite plain the function of rigid bodies in Geometry,
letus suppose a liquid geometer in a liquid world. We cannot
suppose the liquid perfectly homogeneous and undifferentiated,
in the first place because such a liquid would be indistinguishable
from empty space, in the second place because our geometer s
body unless he be a disembodied spirit will itself constitute
a differentiation for him. We
may therefore assume
"dim beams,
Which amid the streams
Weave a network of coloured light,"
and we may suppose this network to form the occasion for our
geometer s reflections. Then he will be able to imagine a
network in which the lines are straight, or circular, or parabolic,
or any other shape, and he will be able to infer that such a
network, if it can be woven in one part of the fluid, can be

woven in another. This will form sufficient basis for his
deductions. The superposition he is concerned with since
not actual equality, but only the formal conditions of equality,
are the subject-matter of Geometry is
purely ideal, and is
unaffected by the impossibility of congealing any actual net
work. But in order to apply his Geometry to the exigencies of
life, he would need some standard of comparison between actual
networks, and here, it is true, he would need either a rigid body,
or a knowledge of the conditions under which similar networks
arose. Moreover these conditions, being necessarily empirical,
could hardly be known apart from previous measurement. Hence
for applied, though not for pure Geometry, one rigid body at
least seems essential.
73. The utility, for Dynamics, of our abstract geometrical

matter, is sufficiently evident. For having, by its means, a
power of determining the configurations of material systems in
whatever part of space, and knowing that changes of configura
tion are not due to mere change of place, we are able to attribute
these changes to the action of other matter, and thus to establish
the notion of force, which would be impossible if change of shape
might be due to empty space.
Thus, to conclude Geometry requires, if it is to be practi

:
cally possible, some body or bodies which are either rigid (in
the dynamical sense), or known to undergo some definite
changes of shape according to some definite law. (These

changes,we may suppose, are known by the laws of Physics,
which have been experimentally established, and which through
out assume the truth of Geometry.) One or more such bodies
are necessary to applied Geometry but only in the sense in
which rulers and compasses are necessary. They are necessary
as, in making the Ordnance Survey, an elaborate apparatus was
necessary for measuring the base line on Salisbury Plain. But

for the theory of Geometry, geometrical rigidity suffices, and
geometrical rigidity means only that a shape, which is possible
in one part of space, is possible in any other. The empirical
element in practice, arising from the purely empirical nature of
physical rigidity, is comparable to the empirical inaccuracies
arising from the failure to find straight lines or circles in the
world which no one but Mill has regarded as rendering
Geometry itself empirical or inaccurate. But to make Geo
metry await the perfection of Physics, is to make Physics,

which depends throughout on Geometry, forever impossible.
As well might we leave the formation of numbers until we had
counted the houses in Piccadilly.
Erdmann.
74. In connection with Riemann and Helmholtz, it is
natural to consider Erdmann s philosophical work on their
1
theories This is certainly the most important book on the
.
subject which has appeared from the philosophical side, and in

spite of the fact that, like the whole theory of Riemann and
Helmholtz, it is inapplicable to projective Geometry, it still
deserves a very full discussion.
Erdmann agrees throughout with the conclusions of Riemann
and Helmholtz, except on a few points of minor importance ;
and his views, as this agreement would lead one to expect, are
ultra-empirical. Indeed his logic seems though I say this with
1
Die Axiome der Geometrie Erne philosophische
:
Untersuchung der
Riemann-Helmholtz schen Raumtheorie, Leipzig, 1877.
R. G. 6
hesitation incompatible with any system but that of

to be
Mill :
apparently no distinction, to him, between the
there is
general and the universal, and consequently no concept not

embodied in a series of instances. Such a theory of logic, to
my mind, vitiates most of his work, as it vitiated Riemann s
1
philosophy This general criticism will find abundant illustra

.
tion in the course of our account of Erdmann s views.

75. After a general introduction, and a short history of
the development of Metageometry, Erdmann proceeds, in his
second chapter, to discuss what are the axioms of Euclidean
Geometry. The arithmetical axioms, as they are called, he
leaves aside, as applying to magnitude in general what we ;
want here, he says, is a definition of space, for which the geo

metrical axioms are alone relevant. But a definition of space,
he says following Riemann demands a genus of which space
shall be a species, and this, since our space is psychologically
unique, can only be furnished by analytical mathematics (p. 36).

Now the space-forms dealt with by Geometry are magnitudes,
and conceptions of magnitude are everywhere applied in Geo
metry. But before Riemann, only particular determinations of
space could be exhibited as magnitudes, and thus the desired
definitionwas impossible to obtain. Now, however, we can
subsume space as a whole under a general conception of mag
nitude, and thus obtain, besides the space-intuition and the
space-conception, a third form, namely, the conception of space
as a magnitude (Grosseribegriff vom Raum, pp. 38-39). The
definition of this will give us the complete, but not redundant,
system of axioms, which could not be obtained by transforming

the general intuition of space into the space-conception, for
want of a plurality of instances (p. 40).
76. Before considering the subsequent method of defi
nition, let us reflect on the theories involved in the above
account of the conception of space as a magnitude. In the
first place, it is assumed that conceptions cannot be formed
unless we have a series of separate objects from which to abstract

a common property in other words, that the universal is
always the general. In the second place, it is assumed that all
On Concepts of Modern Physics,

1
the influence of Mill, cf. Stallo, p. 216.
definition is classification under a genus. In the third

place, the
conception of magnitude, if I am not mistaken,
fundamentally is
misunderstood when it is
supposed applicable to space as a
whole. But in the fourth place, even if such a
conception
existed, it could give none of the essential properties of
space.
Let us consider these four points
successively.
77.As regards the first point, it is to be observed that
people certainly had some conception of space before Riemann
invented the notion of a manifold, and that this
conception
was certainly something other than the common
qualities of
all the points, lines or figures in space. In the second place,
Erdmann s view would make it
impossible to conceive God,
unless one were a polytheist, or the universe unless, like
Leibnitz, one imagined a series of possible worlds, set over
against God, and none of them, therefore, a true Universe
or, to take an instance more likely to appeal to an
empiricist,
the necessarily unique centre of mass of the material universe.
Any universal, in short, which is a bond or unity between things,
and not merely a common property
among independent objects,
becomes impossible on Erdmann s view. We cannot, therefore,
unless we adopt Mill s philosophy intact, regard the
conception
of space as
demanding a series of instances from which to
abstract. But even if we did so regard it, Riemann s manifolds
would leave us without resources. For Euclidean
space still
appears as unique, at the end of his series of determinations.
We have instances of manifolds, but not instances of Euclidean
space. Thus if Erdmann s theory of conceptions were correct,
he \vould still be left
searching in vain for the conception of
Euclidean space.
78. The second point, the view that all definition is clas
sification, is closely allied to the first, and the two together
plunge us into the depths of scholastic formal logic. The same

instances of things which could not, on Erdmann s view, be
conceived, may now be adduced as things which cannot be
defined. Whatever was said above applies here also, and the
1
point need not, therefore, be further discussed .
1
This view seems to be derived, through Riemann, from Herbart. See
Psych, als Wiss. ed. Hart. Vol. v. p. 262.
62
84 FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETKY.
79. As regards the third point, the impossibility of ap

plying conceptions of magnitude to space as a whole, a longer
argument be necessary, for we are concerned, here, with

will
the whole question of the logical nature of judgments of mag
nitude. As we had before too much comparison for our needs,
so we have now too little. I will endeavour to explain this
point, which is of great importance, and underlies, I think,
most of the philosophical fallacies of Riemann s school.
A
judgment of magnitude is always a judgment of com
parison, and what is more, the comparison is never concerned
with quality, but only with quantity. Quality, in the judg
ment of magnitude, is supposed identical, in the object whose
magnitude is stated, and in the unit with which it is compared.
But quality, except in pure number, and in pure quantity as
dealt with by the Calculus, is always present, and is partly
absorbed into quantity, partly untouched by the judgment
of magnitude. As Bosanquet says (Logic, Vol. I. p. 124);
Quantitative comparison is not prima facie coordinate with
"
qualitative, but rather stands in its place as the effect of
comparison on quality, which so far as comparable becomes

quantity, and so far as incomparable furnishes the distinction
"
of parts essential to the quantitative whole (italics in the
original). Thus, if we are to regard space as a magnitude, we

must be able to adduce all those series of instances of which
Erdmann speaks, the conception of space, seemed

and which, for
irrelevant. But it remains to be proved that the comparison,

which we can institute between various spaces, is capable of
expression in a quantitative form. Rather it would seem that
the difference of quality is such as to preclude quantitative
comparison between different spaces, and therefore also to

preclude all judgments of magnitude about space as a whole.
Here an exception might seem to be demanded by non-
Euclidean spaces, whose space-constants give a definite mag
nitude, inherent in space as a whole, and therefore, one might
think, characterizing space as a magnitude. But this is a
mistake. For the space-constant, in such spaces, is the ultimate
unit, the fixed term in all quantitative comparison it is itself, ;
therefore, destitute of quantity, since there is no independently

given magnitude with which to compare it. A non-Euclidean
PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES Otf GEOMETRY. 85
world, in which the space-constant and all lines and figures

were suddenly multiplied in a constant ratio, would be
wholly
unchanged the lines, as measured against the space-constant,
;
would have the same magnitude as before, and the

space-
constant itself, having no outside standard of comparison, would
be destitute of quantity, and therefore not subject to
change
of quantity. Such an enlargement of a non-Euclidean world,
in other words, is
unmeaning; and this proves how inapplicable
is the notion of quantity to space as a whole.
It might be objected that this
only proves the absence
of quantitative difference between different
spaces of positive
space-constant, or between those of negative space-constant :
the quantitative difference persists, it

might be said, between
those of positive curvature in general and those of
negative
curvature in general, or between both together and Euclidean
space. This I entirely deny. There is no qualitatively similar
unit, in the three kinds of space, by which
quantitative
comparison could be effected. The straight lines of one space
cannot be put into the other the two straight lines, in one
:
space, whose product is the reciprocal of the measure of cur

vature, have no corresponding curves in the other space, and
the measures of curvature cannot, therefore, be
quantitatively
compared with each other. That the one may be regarded as
positive, the
other negative, I admit, but their values are
indeterminate, and the units in the two cases are qualitatively
different. A debt of 300 may be represented as the asset
of- 300, and the height of the Eiffel Tower is + 300 metres;
but it does not follow that the two are
quantitatively comparable.
So with space-constants the space-constant is itself the unit
:
for magnitudes in its own

space, and differs qualitatively from
the space-constant of another kind of
space.
Again, to proceed to a more philosophical argument, two
different spaces cannot co-exist in the same world we may :
be unable to decide between the alternatives of the

disjunction,
but they remain, none the less, al
absolutely incompatible
ternatives. Hence we cannot get that coexistence of two
spaces which is essential to comparison. The fact seems to be
that Erdmann, in his admiration for Riemann and Helmholtz,
has fallen in with their mathematical bias, and assumed, as
mathematicians naturally tend to assume, that quantity is
everywhere and always applicable and adequate, and can deal

with more than the mere comparison of things whose qualities
1
are already known as similar .
80. This suggests the fourth and last of the above points,
that the qualities of space, even if space could be successfully
regarded as a magnitude, would have to be entirely omitted

in such a manner of regarding it, and that, therefore, none of
its important or essential properties would emerge from such
treatment. For to regard space as a
magnitude involves, as
we saw, a comparison with something qualitatively similar,
and an abstraction from the similar qualities. To some extent
and by the help of certain doubtful arguments, such a com
parison is instituted by Riemann and Erdmann but when they ;
have instituted it, they forget all about the common qualities
on which its possibility depends. But these are precisely the
fundamental properties of space, and those from which, as I
shall endeavour to prove in Chapter m. :
the axioms common
to Euclid and Metageometry follow a priori. Such are the
dangers of the quantitative bias.
81. After this protest against the initial assumptions in
Erdmann deduction of space, let us return to consider the

s
manner, in which this deduction is carried out. Here there

will be less ground for criticism, as the deduction,
given its
presuppositions, is, I think, as good as such a deduction can be.
To define space as a magnitude, he says, let us start with two
of its most obvious properties, continuity and the three dimen
sions. Tones and colours afford other instances of a manifold
with these two properties, but differ from space in that their
dimensions are not homogeneous and interchangeable. To
designate this difference, Erdmann introduces a useful pair of
terms in the geueral case, he calls a manifold w-determined
:
(u-bestimmt) in the case where, as in space, the dimensions are

;
homogeneous, he calls the manifold n-extended (n-ausgedehnt).

Manifolds of the latter sort he calls extents (Ausgedehntheiten).
1
The same irreducibility of space to mere magnitude is proved by Kaut s
hands and spherical triangles, in which a difference persists in spite of complete
quantitative equality.
That the difference between the two kinds is one of quality,

not of quantity, he seems not to perceive ;
he also overlooks
the fact that, in the second kind, from its
very definition,
the axiom of Congruence must hold, on account of the quali
tative similarity of different parts. In spite of this fact, he
defines space as an extent, and then regards Congruence as
empirical,and as possibly false in the infinitesimal. This is

the more strange, as he actually proves (p. 50) that measure
ment is impossible, in an extent, unless the parts are indepen
dent of their place, and can be carried about unaltered as
measures. In spite of this, he proceeds immediately to discuss
whether the measure of curvature is constant or variable,
without investigating how, in the latter case, Geometry could
exist. We cannot knoAv, he says, from geometrical super
position, that geometrical bodies are independent of place,
for if their dimensions altered in motion according to any
fixed law, two bodies which could be superposed in one place
could be superposed in any other. That such a hypothesis
involves absolute position, and denies the qualitative simi
larity of the parts of space, which he declares (p. 171) to be

the principle of his theory of Geometry, is nowhere perceived.
But what more, his notion that magnitude is something
is
absolute, independent of comparison, has prevented him from

seeing that such a hypothesis is unmeaning. He says himself
that, even on this hypothesis, a geometrical body can be defined
as one whose points retain constant distances from each other,
for, since we have no absolute measure, measurement could not
reveal to us the change of absolute magnitude (p. 60). But is

not this a reductio ad absurdum? For magnitude is nothing
apart from comparison, and the comparison here can only be
effected by superposition if, then, as on the above hypothesis,
;
superposition always gives the same result, by whatever motion

it is effected, there is no sense in
speaking of magnitudes as
no longer equal when separated absolute magnitude is an
:
absurdity, and the magnitude resulting from comparison does

not differ from that which would result if the dimensions of
bodies were unchanged in motion. Therefore, since magnitude
is only intelligible as the result of comparison, the dimensions
of bodies are unchanged in motion, and the suggested hypothesis
is
unmeaning. On this subject I shall have more to say in
1
III.
Chapter
82. This hypothesis, however, is not introduced for its
own sake, but only to usher in the Helmholtzian deus ex
machina, Mechanics. For Mechanics proves so Erdmannn con
fidently continues that rigidity must hold, not merely as to
ratios, in the above restricted geometrical sense, but as to
absolute magnitudes (p. 62). Hence we get at last true Con
gruence, empirical as empirical, and impossible to
Mechanics is
prove apart from Mechanics. I have already criticized Helm-

holtz s view of the dependence of Geometry on Mechanics, and
need not here speak of it at length. It is a pity that Erdmann
has in no way specified the procedure by which Mechanics
decides the geometrical alternatives indeed he seems to rely
on the ipse dixit of Helmholtz. How, if Geometry would be
totally unable to discover a change in dimensions of the kind
suggested, the Laws of Motion, which throughout depend on

should be able to discover it if it existed, I am
Geometry,
wholly at a loss to understand. Uniform motion in a straight
line, example, presupposes geometrical measurement; if
for
this measurementis mistaken, what Mechanics imagines to be
uniform motion is not really such, but Mechanics can never

discover the discrepancy. If the Laws of Motion had been
regarded as a priori, Geometry might possibly have been rein

forced by them
but so long as they are empirical, they presup
;
pose geometrical measurement, and cannot therefore condition

or affect it.
Erdmann conclusion, in the second chapter, is that Con

s
gruence is probable, but cannot be verified in the infinitesimal ;
that truth involves the actual existence of rigid bodies

its
(though, by the way, we know these to be, strictly speaking,

non-existent), that rigid bodies are freely moveable, and do
not alter their size in rotation (Helmholtz s Monodromy) that ;
the axiom of three dimensions is certain, since small errors are

impossible arid that the remaining axioms of Euclid
;
those
of the straight line and of parallels are approximately, if not
accurately, true of our actual space (pp. 78, 83). He does not
i
See 146-7.
discuss how Congruence, on the above view, is compatible with

the atomic theory, or even with the observed deformations of
approximately rigid bodies: nor how, if space, as he assumes,
is
homogeneous, rigid bodies can fail to be freely moveable
through space. The axioms are all lumped together as em
pirical, it
appears, in the following chapters, that Erdmann
and
regards their empirical nature as sufficiently proved by their
applicability to empirical material (cf. pp. 159, 165) a strange
criterion, which would prove the same conclusion, with equal
facility :
of Arithmetic and of the laws of thought.
The third chapter, on the philosophical consequences
83.
of Metageometry. need not be discussed at length, since it
deals rather with space than with Geometry. At the same
;
time, it will be worth while to treat briefly of Erdmann s

criterion of apriority. On this subject it is very difficult to
discover his meaning, since it seems to vary with the topic he

is
discussing. Thus at one time (p. 147) he rejects most
emphatically the Kantian connection of the a priori
and the
subjective and yet at another time (p. 96) he regards every
1
,
presentation things as partly d priori, partly

of external
empirical, merely because such a presentation is due to an

interaction between ourselves and things, and is therefore
partly due to subjective activity, partly due to outside objects.
Hence, he says, the distinction is not between different presen
tations, but between different aspects of one and the same
presentation. This seems to return wholly to the Kantian

psychological criterion of subjectivity, with the added
disad
that it makes the distinction, like that of analytic
vantage
and synthetic, epistemologically worthless. And yet he never
hesitates to pronounce every piece of knowledge in turn em
pirical. The fact seems to be, that where he wants a more

logical criterion, he adopts a modification
of Helmholtz s cri
terion for sensations. If space be an a priori form, he says,
no experience could possibly change it (p. 108) but this Meta;
geometry has proved not to be the case, since we can intuit

the
perceptions which non-Euclidean space would give us (p. 115).
1
Jeder Versuch, Kaut s Lehre von cler Aprioritat als des subjectiven, von
"
aller Erfahruug absolut uuabhangigen Erkenntnissfactors, trotzdein zu halten,

ist deshalb von voruhereiu aussichtslos."
I have criticised this argument in discussing Helmholtz at ;
present we are concerned with Erdmann s criterion of apriority.

The subjectivity-criterion though he certainly uses it in dis
cussing the apriority of space, and solemnly decides, by its
means, that space is both a priori and empirical since a change
either in us or in the outer world could
change it (p. 97)
would seem, like several of his other tests, to be a lapse on
his part the criterion which he means to use is Helmholtz s.
:
This criterion, I think, with a slight change of wording, might

be accepted ;
it seems to me a necessary, but not a sufficient
condition. The a priori, we may say, is not only that which
no experience can change, but that without which experience
would become impossible. It is the omission to discuss the con
ditions which render geometrical (and mechanical)
experience
possible, to my mind, which vitiates the empirical conclusions
of Helmholtz and Erdmann. Why certain conditions should
be necessary for experience whether on account of the con
stitution of the mind, or for some other reason is a further
question, which introduces the relation of the a priori to the
subjective. But in discussing the question as to what know
ledge is a priori, as opposed to the question concerning the
further consequences of apriority, it is well to keep to the
purely logical criterion, and so preserve our independence of

psychological controversies. The fact, if it be a fact, that the
world might be such as to defy our attempts to know it, will
not, with the above criterion, invalidate the conclusion that
certain elements in knowledge are a
priori] for whether ful
filled or not, they remain
necessary conditions for the existence
of any knowledge at all.
84. With this caution as to the meaning of apriority, we

shall find, think, that the conclusions of Erdmann s final
I
chapter, on the principles of a theory of Geometry, are largely

invalidated by the diversity and inadequacy of his tests of the
a priori. He begins by asserting, in conformity with the
quantitative bias noticed above, that the question as to the
nature of geometrical axioms is completely analogous to the
corresponding question of the foundations of pure mathematics
(p. 138). This is. I think, a radical error for the function of
:
the axioms seems to be, to establish that qualitative basis on

which, as we saw, all qualitative comparison must rest. But

in pure mathematics, this qualitative basis is irrelevant, for
we deal there with pure quantity, i.e. with the merely quanti
tative result of quantitative comparison, wherever it is possible,
independently of the qualities underlying the comparison.

Geometry, as Grassmann insists ought not to be classed with
1
,
pure mathematics, for it deals with a matter which is given

to the intellect, not created by it. The axioms give the
means by which this matter is made amenable to quantity,
and cannot, therefore, be themselves deduced from purely
quantitative considerations.
Leaving this point aside, however, let us return to Erdmann.
He distinguishes, within space, a form and a matter the form :
is to contain the properties common to all extents, the matter
the properties which distinguish space from other extents. This

distinction,he says, is purely logical, and does not correspond
with Kant s matter and form, for Erdmann, are alike empirical.
:
The axioms and definitions of Geometry, he says, deal exclusively

with the matter of space. It seems a pity, having made this
put it to so little use after a few pages, it is
distinction, to :
dropped, and no epistemological consequences are drawn from

it. The reason is, I think, that Erdmann has not perceived how
much can be deduced from an extent, as a
his definition of
manifold in which the dimensions are homogeneous and inter
changeable. For this property suffices to prove the complete
homogeneity of an extent, and hence from the absence of quali
tative differences among elements the relativity of position and
the axiom of Congruence. This deduction will be made at length
2
in the sequel at present, I have only to observe that every
;
extent, on this view, possesses all the properties (except the

three dimensions) common to Euclidean and non-Euclidean
spaces. The axioms which express these
properties, therefore,
apply to the form of space, and follow from homogeneity alone,
Avhich Erdmann allows (p. 171) as the principle of any theory
of space. The above distinction of form and matter, there
fore, corresponds, when its full consequences are deduced, to
the distinction between the axioms which follow from the
Ausdehnungslehre von 1844, 2nd

1
edition, pp. xxii. xxiii.
2
See 8 129 ff .
homogeneity of space and those which do not. Since, then,

homogeneity is equivalent to the relativity of position, and
the relativity of position is of the very essence of a form of
externality, it would seem that his distinction of form and

matter can also be made coextensive with the distinction
of the a priori and empirical in Geometry. On this subject,
I shall have more to say in Chapter III.
In the remainder of the chapter, Erdmann insists that the
straight line, etc., though not abstracted from experience, which
nowhere presents straight lines, must yet, as applicable to
admittedly empirical sciences, be empirical (p. 159) a criterion

which he appears to employ only when all other grounds for an
empirical opinion and one which, obviously, can never refuse
fail,
to do its work, since all elements of

knowledge are susceptible
of employment on some empirical material. He also defines the
straight line (p. 155) as a line of constant curvature zero, as

though curvature could be measured independently of the
straight line. Even the arithmetical axioms are declared
empirical (p. 165), since in a world where things were all
hopelessly different from one another, these axioms could not be

applied. After this reminder of Mill, we are not surprised, a few
pages later a vague appeal to "English logicians" as
(p. 172), at
having proved Geometry to be an inductive science. Never

theless, Erdmann declares, almost on the last page of his book
(p. 173),that Geometry is distinguished from all other sciences
by the homogeneity of its material a principle of which no

:
single application occurs throughout his book, and which, as we

shall see in Chapter in., flatly contradicts the philosophical
theories advocated throughout his preceding pages.
On the whole, then, it cannot be said that Erdmann has
done much to strengthen the philosophical position of Riemann
and Helmholtz. I have criticized him at length, because his
book has the appearance of great thoroughness, and because it
isundoubtedly the best defence extant of the position which it
takes up. We shall now have the opposite task to perform, in
defending Metageometry, on its mathematical side, from the
attacks of Lotze and others, and in vindicating for it that
measure of philosophical importance far inferior, indeed, to
the hopes of Erdmann which it seems really to possess.
Lotze.
85. Lotze
argument as regards Geometry
s which follows 1
a metaphysical argument as to the ontological nature of space,

and assumes the results of this argument consists of two
parts the first discusses the various meanings logically assign
:
able (pp. 233-247) to the proposition* that other spaces than

Euclid s are possible, and the second criticizes, in detail, the
procedure of Metageometry. The first of these questions is
very important, and demands considerable care as to the logical

import of a judgment of possibility. Although Lotze s dis
cussion is excellent in many respects, I cannot persuade myself
that he has hit on the only true sense in which non-Euclidean
spaces are possible. I shall endeavour to make good this state

ment in the following pages.
86. Lotze opens with a somewhat startling statement,
which, though philosophically worthy to be true, does not
appear to be historically borne out. Euclidean Geometry has
been chiefly shaken, he says, by the Kantian notion of the
exclusive subjectivity of space if space is only our private
form of intuition, to which there exists no analogue in the

objective world, then other beings may have other spaces,
without supposing any difference in the world which they
arrange in these spaces (p. 233). This certainly seems a
legitimate deduction from the subjectivity of space, which, so
far from establishing the universal validity of Euclid, establishes
his validity only after an empirical investigation of the nature of
space as intuited by Tom, Dick or Harry. But as a matter of

fact, those who have done most to further non-Euclidean Geo
metry with the exception of Biemann, who was a disciple of
Herbart have usually inherited from Newton a naive realism
as regards absolute space. I might instance the passage quoted
from Bolyai in Chapter I., or Clifford, who seems to have thought
2
that we
actually see the images of things on the retina or again ,
Helmholtz s belief in the dependence of Geometry on the be

haviour of rigid bodies. This belief led to the view that
Metaphysik, Book n. Chap. n.

1
My references are to the original.
-
See Lectures and Essays, Vol. i.
p. 261.
Geometry, like Physics, is an experimental science, in which

objective truth can be attained, it is true, but only by empirical
methods. However, Lotze s ground for uncertainty about Euclid
isa philosophically tenable ground, and it will be instructive to
observe the various possibilities which arise from it.
If space is only a subjective form so Lotze opens his
argument other beings may have a different form. If this
corresponds to a different world, the difference, he says, is

uninteresting: for our world alone is relevant to any meta
physical discussion. But if this different space corresponds
to the same world which we know under the Euclidean form,
then, in his opinion, we get a question of genuine philosophic
interest. And here he distinguishes two cases either the :
relations between things, which are presented to these hypo

thetical beings under the form of some different space, are
relations which do not appear to us, or at any rate do not
appear spatial or they are the same relations which appear

;
to us as figures in Euclidean space (p. 235). The first possi

bility would be illustrated, he says, by beings to whom the tone
or colour-manifolds appeared extended but we cannot, in his ;
opinion, imagine a manifold, such as is required for this case, to

have its dimensions homogeneous and comparable inter se, and
therefore the contents of the various presentations constituting
such a manifold could not be combined into a single content
containing them all. But the possibility of such a combination
is of the essence of
anything worth calling a space therefore the :
firstof the above possibilities is unmotived and uninteresting.

Lotze s conclusion on this point, I think, is undeniable, but I
doubt whether his argument is very cogent. However, as this
possibility has no connection with that contemplated by non-
Euclideaiis, it is not worth while to discuss it further.
The second possibility also, Lotze thinks, is not that of
Metageometry, but in truth it comes nearer to it than any
of the other possibilities discussed. If a non-Euclidean were
at the same time a believer in the subjectivity of space, he
would have to be an adherent of this view. Let us see more
precisely what the view is. In Book n., Chapter I., Lotze has
accepted the argument of the Transcendental Aesthetic, but
rejected that of the mathematical antinomies he has decided :
that space is, Kant believed, subjective, but possesses never

as
theless, what Kant denied it, an objective counterpart. The
relation of presented space to its
objective counterpart, as
conceived by Lotze, is rather hard to understand. It seems
scarcely to resemble the relation of sensation to its object
e.g. of light to ether-vibrations for if it did, space would not
be in any peculiar sense subjective. It seems rather to resemble
the relation of a perceived bodily motion to the state of mind
of the person willing the motion. However this may be, the
objective counterpart of space is supposed to consist of certain
immediate interactions of monads, who experience the inter
actions as modifications of their internal states. Such inter
actions, it is plain, do not form the subject-matter of Geometry,
which deals only with our resulting perceptions of
spatial figures.
Now if Lotze
s construction of
space be correct, there seems
certainly no reason why these resulting perceptions should
not, for one and the same interaction between monads, be
very different in beings differently constituted from ourselves.
But if they were different, says Lotze, they would have to be
utterly different as
for example, as the interval
different,
between two notes from a straight line. The possibility
is
is, therefore, in his opinion, one about which we can know
nothing, and one which must remain always a mere empty

idea. This seems to me to go too far: whatever the
for
objective counterpart may be, any argument which gives us

information about it must, when reversed,
give us information
about any possible form of intuition in which this
counterpart
is presented. The argument which Lotze has used in his former
chapter, for example, deducing, from the relativity of position,
the merely relational nature of the
objective counterpart, allows
us, conversely, to infer, from this relational nature, the complete
relativity of position in any possible space-intuition unless,
indeed, it bore a wholly deceitful relation to those interactions
of monads which form its But the
objective counterpart.
complete relativity of position, as I shall endeavour to establish
in Chapter in., suffices to prove that our Geometry must be
Euclidean, elliptic, spherical or pseudo-spherical. We have,
therefore, would seem, very considerable knowledge, on Lotze s
it
theory of space, of the manner in which what appears to us as

space must appear to any beings with our laws of thought. We

cannot know, it is true, what psychological theory of space-
perception would apply to such beings they might have a
:
sense from any of ours, and they might have no

different
sense in any way resembling ours, but yet their Geometry
would have points of resemblance to ours, as that of the blind
coincides with that of the seeing. If space has any objective
counterpart whatever, in short, and if any inference is possible,

as Lotze holds it to be, from space to its counterpart, then a
converse argument is also possible, though it may give some
only of the qualities of Euclidean space, since some only

of
these qualities may be found to have a necessary analogue in
the counterpart.
87. Admitting, then, in Lotze s sense, the subjectivity of
space, the above possibility does not seem

so empty as he
imagines. He discusses it briefly, however, in order to pass
on to what he regards as the real meaning of Metageometry.

In this he is guilty of a mathematical mistake, which causes
much irrelevant reasoning. For he believes that Metageometry
constructs spaces out of straight lines and angles in all
its
respects similar to Euclid s, whence he derives

an easy victory
in proving that these elements can lead only to the one space.
In this he has been misled by the phraseology of non-Euclideans,
as well as by Euclid s separation of definitions and axioms.
For the fact is, of course, that straight lines are only fully
defined when we add to the formal definition the axioms of
the straight line and of parallels. Within Euclidean space,
Euclid s definition suffices to distinguish the straight line from
all other curves the two axioms referred to are then absorbed
;
into the definition of space. But apart from the restriction

to Euclidean space, the definition has to be supplemented by
the two axioms, in order to define completely the Euclidean
straight line. Thus Lotze has misconceived the bearing of

non-Euclidean constructions, and has simply missed the point
in arguing as he does. The possibility contemplated by a
non-Euclidean, if it fell under any of Lotze s cases, would fall
under the second case discussed above.
88. But the bearing Metageometry is really, I think,
of
different from anything imagined by Lotze and as few writers
;
seem clear on this point, I will enter somewhat fully into what
I conceive to be its purpose.
In the first place, there are some writers notably Clifford
who, being naive realists as regards space, hold that our
evidence is wholly insufficient, as yet, to decide as to its nature
in the infinite or in the infinitesimal (cf.
Essays, Vol. I. p. 320) :
these writers are not concerned with any possibility of beings

different from ourselves, but simply with the everyday space we
know, which they investigate in the spirit of a chemist discuss

ing whether hydrogen is a metal, or an astronomer discussing
the nebular hypothesis.
But these are a minority most, more cautious, admit that
:
our space, so far as observation extends, is Euclidean, and if

not accurately Euclidean, must be only slightly spherical or
pseudo-spherical. Here again, it is the space of daily life which
is under discussion, and here further the discussion is, I think,
independent of any philosophical assumption as to the nature

of our space-intuition. For even if this be purely subjective,
the translation of an intuition into a conception can only be
accomplished approximately, within the errors of observation

incident to self-analysis; and until the intuition of space has
become a conception, we get no scientific Geometry. The
apodeictic certainty of the axiom of parallels shrinks to an
unmotived subjective conviction, and vanishes altogether in
those who entertain non-Euclidean doubts. To reinforce the
Euclidean faith, reason must now be brought to the aid of
intuition ;
but reason, unfortunately, abandons us, and we are
left to the mercy of approximate observations of stellar triangles
a meagre support, indeed, for the cherished religion of our
childhood.
89. But the possibility of an inaccuracy so slight, that
our finest instruments and our most distant parallaxes show
no trace of it, would trouble men s minds no more than the
analogous chance of inaccuracy in the law of gravitation, were
it not for the
philosophical import of even the slenderest pos
sibility in this sphere. And it is the philosophical bearing of
Metageometry alone, I think, which constitutes its real im
portance. Even if, as we will suppose for the moment, obser
vation had established, beyond the possibility of doubt, that
R. G. 7
our space might be safely regarded as Euclidean, still Meta-

geometry would have shown a philosophical possibility, and
on this ground alone it could claim, I think, very nearly all
the attention which it at present deserves.

But what is this possibility ? A thing is possible, according
to Bradley (Logic, p. 187), when it would follow from a certain
number of conditions, some of which are known to be realized.
Now the conditions to which a form of externality must con
form, in order to be affirmed, are first, of course, that it should
:
be experienced, or legitimately inferred from something ex

perienced; but secondly, that it should conform to certain
logical conditions, detailed in Chapter III.,
which may be sum
med up in the relativity of position. Now what Metageometry
has done, in any case, is to suggest the proof that the second
of these conditions is fulfilled by non-Euclidean spaces. Euclid
is on the ground of immediate experience
affirmed, therefore,
alone, and his truth, as unmediated by logical necessity, is
merely assertorical, or, if we prefer it, empirical. This is the

most important sense, it seems to me, in which non-Euclidean
spaces are possible. They are, in short, a step in a philo
sophical argument, rather than in the investigation of fact :
they throw light on the nature of the grounds for Euclid, rather
1
than on the actual conformation of space This import of .
is denied by Lotze, on the ground that non-

Metageometry
Euclidean logic is faulty, a ground which he endeavours, by
much detail and through many pages, to make good with
what will now proceed to examine.
success, we
90. attack on Metageometry although it remains,
Lotze s
so far as I know, the best hostile criticism extant, and although

its arguments have become part of the regular stock-in-trade
of Euclidean philosophers contains, if I am not mistaken,
several misunderstandings due to insufficient mathematical
knowledge of the subject. As these misunderstandings have

been widely spread among philosophers, and cannot be easily
removed except by a critic who has gone into non-Euclidean
Geometry with some care, it seems desirable to discuss Lotze s
strictures point by point.

1
On the meaning of geometrical possibility, cf. Veronese, Grundzuge der
Geometrie (German translation), pp. xi.-xiii.
91. The mathematical criticism begins ( 131) with a

somewhat question-begging definition of parallel straight lines.
Two straight lines aa, 6/3, according to this definition, are
parallel when a and b being arbitrary points on the two

lines if act = &/3, then ab = a/3, where a, /9 are two other points
on the two straight lines respectively. This definition which
contains Euclid s axiom and definition combined in a very
convenient and enticing form is of course thoroughly suitable
to Euclidean Geometry, and leads immediately to all the
Euclidean propositions about parallels. But it is perhaps
more honest to follow Euclid s course when an axiom is thus
;
buried in a definition, it is apt to seem, since definitions are

supposed to be arbitrary, as though the difficulty had been
overcome, while in reality, the possibility of parallels, as above
defined, involves the very point in question, namely, the dis
puted axiom of parallels. For what this axiom asserts is
simply the existence of lines conforming to Lotze s definition.

The deduction of the principal propositions on parallels, with
which Lotze follows up his definition, is of course a very simple
proceeding a proceeding, however, in which the first step begs

the question.
The next argument for the apriority of Euclidean
92.
Geometry has, oddly enough, an exactly opposite bearing,

although it is a great favourite with opponents of Meta-
geometry. Measurements of stellar triangles, and all similar
attempts at an empirical determination of the space-constant

are, according to Lotze, beside the mark for any observed ;
departure from two right angles, or any finite annual parallax

for distant stars, would be attributed to some new kind of
some other physical

refraction, or, as in the case of aberration, to
cause, and never to the geometrical nature of space. This is a
72
strong-argument for the empirical validity of Euclid, but as an

argument for the apodeictic certainty of the orthodox system, it
has an opposite tendency. For observations of the kind con
templated would have to be due to departures from Euclidean
straightness, hitherto unknown, on the part of stellar light-rays.
Such departure could, in certain cases, be accounted for by a
finite space-constant, but it could also, probably, be accounted
for a
by change in Optics, for example, by attributing refractive
properties to the ether. Such properties could only exist if ether

were of varying density, if (say) it were denser in the neigh
bourhood of any of the heavenly bodies. But such an assump
tion would, I believe, destroy the utility of ether for Physics ;
a slight alteration in our Geometry, so slight as not appreciably

to affect distances within the Solar System, would probably
be in the end, therefore, should such errors ever be discovered,
a simpler explanation than any that Physics could offer. But
this is not the point of my contention. The point is that, if
the physical explanation, as Lotze holds, be possible in the
above case, the converse must also hold it must be possible
:
to explain the present phenomena by supposing ether refractive

and space non -Euclidean. From this conclusion there is no
escape. If every conceivable behaviour of light-rays can be
explained, within Euclid, by physical causes, it must also be

possible, by a suitable choice of hypothetical physical causes,
to explain the actual phenomena as belonging to a non-
Euclidean space. Such a hypothesis would be rightly rejected
by Science, for the present, on account of its unnecessary
complexity. Nevertheless it would remain, for philosophy, a

possibility to be reckoned with,and the choice could only be
decided upon empirical grounds of simplicity. It may well
be doubted whether, in the world we know, the phenomena
could be attributed to a distinctly non-Euclidean space, but
this conclusion follows inevitably from the contention that no
phenomena could force us to assume such a space. Lotze s

argument, therefore, if pushed home, disproves his own view,
and puts Euclidean space, as an empirical explanation of phe
1
nomena, on a level with luminiferous ether .
1
Compare Calinon, Sur I lnddtermination gômetrique de
"
PUnivers," Eevue
Philosophique, 1893, Vol. xxxvi. pp. 595-607.
93. Lotze now proceeds ( 132) to a detailed criticism of

Helmholtz, whom he regards as a typical exponent of Meta-
geometry. It is possible that, at the time when he wrote,
Helmholtz really did occupy this position but it is unfortunate
;
that, in the minds of philosophers, he should still continue

to do so, after the very material advances brought about by
the projective treatment of the subject. It is also unfortunate
that hissomewhat careless attempts to popularise mathematical
resultshave so often been disposed of, without due attention
to his more technical and solid contributions. Thus his ro
mances about Flatland and Sphereland at best only fairy-tale
analogies of doubtful value have been attacked as if they
formed an essential feature of Metageometry.
But to proceed to particulars: Lotze readily allows that
the Flatlanders would set up Plane Geometry, as we know it,
but refuses to admit that the Spherelanders could, without
inferring the third dimension, set up a two-dimensional spherical
Geometry which should be free from contradictions. I will
endeavour to give a free rendering of Lotze s argument on
this point.
Suppose, he says, a north and south pole, N and $, arbi

trarily fixed, and an equator EW. Sup
pose a being, B, capable of impressions
only from things on the surface of the
sphere, to move in a meridian NBS. Let
B start from some point a, and finally,
after describing a great circle, return to
the same point a. If a is known only by
the quality of the impression it makes on
B, B may imagine he has not reached the same point a, but
another similar point a bearing a relation to a similar to that
,
of the octave in singing he might even not arrange his im

:
pressions spatially at all.In order that this may occur, we

require the further assumption, that every difference in the
above-mentioned feelings (as he describes the meridian) may
be presented as a spatial distance between two places. Even
now, B may think he is describing a Euclidean straight line,
containing similar points at certain intervals. Allowing, how
ever, that he realizes the identity of a with his initial position,
he will now seem, by motion in a straight line, to have returned

to the point from which he started, for his motion cannot,
without the third dimension, seem to him other than rectilinear.
Up to this point, there seems little ground for objection,
except, perhaps, to the idea of a straight line with periodical
similar points if B
were as philosophical as, in these dis
cussions, we usually suppose him to be, he would probably
object to this interpretation of his experiences, on the ground
that it regards empty space as something independent of the
objects in it. It is worth pointing out, also, that B would

not need to describe the whole circle, in order suddenly to
find himself home again with his old friends. Accurate mea
surements of small triangles would suffice to determine his
space- constant, and show him the length of a great circle (or
straight line, as he would call it). We must admit, also, that
so hypothetical a being as B
might form no space-intuition at
all, but as he is introduced solely for the purposes of the
analogy, it is convenient to allow him all possible qualifications
for his post. But these points do not touch the kernel of the
argument, which lies in the statement that such a straight
line, returning into itself after a finite time, would appear to
B as an "unendurable contradiction," and thus force him, for
logical though not for sensational purposes, into the assumption

of a third dimension. This assertion seems to me quite un
warranted: the whole of Metageometry is a solid array in
disproof of it. Helmholtz s argument is, it must be remem

bered, only an analogy, and the contradiction would exist only
for a Euclidean. A
complete three-dimensional Geometry has,
we have seen in Chapter I., been developed on the assumption
that straight lines are of finite length. constant value for A
the measure of curvature, as our dk^ssion of Riemann showed,
involves neither reference to the fourth dimension, nor any
kind of internal contradiction. This fact disproves Lotze s
contention, which arises solely from inability to divest his
imagination of Euclidean ideas.
Lotze next attacks Helmholtz for the assertion that B would

know nothing of parallel lines parallel straight lines, as the
Lotze, however, takes him
1
context shows, he meant to say .
1
Vortrage und Keden, Vol. n. p. 9:
"
Parallele Linien wiirden die

as meaning, apparently, mere curves of constant distance from

a given straight line, which are part of the regular stock-in-
trade of Metageometry. Parallels of latitude, in the geographical
sense, would not with the exception of the equator appear to
B as straight lines, but as circles. Great circles he would call
straight, and this fact seems to
have misled Lotze into thinking
all circles were to be treated as straight lines. Parallels of
latitude, therefore, though B might them parallels, would

call
not invalidate Helmholtz s contention, which applies only to

straight lines.
The argument that such small circles would be parallel,
which we have just disposed of, is only the preface to another
proof that B would need a third dimension. Let us call two
of these parallels of latitude ln and lgt and let them be equi
distant from the equator, one in the northern, one in the southern
hemisphere. Consecutive tangent planes, along these parallels,

converge, in the one case northwards, in the other southwards.
Either Bcould become aware of their difference, says Lotze,
or he could not. In the former case, which he regards as the
more probable, he easily proves that B would infer a third di
mension. But this alternative is, I think, wholly inadmissible.
Tangent planes, like Euclidean planes in general, would have
no meaning to B ;
were a metageometrician,
unless, indeed, he
which, with all his
metaphysical and mathematical subtlety, the
argument supposes him not to be and to such a supposition

Lotze, surely, the last person
is who has a
right to object.
Lotze s is the right alternative rests,
attempted proof that this
if I understand him aright, on a sheer error in ordinary spherical
Geometry. B
would observe, he says, that the meridians made
smaller angles with his path towards the nearer than towards
the further pole as a matter of fact, they would be simply
perpendicular to his path in both directions. What Lotze
means is, perhaps, that all the meridians would meet sooner
in one direction than in the other, and this, of course, is true.
Bewohner der Kugel gar nicht kennen. Sie wiirden behaupten, dass jede
beliebige zwei geradeste Linien, gehorig verlangert, sich schliesslich nicht nur
in einem, sondern in zwei Punkten sclmeiden miissten." (The italics are
mine.) The omission of straight in such phrases is a frequent laxity of
mathematicians.
104 FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETKY.
But the poles, in which the meridians meet, would appear to

B as the centres of the respective parallels, while the parallels
themselves would appear to be circles. Now I am at a loss to
see what difficulty would arise, to B, in supposing two different
circles to have different centres We must, therefore, take
1
.
the alternative, that

first B
would have no sort of knowledge
as to the direction in which the tangent planes converged.
Here Lotze attempts, if I have not misunderstood him, to prove
a reductio ad absurdum B
would think, he says, that he was
:
describing two paths wholly the same in direction, and then

he might regard both paths as circles in a plane. It may be
observed that direction, when applied to a circle as a whole,
ismeaningless indeed direction, in all Metageometry, can only
;
mean, even when applied to straight lines, direction towards

a point. To speak of two lines, which do not meet, as having
the same direction, a surreptitious introduction of the axiom
is
of parallels. Apart from this, I cannot conceive any objection,

on .B s part, to such a view one should say must, not might.
The whole argumentation, therefore, unless its obscurity has
led me astray, must be pronounced fruitless and inconclusive.
After this preliminary discussion of Sphereland, Lotze
94.
proceeds to the question of a fourth dimension, and thence to

spherical and pseudo-spherical space. As before, he appears to
know only the more careless and popular utterances of Helm-
holtz and Riemann, and to have taken no trouble to understand
even the foundations of mathematical Metageometry. By this
neglect, much of what he says is rendered wholly worthless.
To begin with, he regards, as the purpose of Helmholtz s fairy
tale, the suggestion of a possible fourth dimension, whereas
the real purpose was quite the opposite to make intelligible
a purely three-dimensional non-Euclidean space. Helmholtz
introduced Flatland only because its relation to Sphereland ,
is analogous to the relation of ours to spherical space

2
. But
1
It has been suggested to me that Lotze regards the meridians as projected
on to a plane, as in a map. If this be so, there is an obviously illegitimate
introduction of the third dimension.
2
This is proved by Helmholtz s remark at the end of a detailed attempt to
make spherical and pseudo-spherical spaces imaginable (I.e. p. 28): "Anders
ist es mit den drei Dimensionen des Kaumes. Da alle unsere Mittel sinnlicher
Anschauung sich nur auf einen Eaum von drei Dimensionen erstrecken, und
Lotze says : The Flatlanders would find no difficulty in a third

dimension, since it would in no way contradict their own
Geometry, while the people in Sphereland, from the contra
dictions in their two-dimensional system, would already have
been led to it. The latter contention I have already tried to
answer the former has an odd sound, in view of the attempt,
;
a few pages later, to prove d priori that all forms of intuition,

in any way analogous to space, must have three dimensions.
One cannot help suspecting that the Flatlanders, with two
instead of three dimensions, would make a similar attempt.
But to return to Lotze s argument: Neither analogy can be
used, he says, to prove that we ought perhaps to set up a
fourth dimension, since, for us, no contradictions or otherwise
inexplicable phenomena exist. The only people, so far as I

know, who have used this analogy, are Dr Abbot and a few
Spiritualists the former in joke, the latter to explain certain
phenomena more simply explained, perhaps, by Maskelyne and
Cooke. But although Lotze s conclusion in this matter is
sound, and one with which Helmholtz might have agreed, his
arguments, to my mind, are irrelevant and unconvincing.
There is he says, between us and the Sphere-
this difference,
landers: the latter were logically forced to a new dimension,
and found it possible ;
we are not forced to it, and find it, in
our space, impossible. I have contended that, on the contrary,
nothing would force the Spherelaiiders to assume a third dimen
sion,while they would find it impossible exactly as we find a
fourth impossible not logically, that is to say, but only as
a presentable construction in given space.
After a somewhat elephantine piece of humour, about
socialistic whales in a four-dimensional sea of Fourrier s eaa
sucre e, Lotze proceeds to a proof, by logic, that every form of

intuition, which embraces the whole system of ordered relations
of a coexisting manifold, must have three dimensions. One
might object, on a priori grounds, to any such attempt :
what belongs to pure intuition could hardly, one would have
die viefte Dimension nicht bloss eine Abanderung von Vorhandenem, sondern
etwas vollkommen Neues ware, so befinden wir uns schon wegen unserer
korperlichen Organisation in der absoluten Unmoglichkeit, uns eine An-
schauungsweise einer vierten Dimension vorzustellen.
"
1
thought, be determined by a priori reasoning I will not, .
however, develop this argument here, but endeavour to point

out, as far as its obscurity will allow, the particular fallacy of
the proof in question.
Lotze s argument is as follows. In this discussion, though
our terminology is necessarily taken from space, we are really
concerned with a much more general conception. We assume,
in order to preserve the homogeneity of dimensions, that the
difference (distance) between any two elements (points) of our
manifold to borrow Riemann s word is of the same kind as,
and commensurable with, the difference between any other
two elements. Let us take a series of elements at successive
distances x such that the distance between any two is the sum
of the distances between intermediate elements. Such a series
corresponds to a straight line, which is taken as the #-axis.
Then a series OF is called perpendicular to the #-axis OX,
-mx +mx
when the distances of any element y, on OF, from -\-rnx and

mx are equal. By our hypothesis, these distances are com
parable with, and qualitatively similar to, x and y. So long
as OFis defined only by relation to OX, it is conceptually
unique. But now let us suppose the same relation as that

between OX and OF, to be possible between OF and a new
series OZ; we then get a
third series OZ, perpendicular to OF,
and again conceptually unique, so long as it is defined by
relation to OF
alone. We
might proceed, in the same way,
to a fourth line OU
perpendicular to OZ. But it is necessary,
for our purposes, that OZ should be perpendicular to as OX
well as OF. Without this condition, OZ might extend into
1
Cf. Grassmann Ausdehnungslehre von 1844, 2nd Edition,
, p. xxiii.
PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES OF GEOMETRY. 1()7
another world, and have no corresponding relation to OX this

isa possibility only excluded by our unavoidable spatial images.
At this point comes the crux of the argument. That OZ, says
Lotze, which, besides being perpendicular to OF, is also perpen
dicular to OX, must be among the series of OF s, for these
were denned only by perpendicularity to OX. Hence, he con
cludes, there can only be even a third dimension if OZ coincides
with one, and as soon as OX is considered fixed with only
one, of the many members of the series. OF
In this argument it is difficult to me at any rate to see
any force at all. The only way I can account for it is, to
suppose that Lotze has neglected the possibility of any but

On this interpretation, the argument might
single infinities.
be stated thus: There is an infinite series of continuously
varying Fs ;
to the common property of these, we add another
property, which will divide their total number by infinity. The
remaining OZ, therefore, must be uniquely determined. The
same form of argument, however, would prove that two surfaces
can only cut one another in a single point, and numberless
other absurdities. The fact is, that infinities may be of different
orders. For example, the number of points in a line may be
taken as a single infinity, and so may the number of lines
in a plane through any point hence, by multiplication, the
;
number of points in a plane is a double infinity, 2

and if we x ,
divide this number by a single infinity, we get still an infinite

number left. Thus Lotze s argument assumes what he has
to prove, that the number of lines perpendicular to a given
line, through any point, is a single infinity, which is equivalent
to the axiom of three dimensions. The whole passage is so
obscure, that itsmeaning may have escaped me. It is obvious
a priori, however, as I pointed out in the beginning, that any
proof of the axiom must be fallacious somewhere, and the above

interpretation of the argument is the only one I have been
able to find.
95. The rest of the Chapter is devoted to an attack on
spherical and pseudo-spherical space, on the ground that they
interfere with the homogeneity of the three dimensions, and
with the similarity of all parts of space. This is simply false.
Such spaces, like the surface of a sphere, are exactly alike
throughout. Lotze shows, here and elsewhere, that he has

not taken the pains to find out what Metageometry really is.
I hold myself, and have tried to prove in this Essay, that
Congruence an a priori axiom, without which Geometry
is
would be impossible but the wish to uphold this axiom is,

;
as Lotze ought to have known, the precise motive which led
Metageometry to limit itself to spaces of constant measure

of curvature. We see here the importance of distinguishing
between Helmholtz the philosopher and Helmholtz the mathe
matician. Though the philosopher wished to dispense with
Congruence, the mathematician, as we saw in Chapter I.,
retained and strongly emphasized it. A little later Lotze
shows, again, how he has been misled by the unfortunate
analogy of Sphereland. A
spherical surface, he says, he can
understand; but how are we to pass from this to a spherical
space ? Either this surface the whole of our space, as in

is
Sphereland, or generates space by a gradually growing radius.

it
Such concentric spheres, as Lotze triumphantly points out, of

course generate Euclidean space. His disjunction, however, is
utterly and entirely false, and could never have been suggested
by any one with even a superficial knowledge of Metageometry.
This point is less laboured than the former, which, in all its
nakedness, is thus re-stated in the last sentence of the Chapter:
cannot persuade myself that one could, without the elements
"I
of space, even form or define the presentation of

homogeneous
heterogeneous spaces, or of such as had variable measures of
curvature." As though such spaces were ever set up by non-
Euclidean mathematics !
In conclusion, Lotze expresses a hope that Philosophy, on

this point, will not allow itself to be imposed upon by Mathe
matics. I must, instead, rejoice that Mathematics has not been
imposed upon by Philosophy, but has developed freely an

important and self-consistent system, which deserves, for its
subtle analysis into logical and factual elements, the gratitude
of all who seek for a philosophy of space.
96. The objections to non-Euclidean Geometry which have
just been discussed fall under four heads :
Non-Euclidean spaces are not homogeneous;

I. Meta
geometry therefore unduly reifies space.
II. They involve a reference to a fourth dimension.

III. They cannot be set up without an implicit reference
to Euclidean space, or to the Euclidean straight line, on which
they are therefore dependent.
IV. are self-contradictory in one or more ways.
They
The reader who has followed me in regarding these four objec
tions as fallacious, will have no difficulty in disposing of any other
criticof Metageometry, as these are the only mathematical
1
arguments, so far as I know, ever urged against non-Euclideans .
The logical validity of Metageometry,

and the mathematical
possibility of three-dimensional non-Euclidean spaces, will there
fore be regarded, throughout the remainder of the work, as
sufficiently established.
97. Two
other objections may, indeed, be urged against
Metageometry, but these are rather of a philosophical than of

a strictly mathematical import. The first of these, which has
been made the base of operations by Delboeuf, applies equally
to all non-Euclidean spaces. The second, which has not, so far
as I know, been much employed, but yet seems to me deserving
of notice, bears directly against spaces of positive curvature
alone but if it could discredit these, it might throw doubt on
;
the method by which all alike are obtained. The two objections
are:
I.
Space must be such as to allow of similarity, i.e. of the
increase or diminution, in a constant ratio, of all the lines in a
figure, without change of angles whereas in non-Euclid, lines,

;
like angles, have absolute magnitude.

II. Space must be infinite, whereas spherical and elliptic
spaces are finite.
I will discuss the first objection in connection with Delboeuf s
articles referred to above. The second, which has not, to my
knowledge, been widely used in criticism, will be better deferred
to Chapter in.
1
See especially Stallo, Concepts of Modern Physics, International Science
Series, Vol. XLH. Chaps, xm. and xiv. ; Renouvier, "Philosophic de la regie et
du compas," Annee Philosophique, n. ; Delboeuf, "L ancienne et les nouvelles

geometries," Revue Philosophique, Vols. xxxvi.-xxxrx.
Delboeuf.
98. M. Delboeufs four articles in the Revue Philosophique

contain much matter
that has already been dealt with in the
criticism of Lotze, and much that is irrelevant for our
present
purpose. The only point, which I wish to discuss here, is the
question of absolute magnitude, as it is called the question,
that is, whether the possibility of similar but unequal geometri
cal figures can be known a priori 1 .
In discussing this question,

important, to begin with, to
it is
distinguish clearly the sense in which absolute magnitude is

required in non-Euclidean Geometry, from another sense, in
which it would be absurd
to regard any magnitude as absolute.
Judgments of magnitude can only result from comparison, and

if
Metageometry required magnitudes which could be deter
mined without comparison, it would certainly deserve condem
nation. But this is not required. All we require is, that it
shallbe impossible, while the rest of space is unaffected, to alter
the magnitude of any figure, as compared with other
figures,
while leaving the relative internal magnitudes of its
parts
unchanged. This construction, which is
possible in Euclid, is
impossible in Metageometry. We
have to discuss whether such
an impossibility renders non-Euclidean spaces logically faulty.
M. Delboeufs position on this axiom which he calls the
2
postulate of homogeneity is, that all Geometry must presup
pose it, and that Metageometry, consequently, though logically

sound, is logically subsequent to Euclid, and can only make its
constructions within a Euclidean "homogeneous" space (Rev.
Phil. Vol.
xxxvii., pp. 380-1). He would appear to think,
nevertheless, that homogeneity (in his sense) is learnt from
experience, though on this point he is not very explicit. (See
Vol. xxxviii., p. 129.) No a priori proof, at any rate, is offered
1
M. Delboeuf deserves
credit for having based Euclid, already in 1860, in
his Prol6gomenes Philosophiques de la Geome trie," on this axiom certainly
"
a better basis, at first sight, than the axiom of parallels.

2
This meaning of homogeneity must not be confounded with the sense in
which I have used the word. In Delbceuf s sense, it means that figures may be
similar though of different sizes; in my sense means that be
it figures may
similar though in different places. This property of space is called by Delbceuf
isogeneity.
PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES OF GEOMETRY. Ill
in his articles. As a result of experience, every one would

admit, similarity is known to be possible within the limits of
observation but ;
the fact that this possibility extends to
Ordnance maps, which deal with a spherical surface, should
make us chary of inferring, from such a datum, the certainty
of Euclid for large spaces. Moreover if homogeneity be empiri
cal, Metageometry, which dispenses with it, is not necessarily
in dependence upon Euclid, since homogeneity and
logical
isogeneity are logically separable. I shall assume, therefore,
as the only contention which can be
interesting to our argu
ment, that homogeneity is regarded as a priori, and as logically
essential to Geometry.
99. Now we saw, in discussing Erdmann s views of the
judgment quantity, that in non-Euclidean space, as in
of
Euclidean, a change of all spatial magnitudes, in the same
ratio, would be no change at all the ratios of all magnitudes
;
to the space-constant would be unchanged, and the

space-
constant, as the ultimate standard of comparison, cannot, in
any intelligible sense, be said to have any particular magnitude.
The absolute magnitudes of Metageometry, therefore, are absolute
only as against any other particular magnitude, not as against
other magnitudes in general. If this were not the case, the
comparative nature of the judgment of magnitude would
be contradicted, and metrical
Metageometry would become
absurd. But as it is, the difference from Euclid consists
only
in this: that in Metageometry we have, while in Euclid we
have not, a standard of comparison involved in the nature
of our space as a whole, which we call the
space-constant.
We have to discuss whether the assertion of such a standard
involves an undue reification of space.
I do not believe that this is the case. For an undue reifi
cation of space would only arise, if we were no
longer able to
regard position as wholly relative, and as geometrically definable
only by departure from other positions. But the relativity of
position, as we have abundantly seen, is preserved by all spaces
of constant curvature in all of these, positions can
only be
defined, geometrically, by relations to fresh positions 1 This .
series of definitions may lead to an infinite regress, but it

may
1
For a full proof of this proposition, see Chap. in.
also,as in spherical space, form a vicious circle, and return
again to the position from which it started. No reification of

space, no independent existence of mere relations,
seems involved
in such a procedure. The whole of Metageometry, in short, is a
proof that the relativity of position is compatible

with absolute
magnitude, in the only sense required by non-Euclidean spaces.

We must conclude, therefore, that there is nothing incompatible,
in a denial of homogeneity (in Delboeuf s sense), either with the
relational nature of space, or with the comparative nature of
magnitude. This last a priori objection to Metageometry, there

fore, cannot be maintained, and the issue must be decided on
empirical grounds alone.

100. The foundations ofGeometry have been the subject of
much recent speculation in France, and this seems to demand
some notice. But in spite of the splendid work which the
French have done on the allied question of number and
continuous quantity, I cannot persuade myself that they have
succeeded in greatly advancing the subject of geometrical
philosophy. The chief writers have been, from the mathe
matical side, Calinon and Poincare, from the philosophical,
Renouvier and Delboeuf \
as a mediator between mathematics
and philosophy, Lechalas.
Calinon, in an interesting article on the geometrical in-
determinateness of the universe, maintains that any Geometry

may be applied to the actual world by a suitable hypothesis as
to the course of light-rays. For the earth only is known to us
otherwise than by Optics, and the earth is an infinitesimal part
of the universe. This line of argument has been already discussed
in connection with Lotze, but Calinon adds a new suggestion,
that the space -constant may perhaps vary with the time. This
would involve a causal connection between space and other
things, which seems hardly conceivable, and which, if regarded as

possible, must surely destroy Geometry,
since Geometry depends
1
throughout on the irrelevance of Causation Moreover, in .
all operations of measurement, some time is spent; unless

we knew that space was unchanging throughout the opera
tion, it is hard to see how our results could be trustworthy,
and how, consequently, a change in the parameter could be
1 133.
See Chap, in., especially
discovered. The same difficulties would arise, in fact, as those

which result from supposing space not homogeneous.
Poincare maintains that the question, whether Euclid or
Metageometry should be accepted, is one of convenience and
convention, not of truth; axioms are definitions in disguise, and
the choice between definitions is arbitrary. This view has been
discussed in Chapter I., in connection with Cayley s theory of
distance, on which
it depends.
Lechalas a philosophical disciple of Calinon.

is He is a
rationalist of the pre-Kantian type, but a believer in the
validity of Metageometry. He holds that Geometry can dis
pense with purely spatial postulates, and work with axioms

all
of magnitude alone *, which, in his opinion, are purely analytic.

The principle of contradiction, to him, is the sole and only test
of truth ;
we make long chains of reasoning from our premisses
to see if contradictions will emerge. It might be objected that
this view, though it saves general Geometry from being logically
empirical, leaves it only empirically logical this must, in fact, ;
be the fate of every piece of a priori knowledge, if M. Lechalas s

were the only test of truth. However, he concludes that general
Geometry is apodeictic, while the space of our actual world, like
all other phenomena, is
contingent.
Delbceuf criticizes non-Euclidean space from an ultra-realist
standpoint he holds that real space is neither homogeneous
:
nor isogeneous, but that conceived space, as abstracted from real

space, has both these properties. He offers no justification for
his real space, which seems to be maintained in the spirit of
naive realism, nor does he show how he has acquired his intimate
2
knowledge of its constitution His arguments against Meta
.
geometry, in so far as they are not repetitions of Lotze, have

been discussed above.
Renouvier, finally, is a pure Kantian, of the most orthodox
type. His views as to the importance, for Geometry, of the
distinction between synthetic and analytic judgments, have
1
For a criticism of this view, see the above discussions on Riemann and
Erdmann.
a
Cf. Couturat, "De 1 Infini Mathematiqne,
"
Paris, Felix Alcan, 1896,

p. 544.
R. G. 8
been discussed, in connection with Kant, at the beginning of

1
the present Chapter .
101. Before beginning the constructive argument of the

next Chapter, let us endeavour briefly to sum up the theories
which have been polemically advocated throughout the criticisms
we have just concluded. We agreed to accept, with Kant, neces
sity for any possible experience as the
test of the a priori, but
1
The following is a list of the most important recent French philosophical
writings on Geometry, so far as I am acquainted with them.
Andrade Les bases exp6rimentales de la ge ome trie euclidienne Rev. Phil. "
"
: ;
1890, ii., and 1891, i.

Bonnel "Les hypotheses dans la geometric
"
: Gauthier-Villars, 1897. ;
L Abbe de Broglie: "La geometric non-euclidienne," two articles Annales de ;
Phil. Chret. 1890.

Calinon: "Les
espaces geometriques Rev. Phil. 1889, i., and 1891, n.
"
Sur Pinde termination ge"ometrique de 1 univers ib. 1893, n.

"
"
Couturat : "L Annee Philosophique de F. Pillon," Eev. de Met. et de Morale,

Jan. 1893.
"
Note sur la geometric non-euclidienne et la relativit6 de 1

espace";
ib., May, 1893.

Etudes sur
"
1 espace et le temps," ib. Sep. 1896.

Delbceuf: "L ancienne et les nouvelles geometries," four articles; Rev. Phil.
18935.
Lechalas: La geometric generale
"
"
;
Grit. Phil. 1889.
La geometric generale
"
jugements synthetiques a priori

et les
"
and
"Les bases expdrimentales de la geometric" Rev. Phil. 1890, n. ;
"
M. Delboauf et Le probleme des mondes semblables ib. 1894,

"
;
i.
sur la geometric non-euclidienne et le principe de similitude

"
"Note ;
Rev. de Me"t. et de Morale, March, 1893.

"La courbure et la distance en geometric generale"; ib., March,
1896.
"
La geometric generale et 1 intuition

"
;
Annales de Phil. Chret., 1890.
"
Etude sur 1 espace et le temps" ; Paris, Alcan, 1896.

Liard: "Des definitions geometriques et des d6finitions empiriques," 2nd ed. ;
Paris, Alcan, 1888.

Mansion : Premiers principes de la m6tagometrie "
; two articles in Rev.

Neo-Scholastique, 1896. Separately published, Gauthier-Villars, 1896.
Milhaud "La
geome trie non-euclidienne et la theorie de la connaissance ;
:
"
Rev. Phil. 1888, i.

Poincare: "Non-Euclidian Geometry"; Nature, Vol. XLV., 1891 2.
"
L espace et la geome trie Rev. de M6t. et de Morale, Nov. 1895.

"
Reponse a quelques critiques," ib. Jan. 1897.

"
Renouvier: de la regie et du compas and

"
"Philosophic ; Grit. Phil., 1889,

L Annee annê, 1891. Phil., n me
Sorel "Sur la geometric non-euclidienne
:
;
Rev. Phil., 1891, i. "
Tannery: Theorie de la connaissance mathematique"; Rev. Phil., 1894, n.

"
we refused, for the present, to discuss the connection of the

a priori with the subjective, regarding the purely logical test
as sufficient for our immediate purpose. We
also refused to
attach importance to the distinction of analytic and synthetic,
since it seemed to apply, not to different judgments, but only to
different aspects of any judgment.
We then discussed Riemann s attempt to identify the
empirical element in
Geometry with the element not de-
ducible from ideas of magnitude, and we decided that this
identificationwas due to a confusion as to the nature of magni
tude. For judgments of magnitude, we said, require always
some qualitative basis, which is not quantitatively expressible.
In criticizing Helmholtz, we decided that Mechanics logically
presupposes Geometry, though space presupposes matter; but
that the matter which space presupposes, and to which Geometry
indirectly refers, is a more abstract matter than that of Mechanics,

a matter destitute of force and of causal attributes, and possessed
only of the purely spatial attributes required for the possibility
of spatial figures. But we conceded that Geometry, when applied
to mixed mathematics or to daily life, demands more than this,
demands, in fact, some means of discovering, in the more concrete
matter of Mechanics, either a rigid body, or a body whose de
parture from rigidity follows some empirically discoverable law.
Actual measurement, therefore, we agreed to regard as em
pirical.
Our conclusions, as regards the empiricism of Riemann and
Helmholtz, were reinforced by a criticism of Erdmann. We then
had an opposite task to perform, in defending Metageometry
against Lotze. Here we saw that there are two senses in which
Metageometry is possible. The first concerns our actual space,
and asserts that it may have a very small space-constant ;
the
second concerns philosophical theories of space, and asserts a
purely logical possibility, which leaves the decision to experi
ence. We saw also that Lotze s mathematical strictures arose
from insufficient knowledge of the subject, and could all be
refuted by a better acquaintance with Metageometry.
Finally, we discussed the question of absolute magnitude,

and found in it no logical obstacle to non-Euclidean
spaces.
Our conclusion, then, in so far as we are as yet entitled to a
conclusion, is that all spaces with a space-constant are a priori
justifiable,
and that the decision between them must be the
work of Spaces without a space-constant, on
experience.
the other hand, spaces, that is, which are not homogeneous
throughout, we found logically unsound and impossible to know,

and therefore to be condemned a priori. The constructive
the argument of the following
proof of this thesis will form
chapter.
CHAPTER III.
Section A.
THE AXIOMS OF PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY.
102. PROJECTIVE Geometry proper, as we saw in Chapter i.,
does not employ the conception of magnitude, and does not,

therefore, require those axioms which, in the systems of the
second or metrical period, were required solely to render possible
the application of magnitude to space. But we saw, also, that
Cay ley s reduction of metrical to projective properties was

purely technical and philosophically irrelevant. Now it is in
metrical properties alone apart from the exception to the
axiom of the straight line, which itself, however, presupposes
1
metrical properties that noil- Euclidean and Euclidean spaces
differ. The properties dealt with by projective Geometry,
therefore, in so far as these are obtained without the use of
imaginaries, are properties common to all spaces. Finally, the

differences which appear between the Geometries of different
spaces of the same curvature e.g. between

the Geometries of
the plane and the cylinder are differences in projective pro
perties
2
Thus the necessity which arises, in metrical Geometry,
.
for further qualifications besides those of constant curvature,
disappears when our general space is denned by purely pro

jective properties.
103. We
have good ground for expecting, therefore, that
the axioms of projective Geometry will be the simplest and
most complete expression of the indispensable requisites of
1
See infra, Axiom of Distance, in Sec. B. of this Chapter.
-
Thus on a cylinder, two geodesies, e.g. a generator and a helix, may have
any number of intersections a very important difference from the plane.
any geometrical reasoning : and

this expectation, I hope, will
not be disappointed. Projective Geometry, in so far as it
deals only with the properties common to all spaces, will be
found, if I am
not mistaken, to be wholly d priori, to take
nothing from experience, and to have, like Arithmetic, a creature
of the pure intellect for its object. If this be so, it is that
branch of pure mathematics which Grassmann, in his Ausdehn-
ungslehre of 1844, felt to be possible, and endeavoured, in a
brilliant failure, to construct without any appeal to the space of
intuition.
But unfortunately, the task of discovering the axioms
104.
Geometry is far from easy. They have, as yet,

of project! ve
found no Riemami or Helmholtz to formulate them philo
sophically. Many geometers have constructed systems, which
they intended to be, and which, with sufficient care in interpre
tation, really are, free from metrical presuppositions. But
these presuppositions are so rooted in all the very elements
of Geometry, that the task of eliminating them demands a
reconstruction of the whole geometrical edifice. Thus Euclid,
for example, deals, from the start, with spatial equality he
employs the circle, which is necessarily defined by means of
equality, and he bases all his later propositions on the con
gruence of triangles as discussed in Book I. Before we can 1
use any elementary proposition of Euclid, therefore, even if

this expresses a projective property, we have to prove that the
property in question can be deduced by projective methods.

This has not, in general, been done by projective geometers,
who have too often assumed, for example, that the quadrilateral
construction by which, as we saw in Chap. I., they introduce
projective coordinates or anharmonic ratio, which is primd
facie metrical, could be satisfactorily established on their prin
ciples. Both these assumptions, however, can be justified/and
we may admit, therefore, that the claims of projective Geometry
to logical independence of measurement or congruence are
valid. Let us see, then, how it
proceeds.
105. In the first place, it is important to realize that
Cremona, Projective Geometry (Clarendon Press, 2nd ed. 1893) p. 50

1
Cf . :
"
of the propositions in Euclid s Elements are metrical, and it is not easy

Most
to find among them an example of a purely descriptive theorem."
THE AXIOMS OF PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY. 119
when coordinates are used, in protective Geometry, they are

not coordinates in the ordinary metrical sense, i.e. the numerical
measures of certain spatial magnitudes. On the contrary, they

are a set of numbers, arbitrarily but systematically assigned
to different points, like the numbers of houses in a street, and
serving only, from a philosophical standpoint, as convenient

designations for points which the investigation wishes to dis
tinguish. But for the brevity of the alphabet, in fact, they
might, as in Euclid, be replaced by letters. How they are
introduced, and what they mean, has been discussed in Chapter I.
Here we have only to repeat a caution, whose neglect has led
to much misunderstanding.
106. The distinction between various points, then, is not
a result, but a condition, of the projective coordinate system.
The coordinate system is a wholly extraneous, and merely con
venient, set of marks, which in no way touches the essence
of projective Geometry. What we must begin with, in this
domain, is the possibility of distinguishing various points from
one another. This may be designated, with Veronese, as the
first axiom of Geometry 1
. How we are to define a point, and
how we distinguish from other points, is for the moment
it
irrelevant; for here we only wish to discover the nature of

projective Geometry,and the kind of properties which it uses
and demonstrates. How, and with what justification, it uses
and demonstrates them, we will discuss later.
107. Now it is obvious that a mere collection of points,
distinguished one from another, cannot found a Geometry:
we must have some idea of the manner in which the points
are interrelated, in order to have an adequate subject-matter
for discussion. But since all ideas of quantity are excluded,
the relations of points cannot be relations of distance in the
ordinary sense, nor even, in the sense of ordinary Geometry,

anharmonic ratios, for anharmonic ratios are usually defined
as the ratios of four distances, or of four sines, and are thus
quantitative. But since all quantitative comparison presupposes

an identity of quality, we may expect to find, in projective Geo
metry, the qualitative substrata of the metrical superstructure.
And this, we shall see, is actually the case. We have not
1
Op. cit. p. 22G.

distance, butwe have the straight line we have not quantitative

;
anharmonic ratio, but we have the property, in any four points

on a line, of being the intersections with the rays of a given
pencil. And from this basis, we can build up a qualitative
science of abstract externality, which projective Geometry. is
How this happens, I shall now proceed to show.

108. All geometrical reasoning is, in the last resort, cir
cular : if we start by assuming points, they can only be denned
by the lines or planes which relate them and if we start
;
by assuming they can only be denned by the

lines or planes,
points through which they pass. This is an inevitable circle,

whose ground of necessity will appear as we proceed. It is,
therefore, somewhat arbitrary to start either with points or
with the eminently projective principle of duality
lines, as
mathematically illustrates nevertheless we will elect, with

;
most geometers, to start with points

1
We suppose, therefore,.
as our datum, a set of discrete points, for the moment without
regard to their interconnections. But since connections are

essential to any reasoning about them as a system, we intro
duce, to begin with, the axiom of the straight line. Any two
of our points, we say, lie on a line which those two points com
pletely define. This line, being determined by the two points,

may be regarded as a relation of the two points, or an adjective
of the system formed by both together. This is the only purely
as will be proved later of a system of
qualitative adjective
two points. Now projective Geometry can only take account
of qualitative adjectives, and can distinguish between different
points only by their relations to other points, since all points,

per se y are qualitatively similar. Hence it comes that, for
projective Geometry, when two

points only are given, they are
qualitatively indistinguishable from any two
other points on
the same straight line, since any two such other points have
the same qualitative relation. Reciprocally, since one straight
line is a figure determined by any two of its points, and all
points are qualitatively similar, it follows that all straight lines

are qualitatively similar. We may regard a point, therefore,
as determined by two straight lines which meet in it, and the
Some ground appear when we come to metrical

1
for this choice will
Geometry.
point, on this view, becomes the only qualitative relation

between the two straight lines. Hence, if the point only be
regarded as given, the two straight lines are qualitatively
indistinguishable from any other pair through the point.
109. The extension of these two reciprocal principles is
the essence of all projective transformations, and indeed of all
projective Geometry. The fundamental operations, by which

figures are protectively transformed, are called projection and
section. The various forms of projection and section are defined
in Cremona s "
Projective Geometry," Chapter I., from which

I quote the following account.
To project from a fixed point S (the centre of projection)
"
a figure (ABCD... abed...) composed of points and straight lines,

is to construct the straight lines or projecting rays SA, SB, SC,
D,...and the planes (projecting planes) Sa, Sb, Sc, Sd,.... We

thus obtain a new figure composed of straight lines and planes
which all pass through the centre S.
"
To cut by a fixed plane a (transversal plane) a figure (affyS

...abed...) made up of planes and straight lines, is to construct
the straight lines or traces aa, and the points or traces
cr$, cry...
a-a, ac ... 1 By this means

<rb,
. we obtain a new figure composed
of straight lines and points lying in the plane a.
To project from a fixed straight line s (the axis) a figure
"
A BCD composed of points, is to construct the planes sA, sB,

sC.... The figure thus obtained is composed of planes which
all pass through the axis s.
To cut by a fixed straight line s (a transversal) a figure

"
a/378... composed of planes, is to construct the points sa, s/3,
sy In this way a new figure is obtained, composed of points

all lying on the fixed transversal s.
a figure is composed of straight lines
"If 6, c... which all ,
pass through a fixed point or centre S, it can be projected from

a straight line or axis s passing through S the result is a figure ;
composed of planes sa, sb, sc....

"If a figure composed of straight lines
is , b, c... all lying
in a fixed plane, it may be cut by a straight line (transversal)
1
The era denotes the straight line common to the planes a and
straight line
a, the point denotes the point common to the plane a and the straight line
<ra
a, and similarly for the rest of the notation.

s lying in the same plane ;

the figure which results is formed
by the points sa, sb, sc..."
110. The application, to any figure, of two

successive
reciprocal operations of projection and section, is regarded as

producing a figure protectively indistinguishable from the first,
provided only that the dimensions of the original figure were
the same as those of the resulting figure, that, for example,
if the second operation be section by a plane, the original
figure shall have been a plane figure. The figures obtained

from a given figure, by projection or section alone, are related
to that figure by the principle of duality, of which we shall
have to speak later on.
I shall endeavour to show, in what follows, first, in what
sense figures obtained from each other by projective trans
formation are qualitatively alike; secondly, what axioms, or
adjectives of space, are involved in the principle of projective
transformation ;
and must belong
thirdly, that these adjectives
to any form of externality with more than one dimension, and
are, therefore, a priori properties of any possible space.
For the sake of simplicity, I shall in general confine myself
to two dimensions. In so doing, I shall introduce no important
difference of principle, and shall greatly simplify the mathe
matics involved.
111. The two mathematically fundamental things in pro
jective Geometry are anharmonic ratio, and the quadrilateral
construction. Everything else follows mathematically from
these two. Now what is meant, in projective Geometry, by
anharmonic ratio ?
we start from anharmonic ratio as ordinarily defined,

If
we are met by the difficulty of its quantitative nature But 1
.
among the properties deduced from this definition, many, if
not most, are purely qualitative. The most fundamental of

these is that, if through any four points in a straight line
we draw four straight lines which meet in a point, and ifwe
then draw a new straight line meeting these four, the four new
1
Cremona (op. cit. Chap. ix. p. 50) defines anharmonic ratio as a metrical
property which is This, however, destroys the logical

unaltered by projection.
independence of projective Geometry, which can only be maintained by a purely
descriptive definition.
points of intersection have the same an harmonic ratio as the

four points we started with. Thus, in the figure, abed, a b cd ,
a"b"c"d",
all have the same anharmonic ratio. The reciprocal
relation holds for the anharmonic ratio of four straight lines.
Here we have, plainly, the required basis for a qualitative

definition. The definition must be as follows :
Two
sets of four points each are defined as having the same
anharmonic ratio, when (1) each set of four lies in one straight
line,and (2) corresponding points of different sets lie two by two
on four straight lines through a single point, or when both sets
have this relation to any third set And reciprocally Two sets
l
. :
of four straight lines are defined as having the same anharmonic

ratio when (1) each set of four passes through a single point,
and (2) corresponding lines of different sets pass, two by two,
through four points in one straight line, or when both sets have
this relation to any third set.
Two sets of points- or of lines, which have the same anhar

monic by project! ve Geometry as equivalent
ratio, are treated :
this qualitative equivalence replaces the quantitative equality

of metrical Geometry, and is obviously included, by its defini
tion, in the above account of protective transformations in
general.
112. We have next to consider the quadrilateral con-
1
There is no corresponding property of three points on a line, because they
can be protectively transformed into any other three points on the same line.
See 120.
struction 1 This has a double purpose

.
first, to define the :
important special case known as a harmonic range and secondly, ;
to afford an
unambiguous and exhaustive method of assigning
different numbers to different points. This last method has,
again, a double purpose first, the purpose of giving a con

:
venient symbolism for describing and distinguishing different

points, and of thus affording a means for the introduction of
analysis and secondly, of so assigning these numbers that, if
;
they had the ordinary metrical significance, as distances from

some point on the numbered straight line, they would yield
1 as the anharmonic ratio of a harmonic range, and that,
if four points have the same anharmonic ratio as four others,
so have the corresponding numbers. This last purpose is due

to purely technical motives : it avoids the confusion with our
preconceptions which would result from any other value for

a harmonic range it allows us, when metrical interpretations
;
of projective results are desired, to make these interpretations

without tedious numerical transformations, and it enables us
to perform projective transformations by algebraical methods.
At the same time, from the strictly projective point of view,
as observed above, the numbers introduced have a purely
conventional meaning and until we pass to metrical Geometry,
;
no reason can be shown for assigning the value 1 to a har
monic range.. With this preliminary, let us see in what the

quadrilateral construction consists.
113. A
harmonic range, in elementary Geometry, is one
whose anharmonic ratio is 1, or one in which the three
segments formed by the four points are in harmonic pro

gression, or again, one in which the ratio of the two internal
segments is equal to the ratio of the two external segments.
If a, b, c, d be the four points, it is easily seen that these
definitions are equivalent to one another :
they give re
1111
:
spectively
ab
- /lad =- 1. -j- =.. and
, ab
7
= ad = .
ad7
,
be dc ab ac etc be cd
1
Due to v. Staudt s "Geoinetrie der Lage."
But as they are all quantitative, they cannot be used for our
present purpose. Nor are any definitions which involve bi

section of lines or angles available.We must have a definition
which proceeds entirely by the help of straight lines and
points, without measurement of distances or angles. Now from
the above definitions of a harmonic range, we see that a, 6, c, d
have the same anharmomc ratio as c, b, a, d. This gives us
the property we require for our definition. For it shows that,
in a harmonic range, we can find a projective transformation
which will interchange a and c. This is a necessary and suf
ficient condition for a harmonic range, and the quadrilateral
is the general method
construction for giving effect to it.
Given any three points A, B, D in one straight line, the
quadrilateral construction finds the point C harmonic to A

with respect to B, D by the following method : Take any point
outside the straight line ABD, and join it to B and D.
Through A draw any straight line cutting OD, OB in P and Q.
T.
Join DQ, BP, and let them intersect in E. Join OR, and let
OR meet ABD in C. Then C is the point required.
To prove this, let DRQ meet OA in T, and draw AR,
meeting OD in S. Then a projective transformation of A, B, C, D
from R on to OD givesthe points S, P, 0, D, which, projected
from A on to DQ, give R, Q, T, D. But these again, projected
from on to ABD, give C, B, A, D. Hence A, B, (7, can D
be projectively transformed into C, B, A, D, and therefore
form a harmonic range. From this point, the proof that the
1
construction is unique and general follows simply . .
1
See Cremona, op. cit. Chapter vui.
The introduction of numbers, by this construction, offers

no difficulties of principleexcept, indeed, those which always
attend the application of number to continua and may be
studied satisfactorily in Klein s Nicht-Euklid (i. p. 337 ff.). The
principle of it is, to assign the numbers 0, 1, oo to A, B, D and
therefore the number 2 to 0, in order that the differences AB,
AC, AD may be in harmonic progression. By taking B, G, D as
a new triad corresponding to A, B, D, we find a point harmonic
to B with respect to G, D and assign to it the number 3, and so
on. In this way, we can obtain any number of points, and
we are sure of having no number and no point twice over,
so that our coordinateshave the essential property of a unique
correspondence with the points they denote, arid vice versa.
114. The point of importance in the above construction,
however, and the reason why I have reproduced it in detail,
isthat it proceeds entirely by means of the general principles
of transformation enunciated above. From this stage onwards,
everything is
by means of the two fundamental ideas
effected
we have just discussed, and everything, therefore, depends on
our general principle of project! ve equivalence. This principle,
as regards two dimensions, may be stated more simply than
in the passage quoted from Cremona. It starts, in two
dimensions, from the following definitions :
To project the points A, B, G. D... from a centre 0, is to

construct the straight lines OA, OB, OG, OD....
To cut a number of straight lines a, 6, c, d. by a transversal
. .
s, is to construct the points sa, sb, sc, sd. 1. . .
The successive application of these two operations, provided

the original figure consisted of points on one straight line or
of straight lines through one point, gives a figure protectively
indistinguishable from the former figure and hence, by ex

;
tension, if any points in one straight line in the original figure

lie in one straight line in the derived figure, and reciprocally
for straight lines through points, the two operations have
given* projectively similar figures. This general principle may

be regarded as consisting of two parts, according to the order
of the operations if we begin with projection and end with
:
1
The corresponding definitions, for the two-dimensional manifold of lines
through a point, follow by the principle of duality.
section, we transform a figure of points into another figure of
points; by the converse order, we transform a figure of lines

into another figure of lines.
115. we can be clear as
Before to the meaning of our
principle, we must have some notion as to our definition of
points and straight lines. But this definition, in projective
Geometry, cannot be given without some discussion- of the

principle of duality, the mathematical form of the philosophical
circle involved in geometrical definitions.
Confining ourselves for the moment to two dimensions,
the principle asserts, roughly speaking, that any theorem,
dealing with lines through a point and points on a line, remains

true if these two terms, wherever they occur, are interchanged.
Thus : two points lie on one straight line which they completely
determine ;
and two straight lines meet in one point, which
they completely determine. The four points of intersection of
a transversal with four lines through a point have an an-
harmonic ratio independent of the particular transversal; and
the four lines joining four points on one straight line to a
fifth point have an anharmonic ratio independent of that fifth
point. So also our general principle of projective transforma

tion has two sides one in which points move along fixed lines,
:
and one in which lines turn about fixed points.

This duality suggests that any definition of points must
be effected by means of the straight line, and any definition
of the straight line must be effected by means of points. When
we take the third dimension into account, it is true, the duality
is no longer so simple we have now to take account also of
;
the plane, but this only introduces a circle of three terms,

which is scarcely preferable to a circle of two terms. We now
say Three points, or a line and a point, determine a plane
: :
but conversely, three planes, or a line and plane, determine

a point. We may regard the straight line as a relation between
two of its points, but we may also regard the point as a relation
between two straight lines through it. We may regard the
plane as a relation between three points, or between a point
and a line, but we may also regard the point as a relation
between three planes, or between a line and a plane, which
meet in it.
116. How are we to get outside this circle ? The fact

isthat, in pure Geometry, we cannot get outside it. For space,
as we shall see more fully hereafter, is nothing but relations ;
if, therefore, we take any spatial figure, and seek for the terms
between which it is a relation, we are compelled, in Geometry,
to seek these terms within space, since we have nowhere else

to seek them, but we are doomed, since anything purely spatial
is a mere relation, to find our terms melting away as we grasp
them.
Thus the relativity of space, while it is the essence of the
principle of duality, at the same time renders impossible the
expression of that principle, or of any other principle of pure
Geometry, in a manner which shall be free from contradictions.
Nevertheless, if we are to advance at all with our analysis of
geometrical reasoning and with our definitions of lines and
points, we must, for a while, ignore this contradiction we ;
must argue as though it did not exist, so as to free our science

from any contradictions which are not inevitable.
117. In accordance with this procedure, then, let us define
our points as the terms of spatial relations, regarding whatever
is not a
point as a relation between points. What, on this
view, must our points be taken to be ? Obviously, if extension
is mere relativity, they must be taken to contain no extension ;
but if they are to supply the terms for spatial relations, e.g.
for straight lines, these relations must exhibit them as the

terms of the figures they relate. In other words, since what
can really be taken, without contradiction, as the term of
a spatial relation, is unextended, we must take, as the term
to be used in Geometry, where we cannot go outside space,
the least spatial thing which Geometry can deal with, the
thing which, though in space, contains no space ;
and this
thing we define as the point

1
.
Neglecting, then, the fundamental contradiction in this

definition, the rest of our definitions follow without difficulty.
important to observe that this definition of the Point introduces

1
It is
metrical ideas. Without metrical ideas, we saw, nothing appears to give the
Point precedence of the straight line, or indeed to distinguish it conceptually
from the straight line. A reference to quantity is therefore inevitable in
defining the Point, if the definition isbe geometrical.

to A non-metrical
definition would have -to be also non-geometrical. See Chap. iv. 196-199.
The straight line is the relation between two points, and the
plane is the relation between three. These definitions will be
argued and defended at length in section B of this Chapter 1 ,
where we can discuss at the same time the alternative

metrical definitions; for our present purpose, it is sufficient
to observe that projective Geometry, from the first,
regards
the straight line as determined by two points, and the
plane
as determined by three, from which it follows, if we take points
as possible terms for spatial relations, that the
straight line
and the plane may be regarded as relations between two and
three points respectively. If we agree on these definitions,
we can proceed to discuss the fundamental principle of pro
jective Geometry, and to analyse the axioms implicated in
its truth.
118. Projective Geometry, we have seen, does not deal

with quantity, and therefore recognizes no difference where
the difference is purely quantitative. Now quantitative com
parison depends on a recognized identity of quality the recog ;
nition of qualitative identity, therefore, is logically prior to
quantity, and presupposed by every judgment of quantity.

Hence all whose differences can be exhaustively de
figures,
scribed by quantity, i.e. by pure measurement, must have an
identity of quality, and this must be recognizable without
appeal to quantity. It follows that, by defining the word
quality in geometrical matters, we shall discover what sets
of figures are protectively indiscernible. If our definition is
correct, it ought to yield the general projective principle with

which we set out.
119. We agreed to regard points as the terms of spatial
relations, and we agreed that different points could be dis
tinguished. But we postponed the discussion of the conditions

under which this distinction could be effected. This discussion
will yield us the definition of quality and the proof of our
general projective principle.

Points, to begin with, have been defined as nothing but
the terms for spatial relations. They have, therefore, no in
trinsic properties; but are distinguished solely by means of
their relations. Now the relation between two points, we said,
1
163-175.
B. G. 9
isthe straight line on which they lie. This gives that identity
of quality for all pairs of points on the same straight line,
which is
required both by our projective principle and by
metrical Geometry. (For only where there is identity of
quality can quantity be properly applied.) If only two points
are given, they cannot, without the use of quantity, be dis
tinguished from any two other points on the same straight

line for the qualitative relation between any two such points
;
is the same as for the original pair, and only by a difference

of relation can points be distinguished from one another.
But conversely, one straight line is nothing but the relation
between two of its points, and all points are qualitatively alike.
Hence there can be nothing to distinguish one straight line
from another except the points through which it passes, and
these are distinguished from other points only by the fact that
it passes through them. Thus we get the reciprocal trans
formation if we are given only one point, any pair of straight
:
lines through that point is qualitatively indistinguishable from
any other. This again is, on the one hand, the basis of the
second part of our general projective principle, and on the
other hand the condition of applying quantity, in the measure
ment of angles, to the departure of two intersecting straight
lines.
120.We can now see the reason for what may have
hitherto seemed a somewhat arbitrary fact, namely, the neces
sity of four collinear points for anharmonic ratio. Recurring
to the quadrilateral construction and the consequent intro
duction of number, we see that anharmonic ratio is an intrinsic
projective relation of four collinear points or concurrent straight
lines, such that given three terms and the relation, the fourth
term can be uniquely determined by projective methods. Now
consider a pair of points. Since all straight lines are
first
projectively equivalent, the relation between one pair of points

is
precisely equivalent to that between another pair. Given
one point only, therefore, no projective relation, to any second
point, can be assigned, which shall in any way limit our choice
of the second point. Given two points, however, there is such
a relation the third point may be given collinear with the
first two. This limits its position to one straight line, but
since two points determine nothing but one straight line, the
third point cannot be further limited. Thus we see why no
intrinsic projective relation can be found between three points,
which from two, uniquely to determine the third.
shall enable us,
With three
given points, however, we have more
collinear
given than a mere straight line, and the quadrilateral con

struction enables us uniquely to determine any number of
fresh collinear points. This shows why anharmonic ratio
must be a relation between four points, rather than between
three.
121. Wecan now prove, I think, that two figures, which
are protectively related, are qualitatively similar. Let us begin
with a collection of points on a straight line. So long as these
are considered without reference to other points or figures, they
are all qualitatively similar. They can be distinguished by
immediate intuition, but when we endeavour, without quantity,
to distinguish them conceptually, we find the task impossible,
since the only qualitative relation of any two of them, the
straight line, is the same for any other two. But now let us
choose, at hap-hazard, some point outside the straight line.
The points of our line now acquire new adjectives, namely their
relations to the new point, the straight lines joining them
i.e.
to this new point. But these straight lines, reciprocally, alone

define our external point, and all straight lines are qualita
tively similar. If we take some other external point, therefore,
and join it to the same points of our original straight line, we
obtain a figure in which, so long as quantity is excluded, there
isno conceptual difference from the former figure. Immediate
intuition can distinguish the two figures, but qualitative dis
crimination cannot do so. Thus we obtain a projective trans
formation of four lines into four other lines, as giving a figure
qualitatively indistinguishable from the original figure. A
similar argument applies to the other projective transforma
tions. Thus the only reason, within projective Geometry, for
not regarding projective figures as actually identical, is the
intuitive perception of difference of position. This is funda
mental, and must be accepted as a datum. It is presupposed
in the distinction of various points, and forms the very life of
Geometry. It is, in fact, the essence of the notion of a form of

92
externality, which notion forms the subject-matter of projective

Geometry.
122. We
may now sum up the results of our analysis of
projective Geometry, and state the axioms on which its reason
ing is based. We
shall then have to prove that these axioms
are necessary to any form of externality, with which we shall
pass, from mere analysis, to a transcendental argument.

The axioms which have been assumed in the above analysis,
and which, it would seem, suffice to found projective Geometry,
may be roughly stated as follows :
I. We can distinguish different parts of space, but all

parts
are qualitatively similar, and are distinguished only by the
immediate fact that they lie outside one another.
II. Space is continuous and infinitely divisible ;
the result
l
called a point
of infinite division, the zero of extension, is .
III. Any two points determine a unique figure, called a

straight line, any three in general determine a unique figure,
the plane. Any four determine a corresponding figure of three
dimensions, and for aught that appears to the contrary, the
same may be true of any number of points. But this process
comes to an end, sooner or later, with some number of points
which determine the whole of space. For if this were not the
case, no number of relations of a point to a collection of given
points could ever determine its relation to fresh points, and

2
Geometry would become impossible .
This statement of the axioms is not intended to have any

exclusive precision : other statements equally valid could easily
be made. For all these axioms, as we shall see hereafter, are
philosophically interdependent, and may, therefore, be enun

ciated in many ways. The above statement, however, includes,
if I am not mistaken, everything essential to projective
Geometry, and everything required to prove the principle of
projective transformation. Before discussing the apriority of
these axioms, let us once more briefly recapitulate the ends
which they are intended to attain.
123. From the exclusively mathematical standpoint, as we
1
On this axiom, however, compare 131.
2
For the proof of this proposition, see Chap. in. Sec. B, Axiom of
Dimensions,
have seen, project! ve Geometry discusses only what figures can

be obtained from each other by projective transformations, i.e.
by the operations of projection and section. These operations,
in all their forms, presuppose the point, straight line, and
plane whose
1
necessity for projective Geometry, from the purely
,
mathematical point of view, is thus self-evident from the start.

But philosophically, projective Geometry has, as we saw, a
wider aim. This wider aim, which gives, to the investigation
of projectively equivalent figures, its chief importance, consists
in the determination of qualitative spatial similarity, in the
determination, that is, of all the figures which, when any one
figure is given, can be distinguished from the given figure, so
long as quantity is excluded, only by the mere fact that they
are external to it.
124. Now when we consider what is involved in such

absolute qualitative equivalence, we find at once, as its most
obvious prerequisite, the perfect homogeneity of space. For it
is assumed that a can be completely defined by its
figure
internal relations, and that the externalwhich con relations,
stitute its position, though they suffice to distinguish it from
other figures, in no way affect its internal properties, which are
regarded as qualitatively identical with those of figures with

quite different external relations. If this were not the case,
anything analogous to projective transformation would be im

possible. For such transformation always alters the position,
i.e. the external relations, of a
figure, and could not, therefore,
if figures were dependent on their relations to other figures or
to empty space, be studied without reference to other figures,

or to the absolute position of the original figure. require We
for our principle, in short, what may be called the mutual
passivity and reciprocal independence of two parts or figures of
space.
This passivity and this independence involve the homo
geneity of space, or its equivalent, the relativity of position.
1
The straight line and plane, in all discussions of general Geometry, are not
necessarily Euclidean. are simply figures determined, in general, by two

They
and by three points respectively ; whether they conform to the axiom of parallels
and to Euclid s form of the axiom of the straight line, is not to be considered in
the general definition.
For the internal properties of a figure are the same, what

if
ever external relations may be, it follows that all parts of

its
space are qualitatively similar, since a change of external

relation is a change in the part of space occupied. It follows,
also, all position is relative and extrinsic, i.e., that the

that
position of a point, or the part of space occupied by a figure,

is not, and has no effect upon, any intrinsic
property of the
point or figure, but is exclusively a relation to other points
or figures in space, and remains without effect except where
such relations are considered.
125. The homogeneity of space and the relativity of
position, therefore, are presupposed in the qualitative spatial

comparison with which protective Geometry deals. The latter,
as we
saw, also the basis of the principle of duality.
is But
these properties, as I shall now endeavour to prove, belong of
necessity to any form of externality, and are thus a priori

properties of all possible spaces. To prove this, however, we
must first define the notion of a form of externality in general.
Let us observe, to begin with, that the distinction between
Euclidean and non-Euclidean Geometries, so important in me
trical investigations, disappears in projective Geometry proper.
This suggests that
projective Geometry, though originally
invented as the science of Euclidean space, and subsequently of
non-Euclidean spaces also, deals really with a wider conception,
a conception which includes both, and neglects the attributes
in which they differ. This conception I shall speak of as a
form of externality.
126. In Grassmann s profound philosophical introduction
to his Ausdehnungslehre of 1844, he suggested that Geometry,
though improperly regarded as pure, was really a branch of

applied mathematics, since it dealt with a subject-matter not
created, like number, by the intellect, but given to it, and there
fore not wholly subject to its laws alone. But it must be possible
so he contended to construct a branch of pure mathematics,
a science, that is, in which our object should be wholly a creature
of the intellect, which should yet deal, as Geometry does, with
extension extension as conceived, however, not as empirically
perceived in sensation or intuition.
From this point of view, the controversy between Kantians
and anti-Kantians becomes wholly irrelevant, since the distinc

tion between pure and mixed mathematics does not lie in the
distinction between the subjective and the objective, but
between the purely intellectual on the one hand, and everything
else on the other. Now Kant had contended, with great em
phasis, that space was not an intellectual construction, but a
subjective intuition. Geometry, therefore, with Grassmann s
distinction, belongs to mixed mathematics as much on Kant s
view as on that of his opponents. And Grassmann s distinction,
I contend, is the more important for Epistemology, and the one
to be adopted in distinguishing the a priori from the empirical.
For what is merely intuitional can change, without upsetting
the laws of thought, without making knowledge formally im
possible but what is purely intellectual cannot change, unless
:
the laws of thought should change, and all our knowledge

simultaneously collapse. I shall therefore follow Grassmann s
distinction in constructing an a priori and purely conceptual
form of externality.
127. The pure doctrine of extension, as constructed by
Grassmann, need not be discussed it included much empirical
material, and was philosophically a failure. But his principles,
I think, willenable us to prove that projective Geometry,
abstractly interpreted, is the science which he foresaw, and
deals with a matter which can be constructed by the pure
intellect alone. If this be so, however, it must be observed
that projective Geometry, for the moment, is rendered purely
hypothetical
1
All necessary truth, as Bradley has shown, is
.
asserts, primd fade, only the ground on

and
2
hypothetical ,
which necessary connection of premisses and con

rests the
clusion. If we construct a mere conception of externality, and
thus abandon our actually given space, the result of our con
struction, until we return to something actually given, remains
without existential import if there be experienced externality,
it asserts, then there must be a form of externality with such
and such properties. That there must be experienced exter

nality, Kant s first argument about space proves, I think, to
1
That projective Geometry must have existential import, I shall attempt to
prove in Chapter iv.
2
Logic, Book i.
Chapter n.
those who admit experience of a world of diverse but inter

related things. But
which belongs to the
this is a question
next Chapter.
What we have to do here is, not to discuss whether there is
a form of externality, but whether, if there be such a form, it
must possess the properties embodied in the axioms of pro-
jective Geometry. Now first of all, what do we mean by such
a form ?
In any world in which perception presents us with

128.
various things, with discriminated and differentiated contents,
there must be, in perception, at least one principle of differen "
tiation V an element, that is, by which the

things presented are
distinguished as various This element, taken in isolation, and
abstracted from the content which it differentiates, we may call
a form of externality. That it must, when taken in isolation,
appear as a form, and not as a mere diversity of material
content, is, I think, fairly obvious. For a diversity of material
content cannot be studied apart from that material content ;
what we wish to study here, on the contrary, is the bare

possibility of such diversity, which forms the residuum, as I
shall try to prove hereafter 2 when we abstract from sense-
, any
perception all that
distinctive of its particular matter.
is This
possibility, then, this principle of bare diversity, is our form of
externality. How
far it is necessary to assume such a form, as
distinct from interrelated things, I shall consider later on 3 .
For the present, since space, as dealt with by Geometry, is

we have only
certainly a form of this kind, to ask : What
properties must such a form, when studied in abstraction,
necessarily possess ?
129. In the first place, externality is an essentially relative
conception nothing can be external to itself. To be external
to something is to be another with some relation to that thing.
Hence, when we abstract a form of externality from all material
content, and study it in isolation, position will appear, of
1
Of. Bradley s Logic, p. 63. It will be seen that the sense in which I have
spoken of space as a principle of differentiation is not the sense of a principle

"
of individuation "
which Bradley objects to.

2
Chap. iv. 186-191.
3
Chap. iv. 201 ff.
necessity, as purely relative a position can have no intrinsic
quality, for our form consists of pure externality, and externality

contains no shadow or trace of an intrinsic quality. Thus we
obtain our fundamental postulate, the relativity of position, or,
as we may put it, the complete absence, on the part of our
form, of any vestige of thinghood.
The same argument may also be stated as follows : If we
abstract the conception of externality, and endeavour to deal
with it per se, it is evident that we must obtain an object alike
destitute of elements and of totality. For we have abstracted
from the diverse matter which
our form, while any
filled
element, or any whole, would retain some of the qualities of a

matter. Either an element or a whole, in fact, would have to
be a thing not external to itself, and would thus contain some
thing not pure externality. Hence arise infinite divisibility,
with the self-contradictory notion of the point, in the search
for elements, and unbounded extension, with the contradiction
of an infinite regress or a vicious circle, in the search for a
completed whole. Thus again, our form contains neither
elements nor but only endless relations the terms of
totality,
these relations being excluded by our abstraction from the
matter which fills our form.
130. In like manner we can deduce the homogeneity of
our form. The diversity of content, which was possible only
within the form of externality, has been abstracted from,
leaving nothing but the bare possibility of diversity, the bare
principle of differentiation, itself uniform and undifferentiated.
For if diversity presupposes such a form, the form cannot,
unless it were contained in a fresh form, be itself diverse or
differentiated.
Or we may deduce the same property from the relativity of
position. For any quality in one position, by which it was
marked out from another, would be necessarily more or less
intrinsic, and would contradict the pure relativity. Hence all
positions are qualitatively alike, i.e. the form is
homogeneous
throughout.
131. From what has been said of homogeneity and rela
tivity, follows one of the strangest properties of a form of

externality. This property is, that the relation of externality
between any two things is infinitely divisible, and may be

regarded, consequently, as made up of an infinite number of the
would-be elements of our form, or again as the sum of two
1
relations of externality To speak of dividing or adding re
.
lations may well sound absurd indeed it reveals the impro

priety of the word relation in this connexion. It is difficult,
however, to find an expression which shall be less improper.
The fact seems to be, that externality is not so much a relation
as bare relativity, or the bare possibility of a relation. On this
2
subject, I shall enlarge in Chapter IV. At this point it is
only important to realize, what the subsequent argument will
assume, that the relation if we may so call it of externality
between two or more things must, since our form is homo
geneous, be capable of continuous alteration, and must, since
our infinitely divisible form is constituted by such relations, be
capable of infinite division. But the result of infinite division

is defined as the element of our form. (Our form has no
elements, but we have to imagine elements in order to reason
about it, as will be shown more fully in Chapter IV.) Hence
it follows, that every relation of externality may be regarded,
for scientific purposes, as an infinite congeries of elements,
though philosophically, the relations alone are valid, and the

elements are a self-contradictory result of hypostatizing the
form of externality. This way of regarding relations of ex
ternality is important in understanding the meaning of such
ideas as three or four collinear points.
As this point is difficult and important, I will repeat, in
somewhat greater detail, the explanation of the manner in
which straight and planes come to be regarded as congeries
lines
of points. From the strictly projective standpoint, though all
other figures are merely a collection of any required number of
points, lines or planes, given by some projective construction,
straight lines and planes themselves are given integrally, and
are not to be considered as divisible or composed of parts. To
1
It is important to observe, however, that this way of regarding spatial
relations is metrical ;
from the projective standpoint, the relation between two
points the whole unbounded straight line on which they
is lie, and need not be
regarded as divisible into parts or as built up of points.
2 254.
207, 208. Of. Hegel, Naturphilosophie,
say that a point on a straight line means, for project! ve

lies
Geometry proper, that the straight line is a relation between

this and some other point. Here the points concerned, if our
statement is to be freed from contradictions, must be
regarded,
if I
may use such an expression, as real points i.e. as un-
extended material centres 1 Straight lines and planes are then
.
relationsbetween these material atoms. They are relations,

however, which may undergo a metrical alteration while re
maining projectively unchanged. When the protective relation
between the two points A, B is the same as that between the
two points A, C, while the metrical relation (distance) is
different, the three points A, B, C are said to be collinear.
Now the metrical manner of regarding spatial figures demands
that they should be hypostatized, and no longer regarded as
mere relations. For when we regard a quantity as extensive,
as divisible into parts, we necessarily regard it as more than
i.e.
a mere relation or adjective, since no mere relation or adjective

can be divided. For quantitative treatment, therefore, spatial
relations must be hypostatized 2 When this is done, we obtain,
.
as we saw above, a homogeneous and infinitely divisible form of

externality. We find now that distance, for example, may be
continuously altered without changing the straight line on

which it is measured. We
thus obtain, on the straight line in
question, a continuous of points, which, since it is
series
continuous, we regard as constituting our straight line. It is

thus solely from the hypostatizing of relations, which metrical
Geometry requires, that the view of straight lines and planes

as composed of points arises, and it is from this hypostatizing
that the difficulties of metrical Geometry spring.
132. The next step, in defining a form of externality, is
obtained from the idea of dimensions. Positions, we have seen,
are defined solely by their relations to other positions. But in
order that such definition may be possible, a finite number of
relations must suffice, since infinite numbers are philosophically
inadmissible. A
position must be definable, therefore, if know
of our form is to be possible at all, by some finite integral
ledge
1
See Chap. iv. 196-199.
-
See a forthcoming article on "
The relations of number and quantity "
by
the present writer in Mind, July, 1897.
number of relations to other positions.

Every relation thus
necessary for definition we call a dimension. Hence we obtain
the proposition Any form of externality must have a finite
:
integral number of dimensions.

133. The above argument, it may be urged, has overlooked
a possibility. It has used a transcendental
argument, so an
opponent may contend, without sufficiently proving that know
ledge about externality must be possible without reference
to the matters external to each other. The definition of a
position may be impossible, so long as we neglect the matter
which fills the form, but may become possible when this matter
is taken into account. Such an objection can, I think, be
successfully met, by a reference to the passivity and homo
geneity of our form. For any dependence of the definition of
a position on the particular matter filling that position, would
involve some kind of interaction between the matter and its
position, some effect of the diverse content on the homogeneous

form. But since the form is totally destitute of thinghood,
perfectly impassive, and perfectly void of differences between its
parts, any such effect is inconceivable. An effect on a position

would have to alter it in some way, but how could it be altered ?
It has no qualities except those which make it the position it
is, as opposed to other positions; it cannot change, therefore,
without becoming a different position. But such a change
contradicts the law of identity. Hence it is not the position
which has changed, but the content which has moved in the
form. Thus it must be possible, if knowledge of our form can
be obtained at all, to obtain this knowledge in logical indepen
dence of the particular matter which fills it. The above
argument, therefore, granted the possibility of knowledge in
the department in question, shows the necessity of a finite
integral number of dimensions.
134. Let us repeat our original argument in the light of
this elucidation. A position is completely defined when, and
only when, enough relations are known to enable us to deter
mine its relation to any fresh known position. Only by relations
within the form of externality, as we have just seen, and never
by relations which involve a reference to the particular matter
filling the form, can such a definition be effected. But the
possibility of such a definition follows from the Law of Excluded

Middle, when this law is interpreted to mean, as Bosanquet
makes mean, that
it Reality ... is a system of reciprocally
"
determinate parts 1 For this implies that, given the relations

."
of a part A
to other parts B, (7..., a sufficient wealth of such
relations throws light on the relations of to C, etc. If this B
were not the case, the parts A, B, C... could not be said to
form such a system ;
for in such a system, to define A is to
define, at the same time, all the other members, and to give
an adjective to A, is to give an adjective to B and C. But the
relations between positions are, when we restore the matter
from which the positions were abstracted, relations between
the things occupying those positions, and these relations, we
have seen, can be studied without reference to the particular
nature, in other respects, of the related things. It follows that,
when we apply the general principle of systematic unity to
these in particular, we find these relations to be
relations
dependent on each other, since they are not dependent, for

their definition, on anything else. This gives the axiom of
dimensions, in the above general form, as the result, on our
abstract geometrical level, of the relativity of position and the
law of excluded middle.
135. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to discuss
the important special case where a form of externality has only
one dimension. Of the two such forms, given in experience,
one, namely time, presents an instance of this special case.
But may be shown, I think, that the function, in constituting
it
the possibility of experience, which we demand of such forms,

could not be accomplished by a one-dimensional form alone.
For in a one-dimensional form, the various contents may be
arranged in a series, and cannot, without interpenetration,
change the order of contents in the series. But interpene
tration is impossible, since a form of externality is the mere
expression of diversity among things, from which it follows

that things cannot occupy the same position in a form, unless
there is another form by which to differentiate them. For
without externality, there is no diversity 2 . Thus two bodies
1
Logic, Vol. ii. Chap. vn. p. 211.
2
Real, as opposed to logical, diversity is throughout intended. Diverse
may occupy the same space, but only at different times two :
things may exist simultaneously, but only at different places.

A form of one dimension, therefore, could not, by itself, allow
that change of the relations of externality, by which alone
a varied world of interrelated things can be brought into
consciousness. In a one-dimensional space, for example, only a
single object, which must appear as a point, or two objects at
most, one in front and one behind, could ever be perceived.
Thus two or more dimensions seem an essential condition of
anything worth calling an experience of interrelated things.
136. It may be objected, to this argument, that its
validity depends upon the assumption that the change of a

relation of externality must be continuous. Both to make and
to meet this objection, in a manner which shall riot imply time,
seems almost impossible. For we cannot speak of change,
whether continuous or discrete, without imagining time. Let
us, therefore, allow time to be known, and discuss whether the
temporal change, in any other form of externality, is necessarily

continuous 1 . We must reply, I think, that continuity is
necessary. The change of relation,

in our non-temporal form,
may be safely described as motion, and the law of Causality

since we have already assumed time may be applied to this
motion. then follows that discrete motion would involve a
It
finite effectfrom an infinitesimal cause, for a cause acting only
for a moment of time would be infinitesimal. It involves, also,
a validity in the point of time, whereas what is valid in any
form of
externality not, we have already seen, the
is as
infinitesimal and self-contradictory element resulting from
infinite division, but the finite relation which mathematics
analyzes into vanishing elements. Hence change must be
continuous, and the possibility of serial arrangement holds
good.
In a one-dimensional form other thansametime, the
argument must hold. For something analogous to Causality

would be necessary to experience, and the relativity of the
form would still necessarily hold. Hence, since only these two
aspects may coexist in a thing at one time and place, but two diverse real
things cannot so coexist.
1
On the insufficiency of time alone, see Chapter iv. 191.
properties of time have been assumed, the above contention

would remain valid of any second form whose relations were
correlated with those of the first, as the analogue of Causality
would require them to be.

137. The next step in the argument, which assumes two
or more dimensions, is concerned with the general analogues of
straight lines and planes, i.e. with figures which may be

regarded either as relations between positions or as series of
positions uniquely determined by two or by three positions.
If this step can be successfully taken, our deduction of the
above projective axioms will be complete, and descriptive
Geometry will be established as the abstract d priori doctrine
of forms of externality.
To prove this contention, consider of what nature the
relations can be by which positions are defined. We have seen
already that our form is purely relational and infinitely
divisible,and that positions (points) are the self-contradictory
outcome of the search for something other than relations.
What we really mean, therefore, by the relations defining a
position, is, when we undo our previous abstraction, the
relations of externality by which some thing is related to other
things. But how, when we remain in the abstract form, must

such relations appear ?
138. We have to prove that two positions must have a

relation independent of any reference to other positions. To
prove this, let us recur to what was said, in connection with
dimensions, as to the passivity and homogeneity of our form.
Since positions are defined only by relations, there must be
relations, within the form, between positions. But if there are
such relations, there must be a relation which is intrinsic to
two positions. For to suppose the contrary, is to attribute an
interaction or causal connection, ofsome kind, between those
two positions and other positions a supposition which the
perfect homogeneity of our form renders absurd, since all
positions are qualitatively similar, and cannot be changed
without losing their identity. We may put this argument
thus since positions are only defined by their relations, such
:
definition could never begin, unless it began with a relation

between only two positions. For suppose three positions A,
B. C
were necessary, and gave rise to the relation abc between
the three. Then there would remain no means of denning the
different pairs BC, CA, AB. since the only relation
defining
them would be one common to all three pairs, Nothing would
be gained, in this case, by reference to fresh points, for it
follows,from the homogeneity and passivity of the form, that
these fresh points could not affect the internal relations of our
triad, which
relations, if they can give definiteness at all, must
give without
it the aid of external reference. Two positions
must, therefore, if definition is to be possible, have some
relation which they by themselves suffice to define. Precisely
the same argument applies to three positions, or to four; the
argument loses its scope only when we have exhausted the
dimensions of the form considered. Thus, in three dimensions,
five positions have no fresh relation, not deducible from those
already known, for by the definition of dimensions, all the

relations involved can be deduced from those of the fourth point
to the first three, together with those of the fifth to the first three.
We may give the argument a more concrete, and perhaps a
more convincing shape, by considering the matter arranged in
our form. If two things are mutually external, they must
since they belong to the same world, have some relation of
externality; there is, therefore, a relation of externality between

two things. But since our form is homogeneous, the same
relation of externality may subsist in other parts of the form,
i.e.while the two things considered alter their relations of ex
ternality to other things. The relation of externality between
two things is, therefore, independent of other things. Hence,
when we return to the abstract language of the form, two
positions have a relation determined by those two positions

alone, and independent of other positions.
Precisely the same argument applies to the relations of
three positions, and in each case the relation must appear in
the form as not a mere inference from the positions it relates.
For relations, as we have

seen, actually constitute a form of
externality, and are not mere inferences from terms, which are
nowhere to be found in the form 1 .
1
Geometrically, the axiom of the plane is, not that three points determine
a figure at all, which follows from the axiom of the straight line, but that the
THE AXIOMS OF PRO.TECTIVE GEOMETRY. 145
To sum upSince position is relative, two positions must

:
have some relation to each other and since our form of ;
straight line joining two casual points of the plane lies wholly in the plane.
This axiom requires a projective method of constructing the plane, i.e. of
finding all the triads of points which determine the same projective figure as
the given triad. The required construction will be obtained if we can findany
projective figure determined by three points, and any projective method
of reaching other points which determine the same figure.
Let O, P, Q be the three points whose projective relation is required.
Then we have given us the three straight lines PQ, QO, OP. Metrically, the
relation between these points is made up of the area, and the magnitude of the
sides and angles, of the triangle OPQ, just as the relation between two points
is distance. But projectively, the figure is unchanged when P and Q travel
along OP and OQ, or when OP and OQ turn about in such a way as still to
meet PQ. This is a result of the general principle of projective equivalence
enunciated above ( 108, 109). Hence the projective relation between 0, P, Q
is the same as that between 0, p, q or 0, P Q
, ;that is, p, q and
1
P
Q lie in
,
the plane In this way, any number of points on the plane may be
OPQ.
obtained, and by repeating the construction with fresh triads, every point of the
plane can be reached. We have to prove that, when the plane is so constructed,
the straight line joining any two points of the plane lies wholly in the plane.
It is evident, from the manner of construction, that any point of PQ, OP,
OQ, OP or OQ the plane.
lies in If we can prove that any point of pq lies in
R. G. 10
externality is homogeneous, this relation can be kept un

changed while the two positions change their relations to other
positions. Hence their relation is intrinsic, and independent of
other positions. Since the form is a mere complex of relations,
the relation in question must, if the form is sensuous or
intuitive, be itself sensuous or intuitive, and not a mere
inference. In this case, a unique relation must be a unique
figure in spatial terms, the straight line joining the two
points.
139. With this, our deduction of protective Geometry
from the a priori conceptual properties of a form of externality
is completed. That such a form, when regarded as an in
dependent thing, is
self-contradictory, has been abundantly
evident throughout the discussion. But the science of the
form has been founded on the opposite way of regarding it we :
have held it throughout to be a mere complex of relations, and

have deduced its properties exclusively from this view of it.
The many difficulties, in applying such an a priori deduction

to space, and in explaining, as logical necessities,
intuitive
properties which appear as sensuous or intuitional data, must

be postponed to Chapter iv. For the present, I wish to point
out that projective Geometry is wholly d priori; that it deals
with an object whose properties are logically deduced from its
definition, not empirically discovered from data; that its
definition, again, is founded on the possibility of experiencing

diversity in relation, or multiplicity in unity; and that our
whole science, therefore, is logically implied in, and deducible
from, the possibility of such experience.
140. In metrical Geometry, on the contrary, we shall find
a very different result. Although the geometrical conditions
which render spatial measurement possible, will be found
identical, except for slight differences in the form of statement,
with the d priori axioms discussed above, yet the actual
the plane, we shall have proved all that is required, since pq may be transformed,
by successive repetitions of the same construction, into any straight line
joining two points of the plane. But we have seen that the same plane is
determined by O, p, q and by O, P, Q. The straight lines PQ,pq have, therefore,
the same relation to the plane. But PQ lies wholly in the plane ; therefore pq
also lies wholly in the plane. Hence our axiom is proved.
THE AXIOMS OF METRICAL GEOMETRY. 147
measurement which deals with actually given space, not the

mere intellectual construction we have been just discussing
gives results which can only be known empirically and
approximately, and can be deduced by no necessity of thought.
The Euclidean and non-Euclidean spaces give the various
results which are a priori possible; the axioms peculiar to
Euclid which are properly not axioms, but empirical results
of measurement determine, within the errors of observation,
which of these d priori possibilities is realized in our actual
space. Thus measurement deals throughout with an em
pirically given matter, not with a creature of the intellect, and
its d priori elements are only the conditions presupposed in the
possibility of measurement. What these conditions are, we

shall see in the second section of this chapter.
Section B.
THE AXIOMS OF METRICAL GEOMETRY.
141. We
have now reviewed the axioms of protective
Geometry, and have seen that they are d priori deductions
from the fact that we can experience externality, i.e. a co
existent multiplicity of different but interrelated things. But
projecti ve Geometry, in spite of its claims, is not the whole
science of space, as is sufficiently proved by the fact that it
cannot between Euclidean and non- Euclidean
discriminate
1
spaces For. this purpose, spatial measurement is required:
metrical Geometry, with its quantitative tests, can alone effect
the discrimination. For all application of Geometry to physics,
also, measurement is required the law of gravitation, for
;
example, requires the determination of actual distances. For

many purposes, in Geometry is wholly in
short, protective
sufficient: thusunable to distinguish between different
it is
kinds of conies, though their distinction is of fundamental im

portance in many departments of knowledge.
1
A detailed proof has been given above, Chap. i. 3rd period. It is to
be observed that any reference to infinitely distant elements involves metrical
ideas.
102
Metrical Geometry is, then, a necessary part of the science

of space, and a part not included in descriptive Geometry.
Itsa priori element, nevertheless, so far as this is spatial
and not arithmetical, is the same as the postulate of pro-
jective Geometry, namely, the homogeneity of space, or its
equivalent, the relativity of position. We can see, in fact, that
the a priori element in both is likely to be the same. For
the d priori in metrical Geometry will be whatever is pre
supposed in the possibility of spatial measurement, i.e. of

.
quantitative spatial comparison. But such comparison pre

supposes simply a known identity of quality, the determination
of which is precisely the problem of protective Geometry.
Hence the conditions for the possibility of measurement, in
so far as they are not arithmetical, will be precisely the same
as those for projective Geometry.
142. Geometry, therefore, though distinct from
Metrical
projective Geometry, is not independent of it, but presupposes

it, and arises from its combination with the extraneous idea
of quantity. Nevertheless the mathematical form of the axioms,

in metrical Geometry, is slightly different from their form in
projective Geometry. The homogeneity of space is replaced

by its equivalent, the axiom of Free Mobility. The axiom of
the straight line is replaced by the axiom of distance Two :
points determine a unique quantity, distance, which is unaltered

in any motion of the two points as a single figure. This axiom,
indeed, will be found to involve the axiom of the straight line
such a quantity could not exist unless the two points de
termined a unique curve but its mathematical form is changed.
Another important change is the collapse of the principle of
duality quantity can be applied to the straight line, because
:
it is divisible into similar

parts, but cannot be applied
to the
indivisible point. We thus obtain a reason, which was wanting
in descriptive Geometry, for preferring points, as spatial ele
Finally, an entirely new

1
ments, to straight lines or planes .
idea is introduced with quantity, namely, the idea of Motion.

Not that we study
motion, or that any of our results have
reference to motion, but that they cannot, though in projective
1
Cf. Section A, 115-117.
THE AXIOMS OF METRICAL GEOMETRY. 14-9
Geometry they could, be obtained without at least an ideal

motion of our figures through space.
Let us now examine in detail the prerequisites of spatial
measurement. We shall find three axioms, without which such
measurement would be impossible, but with which it is ade
quate to decide, empirically and approximately, the Euclidean
or non-Euclidean nature of our actual space. shall find, We
further, that these three axioms can be deduced from the con
ception of a form of externality, and owe nothing to the
evidence of intuition. They are, therefore, like their equivalents
the axioms of protective Geometry, a priori, and deducible from
the conditions of spatial experience. This experience, ac
cordingly, can never disprove them, since its very existence
presupposes them.
I. The Axiom of Free Mobility.
143. Metrical Geometry, to begin with, may be defined as

the science which deals with the comparison and relations of
spatial magnitudes. The conception of magnitude, therefore, is
necessary from the start. Some of Euclid s axioms, accordingly,
have been classed as arithmetical, and have been supposed to
have nothing particular to do with space. Such are the axioms
that equals added to or subtracted from equals give equals, and
that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one
another. These axioms, it is said, are purely arithmetical, and
do not, like the others, ascribe an adjective to space. As regards
their use in arithmetic, this is of course true. But if an arith
metical axiom is to be applied to spatial magnitudes, it must have
some spatial import
1
,
and thus even this class is not, in Geometry,
merely arithmetical. Fortunately, the geometrical element is
the same in all the axioms of this class we can see at once, in
fact, thatcan amount to no more than a definition of spatial
it
2
magnitude Again, since the space with which Geometry
.
deals is infinitely divisible, a definition of spatial magnitude
1
Contrast Erdmann, op. cit. p. 138.
-
Cf. Erdmann, op. cit. p. 164.
reduces itself to a definition of spatial equality, for, as soon as

we have this last, we can compare two spatial magnitudes by
dividing each into a number of equal units, and counting the
number of such units in each l The ratio of the number of
.
units is, of course, the ratio of the two magnitudes.

144. We
require, then, at the very outset, some criterion
of spatial equality without such a criterion metrical Geometry
:
would become wholly impossible. It might appear, at first

sight, as though this need not be an axiom, but might be a
mere definition. In part this is true, but not wholly. The part
which is merely a definition is given in Euclid s eighth axiom :
Magnitudes which exactly coincide are equal." But this gives

"
a sufficient criterion only when the magnitudes to be compared
already occupy the same position. When, as will normally be

the case, the two spatial magnitudes are external to one another
as, indeed, must be the case, if they are distinct, and not
whole and part the two magnitudes can only be made to
coincide by a motion of one or both of them. In order, there
fore, that our definition of spatial magnitude may give unam
biguous results, coincidence when superposed, if it can ever

occur, must occur always, whatever path be pursued in bringing
it Hence, if mere motion could alter shapes, our cri
about.
terion of equality would break down. It follows that the
application of the conception of magnitude to figures in space

2
involves the following axiom Spatial magnitudes can be moved
:
from place to place without distortion; or, as it may be put,

Shapes do not in any way depend upon absolute position in
space.
the axiom of Free Mobility 3
The above axiom is I propose .
to prove (1) that the denial of this axiom would involve logical
and philosophical absurdities, so that it must be classed as
Strictly speaking, this method is only applicable where the two magnitudes
1
are commensurable. But if we take infinite divisibility rigidly, the units can
theoretically be taken so small as to obtain any required degree of approxima
tion. The difficulty is the universal one of applying to continua the essentially
discrete conception of number.
2
Cf. Erdmann, op. cit. p. 50.
3
Also called the axiom of congruence. I have taken congruence to be the
definition of spatial equality by superposition, and shall therefore generally speak

of the axiom as Free Mobility.
if it refused this
wholly a priori (2) that metrical Geometry,
:
axiom, would be unable, without a logical absurdity, to establish

the notion of spatial magnitude at all. The conclusion will be,
that the axiom cannot be proved or disproved by experience,
but is an a priori condition of metrical Geometry. As I shall
thus be maintaining a position which has been much contro
verted, especially by Helmholtz and Erdmann, I shall have to

enter into the arguments at some length.
145. A. Philosophical Argument The denial of the axiom
involves absolute position, and an action of mere space, per se,
on things. For the axiom does not assert that real bodies, as a
matter of empirical fact, never change their shape in any way
during their passage from place to place

on the contrary, we
;
know that such changes do occur, sometimes in a very notice

able degree, and always to some extent. But such changes are
attributed, not to the change of place as such, but
to phy
sical changes of temperature, pressure,

causes :
etc. What our
axiom has to deal with is not actual material bodies, but
figures \ and it asserts
that a figure which is pos
geometrical
in other. Its
sible inany one position in space is possible every
a case where it
meaning will become clearer by reference to
does not hold, say the space formed by the surface of an egg.
Here, a triangle drawn near the equator cannot be moved

without distortion to the point, as it would no longer fit the
greater curvature of the
new position; a triangle drawn near
the cannot be fitted on to the natter end, and so on.
point
Thus the method of superposition, such as Euclid employs in
Book I. Prop. IV., becomes impossible figures cannot be freely
;
moved about, indeed, given any figure, we can determine a

certain series of possible positions for it on the egg, outside
which it becomes impossible. What I assert is, then, that
there a philosophic absurdity in .supposing space in general
is
to be of this nature. On the egg we have marked points, such

surface is not homo
as the two ends the space formed by its
;
geneous, and if things are

moved about in it, it must of itself
exercise a distorting effect upon them, quite independently of
exercise such an effect, the things
physical causes if it did not
;
1
For the sense in which these figures are to be regarded as material,
see criticism of Helmholtz, Chapter n. 69 ff.
could not be moved. Thus such a space would not be homo

geneous, but would have marked points, by reference to which
bodies would have absolute position, quite
independently of
any other bodies. Space would no longer be passive, but
would exercise a definite effect upon things, and we should
have to accommodate ourselves to the notion of marked points
in empty space these points being marked, not by the bodies
;
which occupied them, but by their effects on any bodies which

might from time to time occupy them. This want of homo
geneity and passivity is, however, absurd space must, since it
;
is a form of
externality, allow only of relative, not of absolute,
position, and must be completely homogeneous throughout.
To suppose it otherwise, is to
give it a thinghood which no
form of externality can possibly possess. We must, then, on
purely philosophical grounds, admit that a geometrical figure
which is possible anywhere is possible everywhere, which is the
axiom of Free Mobility.
146. B. Geometrical Argument. Let us see next what sort
of Geometry we could construct without this axiom. The ulti
mate standard of comparison of spatial magnitudes must, as we
saw in introducing the axiom, be equality when superposed but ;
need we, from this equality, infer equality when separated ? It

has been urged by Erdmann that, for the more immediate pur
poses of Geometry, this would be unnecessary We might *.
construct a new Geometry, he thinks, in which sizes varied with

motion on any definite law. Such a view, show below,
as I shall
involves a logical error as to the nature of magnitude. But
before pointing this out, let us discuss the geometrical conse
quences of assuming its truth. Suppose the length of an in

finitesimal arc in some standard position were ds then in any
;
other position p its length would be ds .f (p), where the form of

the function/ (p) must be supposed known. But how are we to
determine the position p ? For this purpose, we require p s
coordinates, i.e., some measurement of distance from the origin.
But the distance from the origin could only be measured if we
assumed our law / (p) to measure it by. For suppose the
origin to be 0, and Op to be a straight line whose length is
required. If we have a measuring rod with which we travel
1
Op. cit. p. 60.
along the line and measure successive infinitesimal arcs, the

measuring rod will change its size as we move, so that an arc
which appears by the measure to be ds will really be f(s) ds, .
where s is the previously traversed distance. If, on the

other hand, we move our line Op slowly through the origin, and
measure each piece as it passes through, our measure, it is true,
will not alter, but now we have no means of discovering the law
by which any element has changed its length in coming to the

origin. Hence, until we assume our function f(p), we have
no means of determining p, for we have just seen that distances
from the origin can only be estimated by means of the law
f(p). It follows that experience can neither prove nor disprove
the constancy of shapes throughout motion, since, if shapes
were not constant, we should have to assume a law of their
variation before measurement became possible, and therefore
1
measurement could not itself reveal that variation to us .
Nevertheless, such an arbitrarily assumed law does, at first

sight, give a mathematically possible Geometry. The funda
mental proposition, that two magnitudes which can be super
posed in any one position can be superposed in any other, still
holds. For two infinitesimal arcs, whose lengths in the standard
position are ds 1and ds.2 would, in any other position p, have

,
lengths f(p}. ds! and f(p)- ds2 so that their ratio would be
,
unaltered. From this constancy of ratio, as we know through

Riemann and Helmholtz, the above proposition follows. Hence
all that Geometry requires, it would seem, as a basis for
measurement, is an axiom that the alteration of shapes during

motion follows a definite known law, such as that assumed
above.
147. There however, in such a view, as I remarked above,
is,
a logical error as to the nature of magnitude. This error has

2
been already pointed out in dealing with Erdmanii and need ,
only be briefly repeated here. A

judgment of magnitude is
essentially a judgment of comparison in unmeasured quantity,
:
comparison as to the mere more or less, but in measured mag-
1
The view of Helmholtz and Erdinaun, that mechanical experience suffices
here, though geometrical experience fails us, has been discussed above,
Chapter n. 73, 82.
2
Chapter n. 81.
nitude, comparison as to the precise how many times. To

speak of differences of magnitude, therefore, in a case where
comparison cannot reveal them, is logically absurd. Now in
the case contemplated above, two magnitudes, which appear
equal in one position, appear equal also when compared in

another position. There is no sense, therefore, in supposing
the two magnitudes unequal when separated, nor in supposing,
consequently, that they have changed their magnitudes in

motion. This senselessness of our hypothesis is the logical
ground of the mathematical indeterminateness as to the law of

variation. Since, then, there is no means of comparing two
spatial figures, as regards magnitude, except superposition, the
only logically possible axiom, if spatial magnitude is to be self-
consistent, is the axiom of Free Mobility in the form first given
above.
148. Although this axiom is a priori, its application to the
measurement of actual bodies, as we found in discussing Helm-
holtz s views, always involves an empirical element Our 1
.
axiom, then, only supplies the d priori condition for carrying

out an operation which, in the concrete, is empirical just as
arithmetic supplies the a priori condition for a census. As
this topic has been discussed at length in Chapter II., I shall
say no more about it here.

149. There remain, however, a few objections and dif
ficulties to be discussed. First, how do we obtain equality in
solids, and in Kant s cases of right and left hands, or of right
and left-handed screws, where actual superposition is impos
sible ?
Secondly, how can we take congruence as the only
possible basis of spatial measurement, when we have before us
the case of time, where no such thing as congruence is con
ceivable ?
Thirdly, it
might be urged that we can immediately
estimate spatial equality by the eye, with more or less accuracy,
and thus have a measure independent of congruence. Fourthly,
how is metrical Geometry possible on non-congruent surfaces,
if congruence be the basis of spatial measurement ? I will
discuss these objections successively.
150. (1) How do we measure the equality of solids?
These could only be brought into actual congruence if we had
1
Chapter n. g 72.
1
a fourth dimension to operate in and from what I have said
,
before of the absolute necessity of this test, it might seem as
though we should be left here in utter ignorance. Euclid is

silent on the subject, and in all works on Geometry it is assumed
as self-evident that two cubes of equal side are equal. This as
sumption suggests that we are not so badly off as we should have
been without congruence, as a test of equality in one or two
dimensions for now we can at least be sure that two cubes have
;
all their sides and all their faces equal. Two such cubes differ,
then, in no sensible spatial quality save position, for volume, in
this case at any rate, is not a sensible quality. They are,
therefore, as far as such qualities are concerned, indiscernible.
If their places were interchanged, we might know the change
by their colour, or by some other non-geometrical property ;
but so any property of which Geometry can take cog

far as
nisance is concerned, everything would seem as before. To
suppose a difference of volume, then, would be to ascribe an

effect to mere position, which we saw to be inadmissible while
discussing Free Mobility. Except as regards position, they are

geometrically indiscernible, and we may call to our aid the
Identity of Indiscernibles to establish their agreement in the
one remaining geometrical property of volume. This may
seem rather a strange principle to use in Mathematics, and for
Geometry their equality is, perhaps, best regarded as a defini
tion; but if we demand a philosophical ground for this definition,
it is, I believe, only to be found in the Identity of Indiscer
nibles. We can, without error, make our definition of three-
dimensional equality rest on two-dimensional congruence. For
since direct comparison as to volume is impossible, we are at
liberty to define two volumes as equal, when all their various

lines, surfaces, angles and solid angles are congruent, since
there remains, in such a case, no measurable difference between
the figures composing the two volumes. Of course, as soon as
we have established this one case of equality of volumes, the
rest of the theory follows as appears from the ordinary method
;
of integrating volumes, by dividing them into small cubes.

Thus congruence helps to establish three-dimensional equality,
1
Contrast Delboeuf, L ancienne et les nouvelles geometries, n. Rev. Phil.
, Vol. xxxvii. p. 354.
though cannot directly prove such equality and the same

it ;
philosophical principle, of the homogeneity of space, by which

congruence was proved, conies to our rescue here. But how
about right-handed and left-handed screws ? Here we can no
longer apply the Identity of Indiscernibles, for the two are very
well discernible. But as with solids, so here, Free Mobility can
help us much. It can enable us, by ordinary measurement, to
show that the internal relations of both screws are the same,
and that the difference lies only in their relation to other
things in space. Knowing these internal relations, we can
calculate, by the Geometry which Free Mobility has rendered
possible, all the geometrical properties of these screws radius,

pitch, etc. and can show them to be severally equal in both.
But we require. Mediate comparison is possible,
this is all
though immediate comparison is not. Both can, for instance,

be compared with the cylinder on which both would fit, and
thus their equality can be proved. A precisely similar proof
holds, of course, for the other cases, right and left hands,
spherical triangles, etc. On the whole, these cases confirm my
they show, as Kant intended them to show
1
argument; for ,
the
essential relativity of space.
151. (2) As regards time, no congruence is here con
ceivable, for to effect
congruence requires always in as we saw
the case of solids one more dimension than belongs to the
magnitudes compared. No day can be brought into temporal
coincidence with any other day, to show that the two exactly
cover each other; we are therefore reduced to the arbitrary
assumption that some motion or set of motions, given us in ex

perience, is uniform. Fortunately, we have a large set of mo
tions which all roughly agree the swing of the pendulum, the
;
rotation and revolution of the earth and the planets, etc. These
do not exactly agree, but they lead us to the laws of motion, by
which we are able, on our arbitrary hypothesis, to estimate
their small departures from uniformity just as the assumption
;
of Free Mobility enabled us to measure the departures of actual
1
Prolegomena, 13. See Vaihinger s Commentar, n. pp. 518532 esp.
pp. 521 2. The above was Kant s whole purpose in 1768, but only part of his
purpose in the Prolegomena, where the intuitive nature of space was also to be
proved.
bodies from rigidity. But here, as there, another possibility is
mathematically open to us, and can only be excluded by its
philosophic absurdity ;
we might have assumed that the above
set of approximately agreeing motions all had velocities which
varied approximately as some arbitrarily assumed function of
the time,/() say, measured from some arbitrary origin. Such
an assumption would still keep them as nearly synchronous as
before, and would give an equally possible, though more com
plex, system of Mechanics instead of the first law of motion,

;
we should have the following: A particle perseveres in its

state of rest, or of rectilinear motion with velocity varying as
f(t), except in so far as it is compelled to alter that state by

the action of external forces. Such a hypothesis is mathe
matically possible, but, like the similar one for space, it is
excluded logically by the comparative nature of the judgment
of quantity, and philosophically by the fact that it involves
absolute time, as a determining agent in change, whereas time
can never, philosophically, be anything but a passive form,
abstracted from change. I have introduced this parallel from
time, not as directly bearing on the argument, but as a simpler

case which may serve to illustrate myreasoning in the more
complex case of space. For since time, in mathematics, is one-
dimensional, the mathematical difficulties are simpler than in
Geometry; and although nothing accurately corresponds to
congruence, there is a very similar mixture of mathematical
and philosophical necessity, giving, finally, a thoroughly definite
axiom as the basis of time-measurement, corresponding to
1
congruence as the basis of space-measurement .
152. (3) The case of time-measurement suggests the third

of the above objections to the absolute necessity of the axiom of
Free Mobility. Psycho-physics has shown that we have an
approximate power, by means of what may be called the sense
of duration, of immediately estimating equal short times. This
establishes a rough measure independent of any assumed
uniform motion, and in space also, it may be said, we have a
similar power of immediate comparison. We can see, by im-
1
On the subject oftime measurement, cf. Bosanquet s Logic, Vol. i.
pp. 178183. Since time, in the above account, is measured by motion, its
measurement presupposes that of spatial magnitudes.
mediate inspection, that the sub-divisions on a foot rule are

not grossly inaccurate and so, it may be said, we both have a
;
measure independent of congruence, and also could discover, by

experience, any gross departure from Free Mobility. Against
this view, however, there is at the outset a very fundamental
psychological objection. It has been urged that all our com
parison of spatial magnitudes proceeds by ideal superposition.

Thus James says (Psychology, Vol. II.
p. 152): "Even where we
only one sub-division to be vaguely larger or less, the mind
feel
must pass rapidly between it and the other sub-division, and

receive the immediate sensible shock of the more," and so far as "
the sub-divisions of a sense-space are to be measured exactly
against each other, objective forms occupying one subdivison

must be directly or indirectly superposed upon the other 1
."
Even if we waive this fundamental objection, however, others

remain. To begin with, such judgments of equality are only
very rough approximations, and cannot be applied to lines of
more than a certain length, if only for the reason that such
lines cannot well be seen together. Thus this method can only
give us any security in our own immediate neighbourhood,
and could in no wise warrant such operations as would be
required for the construction of maps &c., much less the mea
surement of astronomical distances. They might just enable
us to say that some lines were longer than others, but they
would leave Geometry in a position no better than that of the
Hedoriical Calculus, in which we depend on a purely subjective
measure. So inaccurate, in fact, is such a method acknow
ledged to be, that the foot-rule is as much a need of daily life

as of science. Besides, no one would trust such immediate
judgments, but the fact that the stricter test of congruence
for
to some extent confirms them if we could not apply this test,

;
we should have no ground for trusting them even as much as

we do. Thus we should have, here, no real escape from our
absolute dependence upon the axiom of Free Mobility.
153. (4) One last elucidatory remark is necessary before
our proof of this axiom can be considered complete. We spoke
above of the Geometry on an egg, where Free Mobility does not
hold. What, I may be asked, is there about a thoroughly non-
1
Cf. Stumpf. Ursprung der Baumvorstellung, p. 68.
congruent Geometry, more impossible than this Geometry on

the egg ? The answer is obvious. The Geometry of non-
congruent surfaces is only possible by the use of infinitesimals,
and in the infinitesimal all surfaces become plane. The funda
mental formula, that for the length of an infinitesimal arc, is
only obtained on the assumption that such an arc may be treated
as a straight line, and that Euclidean Plane Geometry may be
applied in the immediate neighbourhood of any point. If we

had not our Euclidean measure, which could be moved without
distortion, we should have no method
of comparing small arcs
and the Geometry of non-congruent surfaces
in different places,
would break down. Thus the axiom of Free Mobility, as
regards three-dimensional space, is necessarily implied and
presupposed in the Geometry of non-congruent surfaces; the
possibility of the latter, therefore, is a dependent and derivative
possibility, and can form no argument against the a priori
necessity of congruence as the test of equality.
154. It is to be observed that the axiom of Free Mobility,
as I have enunciated it, includes also the axiom to which
Helmholtz gives the name of Monodromy. This asserts that
a body does not alter its dimensions in consequence of a
complete revolution through four right angles, but occupies
at the end the same position as at the beginning. The sup
posed mathematical necessity of making a separate axiom of
this property of space has been disproved by Sophus Lie (v.
Chap. I. 45); philosophically, it is plainly a particular case

of Free Mobility and indeed a particularly obvious case, for
1
,
a translation really does make some change in a body, namely,

a change in position, but a rotation through four right angles
may be supposed to have been performed any number of times
without appearing in the result, and the absurdity of ascribing
to space the power of making bodies grow in the process is
palpable; everything that was said above on congruence in

general applies with even greater evidence to this special
case.
155. The axiom of Free Mobility involves, if it is to be
true, the homogeneity of space, or the complete relativity of
1
As is Helmholtz s other axiom, that the possibility of superposition
is independent of the course pursued in bringing it about.
position. For if any shape, which is possible in one part of

space, be always possible in another, it follows that all parts
of space are qualitatively similar, and cannot, therefore, be
distinguished by any intrinsic property. Hence positions in

space, if our axiom be true, must be wholly defined by external
relations, i.e. Position is not an intrinsic, but a purely relative,
property of things in space. If there could be such a thing

as absolute position, in short, metrical Geometry would be
impossible. This relativity of position is the fundamental pos
tulate of all Geometry, to which each of the necessary metrical
axioms leads, and from which, conversely, each of these axioms
can be deduced.
156.This converse deduction, as regards Free Mobility, is
not very and follows from the argument of Section A 1
difficult, ,
which I will briefly recapitulate. In the first place, externality

is an essentially relative conception nothing can be external
to itself. To beexternal to something is to be an other with
some relation to that thing. Hence, when we abstract a form
of externality from all material content, and study it in iso
lation, position will appear of necessity as purely relative

it can have no intrinsic quality, for our form consists of pure
externality, and externality contains no shadow or trace of
an intrinsic quality. Hence we derive our fundamental pos
tulate, the relativity of position. From this follows the homo
geneity of our form, for any quality in one position, which
marked out that position from another, would be necessarily
more or less intrinsic, and would contradict the pure relativity.
Finally Free Mobility follows from homogeneity, for our form

would not be homogeneous unless it allowed, in every part,
shapes or systems of relations, which it allowed in any other
part. Free Mobility, therefore, is a necessary property of every
possible form of externality.

157. In summing up the argument we have just con
cluded, we may exhibit it, in consequence of the two preceding
paragraphs, in the form of a completed circle. Starting from
the conditions of spatial measurement, we found that the com
parison, required for measurement, could only be effected by
superposition. But we found, further, that the result of such
1
Cf. 129, 130.
comparison will only be unambiguous, if spatial magnitudes and

shapes are unaltered by motion in space, if, in other words,
shapes do not depend upon absolute position in space. But
this axiom can
only be true if space is and homogeneous
position merely relative. Conversely, if position is assumed
to be
merely relative, a change of magnitude in motion
involving as it does, the assertion of absolute position is
impossible, and our test of spatial equality is therefore ade
quate. But
position in any form of externality must be purely
relative, since externality cannot be an intrinsic property of
anything. Our axiom, therefore, is a priori in a double sense.
It is
presupposed in all spatial measurement, and it is a
necessary property of any form of externality. A similar double
apriority, we shall see, appears in our other
necessary axioms.
II. The Axiom of Dimensions 1 .
158. We have seen, in discussing the axiom of Free Mo

bility, that
position is relative, that is, a position exists
all
2
only by virtue of relations It follows that, if positions can
.
be defined at all, they must be and uniquely exhaustively

defined by some finite number of such relations. If Geometry
is to be possible, it must happen that, after enough relations
have been given to determine a point uniquely, its relations
to any fresh known point are deducible from the relations
already given. Hence we obtain, as an a priori condition of

Geometry, logically indispensable to its existence, the axiom
that Space must have a finite integral number of Dimensions.
For every relation required in the definition of a point con
stitutes a dimension, and a fraction of a relation is
meaningless.
The number of relations required must be finite, since an
infinite number of dimensions would be practically impossible
to determine. If we remember our axiom of Free Mobility,
1
This deduction is practically the same as that in Sec. A, but I have stated
it here with more special reference to space and to metrical Geometry.
2
The question: Kelations to what?" is a question involving many
"
difficulties. be touched on later in this chapter, and answered, as far as

It will
possible, in the fourth chapter. For the present, in spite of the glaring circle
involved, I shall take the relations as relations to other positions.
R. G. 11
and remember also that space is a continuum, we may state

our axiom, for metrical Geometry, in the form given by Helm-
holtz (v. Chap. I. 25) In a space of n dimensions, the
:
"
position of every point is uniquely determined by the measure

1 "
ment of n continuous independent variables (coordinates).

159. So much, then, is a priori necessary to metrical
Geometry. The restriction of the dimensions to three seems,
2
on the contrary, to be wholly the work of experience This .
restriction cannot be logically necessary, for as soon as we have

formulated any analytical system, it appears wholly arbitrary.
Why, we are driven to ask, cannot we add a fourth coordinate
to our x, y, z, or give a geometrical meaning to ? & In this
more special form, we are tempted to regard the axiom of
dimensions, like the number of inhabitants of a town, as a
purely statistical fact, with no greater necessity than such facts

have.
Geometry affords intrinsic evidence of the truth of my

division of the axiom of dimensions into an a priori and
empirical portion. For while the extension of the number
of dimensions to four, or to n, alters nothing in plane and
solid Geometry, but only adds a new branch which interferes
in no way with the old, some definite number of dimensions
is assumed in all Geometries, nor is it possible to conceive of
a Geometry which should be free from this assumption 3 .
160. Let the point seems of some interest, repeat

us, since
our proof of the apriority of this axiom from a slightly different
point of view. We
will begin, this time, from the most ab
stract conception of space, such as we find in Biemann s disser
tation, or in Erdmann s extents. We

have here, an ordered
manifold, infinitely divisible and allowing of Free Mobility 4 .
Free Mobility involves, as we saw, the power of passing con

tinuously from any one point to any other, by any course which
may seem pleasant to us; it involves, also, that, in such a
1
Wiss. Abh. Vol. n. p. 614.
2
Cp. Grassmann, Ausdehnungslehre von 1844, 2nd ed. p. xxm.
3
Delboeuf, it is true, speaks of Geometries with rn/n dimensions, but gives
no reference (Eev. Phil. T. xxxvi. p. 450).
4 In criticizing Erdmann, it will be remembered, we saw that Free Mobility
is a necessary property of his extents, though he does not regard it as such.
course, no changes occur except changes of mere position, i.e.,
positions do not differ from one another in any qualitative

way. (This absence of qualitative difference is the distinguish
ing mark of space as opposed to other manifolds, such as the
colour- and tone-systems in these, every element has a definite
:
qualitative sensational value, whereas in space, the sensational

value of a position depends wholly on its spatial relation to
our own body, and is thus not intrinsic, but relative.) From
the absence of qualitative differences among positions, it follows
logically that positions exist only by virtue of other positions ;
one position differs from another just because they are two,
not because of anything intrinsic in either. Position is thus
defined simply and solely by relation to other positions. Any
position, therefore, is completely defined when, and only when,
enough such relations have been given to enable us to de
termine its relation to any new position, this new position
being defined by the same number of relations. Now, in order

that such definition may be at all possible, a finite number
of relations must suffice. But every such relation constitutes
a dimension. Therefore, if Geometry is to be possible, it is
a priori necessary that space should have a finite integral
number of dimensions.
161. The limitation of the dimensions to three is, as we
have seen, empirical nevertheless, it is not liable to the in
;
accuracy and uncertainty which usually belong to empirical

knowledge. For the alternatives which logic leaves to
sense
are discrete if the dimensions are not three, they must be
two or four or some other number so that small errors are
out of the question Hence the final certainty of the axiom

1
.
of three dimensions, though in part due to experience, is of

of (say) the law of Gravitation.
quite a different order from that
In the latter, a small inaccuracy might exist and remain un
detected ;
in the former, an error would have to be so consider
able as to be utterly impossible to overlook. It follows that
the certainty of our whole axiom, that the number of dimensions
is three, is almost as great as that of the a priori element,
1
Cf. Riemann, Hypothesen welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen,
Gesammelte Werke, p. 266 also Erdmann, op. cit. p. 154.
;
112
since this element leaves to sense a definite disjunction of

discrete possibilities.
III. The Axiom of Distance.
162. We
have already seen, in discussing projective Geo
metry, that two points must determine a unique curve, the
straight line. In metrical Geometry, the corresponding axiom
is, must determine a unique spatial quantity, dis
that two points
tance. what follows, (1) that if distance,
I propose to prove, in
as a quantity completely determined by two points, did not exist,
spatial magnitude would not be measurable (2) that distance ;
can only be determined by two points, if there is an actual

curve in space determined by those two points (3) that the ;
existence of such a curve can be deduced from the conception

of a form of externality, and (4) that the application of quantity
to such a curve necessarily leads to a certain magnitude, namely
distance, uniquely determined by any two points which de
termine the curve. The conclusion will be, if these propositions
can be successfully maintained, that the axiom of distance is
a priori in the as the axiom of Free Mobility,
same double sense
i.e. it is
presupposed in the possibility of measurement, and
it is necessarily true of any possible form of externality.
163. (1) The possibility of spatial measurement allows

us to infer the existence of a magnitude uniquely determined
by any two points. The proof of this depends on the axiom

of Free Mobility, or its equivalent, the homogeneity of space.
We have seen that these are involved in the possibility of
spatial measurement; we may employ them, therefore, in any
argument as to the conditions of this possibility.
Now with, two points must, if Geometry is to
to begin
be possible, have some relation to each other, for we have seen
that such relations alone constitute position or localization.
But two points have a relation to each other, this must be
if
an For it follows, from the axiom of Free

intrinsic relation.
Mobility, that two points, forming a figure congruent with the

given pair, can be constructed in any part of space. If this
were not possible, we have seen that metrical Geometry
could not exist. But both the figures may be regarded as
composed of two points and their relation ;

if the two figures
are congruent, therefore, it follows that the relation is
quan
titatively the same for both figures, since congruence is the
test of spatial
equality. Hence the two points have a quanti
tative relation, which is such that
they can traverse all space
in a combined motion without in
any way altering that re
lation. But in such a general motion, any external relation
of the two points, any relation
involving other points or figures
1
in space, must be altered . Hence the relation between the
two points, being unaltered, must be an intrinsic relation, a
relation involving no other point or in and this
figure space ;
intrinsic relation we call distance 2 .
164. might be objected, to the above argument, that it

It
involves a petitio principii. For it has been assumed that
the two points and their relation form a figure, to which other
figures can be congruent. Now if two points have no intrinsic

relation, it would seem that they cannot form such a figure.
The argument, therefore, apparently assumes what it had to
prove. Why, be asked, should not three points be
it
may
required, before we obtain any relation, which Free Mobility
allows us to construct afresh in other parts of space ?
The answer to this, as to the corresponding question in the
first section of this chapter, lies, I think, in the passivity of
space, or the mutual independence of its parts. For it follows,

from this independence, that any figure, or any assemblage
of points, may be discussed without reference to other figures
or points. This principle is the basis of infinite divisibility, of
1
This is subject, in spherical space, to the modification pointed out below,
in dealing with the exception to the axiom of the straight line. See
168171.
2
In speaking of distance at once as a quantity and as an intrinsic
relation, Iam anxious to guard against an apparent inconsistency. I have
spoken of the judgment of quantity, throughout, as one of comparison ; how,
then, can a quantity be intrinsic ? The reply is that, although measurement
and the judgment of quantity express the result of comparison, yet the terms
compared must exist before the comparison in this case, the terms compared
;
in measuring distances, i.e. in comparing them inter se, are intrinsic relations
between points. Thus, although the measurement of distance involves a
reference to other distances, and its expression as a magnitude requires such a
reference, yet its existence does not depend on any external reference, but
exclusively on the two points whose distance it is.
the use of quantity in Geometry, and of all possibility of
isolating particular figures for discussion. It follows that two
points cannot be dependent, as to their relation, on any other

points or figures, for if they were so dependent, we should have
to suppose some action of such points or figures on the two
points considered, which would contradict the mutual inde

pendence of different positions. To illustrate by an example :
the relation of two given points does not depend on the other
points of the straight line on which the given points lie. For
only through their relation, i.e. through the straight line which
they determine, can the other points of the straight line be
known to have any peculiar connection with the given pair.
165. But why,
be asked, should there be only one
it may
such relation between two points ? Why not several ? The
answer to this lies in the fact that points are wholly constituted
by relations, and have no intrinsic nature of their own A ]
.
point is defined by its relations to other points, and when once

the relations necessary for definition have been given, no fresh
relations to the points used in definition are possible, since the
point defined has no qualities from which such relations could

flow. Now one relation to any one other point is as good for
definition as more would be, since however many we had, they
would allremain unaltered in a combined motion of both
points. Hence there can only be one relation determined by
any two points.
166.(2) We have thus established our first proposition
two points have one and only one relation uniquely determined
by those two points. This relation we call their distance
apart. It remains to consider the conditions of the measure
ment of distance, i.e., how far a unique value for distance in
volves a curve uniquely determined by the two points.
In the first place, some curve joining the two points is
involved in the above notion of a combined motion of the two
two other points forming a figure congruent with
points, or of
the first For without some such curve, the two point-pairs
two.
cannot be known as congruent, nor can we have any test by
which to discover when a point-pair is moving as a single
1
See the end of the argument on Free Mobility, 155 ff.
figure . Distance must be measured, therefore, by some line

which joins the two points. But need this be a line which the
two points completely determine ?
167. We are accustomed to the definition of the straight
line as the shortest distancebetween two points, which implies
that distance might equally well be measured by curved lines.
This implication I believe to be false, for the following reasons.
When we speak of the length of a curve, we can give a meaning
to our words only by supposing the curve divided into infinites
imal rectilinear arcs, whose sum gives the length of an equiva
lent straight line thus unless we presuppose the straight line,
;
we have no means of comparing the lengths of different curves,

and can therefore never discover the applicability of our defini
tion. might be thought, perhaps, that some other line, say
It
a might be used as the basis of measurement. But in
circle,
order to estimate in this way the length of any curve other
than a circle, we should have to divide the curve into in
finitesimal circular arcs. Now two successive points do not
determine a circle, so that an arc of two points would have an
indeterminate length. It is true that, if we exclude infinitesi
mal radii for the measuring circles, the lengths of the in
finitesimal arcs would be determinate, even if the circles
varied, but that is

only because all the small circular arcs
through two consecutive points coincide with the straight line
through those two points. Thus, even with the help of the
arbitrary restriction to a finite radius, all that happens is that
we are brought back to the straight line. If, to mend matters,
we take three consecutive points of our curve, and reckon
distance by the arc of the circle of curvature, the notion of
its fundamental property of being a relation be
distance loses
tween two points. For two consecutive points of the arc could
J
In Frischauf s
"
Absolute Geometric nach Johann Bolyai," Anhang, there

is a series of definitions, starting from the sphere, as the locus of congruent
point-pairs when one point of the pair is fixed, and hence obtaining the circle
and the straight line. From the above it follows, that the sphere so defined
already involves a curve between the points of the point-pair, by which
various point-pairs can be known as congruent ; and it will appear, as we
proceed, that this curve must be a straight line. Frischaufs definition by
means of the sphere involves, therefore, a vicious circle, since the sphere
presupposes the straight line, as the test of congruent point-pah s.

not then be said to have any corresponding distance apart

three points would be necessary before the notion of distance
became applicable. Thus the circle is not a possible basis for
measurement, and similar objections apply, of course, with
increased force, to any other curve. All this argument is
designed to show, in detail, the logical impossibility of measur

ing distance by any curve not completely defined by the two
points whose distance apart is
required. If in the above we
had taken distance as measured by circles of given radius, we
should have introduced into its definition a relation to other
points besides the two whose distance was to be measured,
which we saw to be a logical fallacy. Moreover, how are we to
know that all the circles have equal radii, until we have an
independent measure of distance ?
168. A straight line, then, is not the shortest distance, but
is simply the distance between two points so far, this con
clusion has stood firm. But suppose we had two or more
curves through two points, and that all these curves were
congruent inter se. We should then say, in accordance with

the definition of spatial equality, that the lengths of all these
curves were equal. Now it might happen that, although no
one of the curves was uniquely determined by the two end-
points, yet the common length of all the curves was so deter
mined. In this case, what would hinder us from calling this
common length the distance apart, although no unique figure
in space corresponded to it ? This is the case contemplated by
spherical Geometry, where, as on a sphere, antipodes can be
joined by an infinite number of geodesies, all of which are of
equal length. The difficulty supposed is, therefore, not a
purely imaginary one, but one which modern Geometry forces

us to face. I shall consequently discuss it at some length.
169. To begin with, I must point out that my axiom is
not quite equivalent to Euclid s. Euclid s axiom states that
two straight lines cannot enclose a space, i.e., cannot have
more than one common point. Now if every two points,
without exception, determine a unique straight line, it follows,
of course, that two different straight lines can have only one
point in common so far, the two axioms are equivalent. But

it may happen, as in spherical space, that two points in general
determine a unique straight line, but fail to do so when they

have to each other the special relation of being antipodes. In
such a system every pair of straight lines in the same plane
meet in two points, which are each other s antipodes but ;
two
points, in general, still determine a unique straight line. We
are still able, therefore, to obtain distances from unique straight
except in limiting cases
lines, ;
and in such cases, we can take
any point intermediate between the two antipodes, join it by
the same straight line to both antipodes, and measure its
distance from those antipodes in the usual way. The sum of
these distances then gives a unique value for the distance
between the antipodes.
Thus even in spherical space, we are greatly assisted by the
axiom of the straight line all linear measurement is effected
;
by it, and exceptional cases can be treated, through its help, by

the usual methods for limits. Spherical space, therefore, is not
so adverse as it at first appeared to be to the a priori necessity
of the axiom. Nevertheless we have, so far, not attacked the
kernel of the objection which spherical space suggested. To
this attack it isnow our duty to proceed.
170. It will be remembered that, in our a priori proof
that two points must have one definite relation, we held it
impossible for those two points to have, to the rest of space,

any relation which would be unaltered by motion. Now in
spherical space, in the particular case where the two points are
antipodes, they have a relation, unaltered by motion, to the rest
of space the relation, namely, that their distance is half the
circumference of the universe. In our former discussion, we
assumed that any relation to outside space must be a relation
of position and a relation of position must be altered by
motion. But with a finite space, in which we have absolute
magnitude, another relation becomes possible, namely, a rela
tion of magnitude. Antipodal points, accordingly, like coinci
dent points, no longer determine a unique straight line. And
it is instructive to observe that there is, in consequence, an
ambiguity in the expression for distance, like the ordinary

ambiguity in angular measurement. If 1/A be the space con
<2
stant, and d be one value for the distance between two points,
2-Tr/iVi + d, where n is
any integer, is an equally good value.
Distance is, in short, a periodic function like angle. Thus such

a state of things rather confirms than destroys my contention,
that distance depends on a curve uniquely determined by two
points. For as soon as we drop this unique determination, we

see ambiguities creeping into our expression for distance.
Distance still has a set of discrete values, corresponding to the
fact that, given one point, the straight line is uniquely deter
mined for all other points but one, the antipodal point. It is
tempting to go on, and say If through every pair of points there
:
were an infinite number of the curves used in measuring distance,

distance would be able, for the same pair of points, to take, not
only a discrete series, but an infinite continuous series of values.
171. This, however, is mere speculation. I come now to
the piece de resistance of my argument. The ambiguity in

spherical space arose, as we saw, from a relation of magnitude
to the rest such a relation being unaltered by a
of space
motion of the two points, and therefore falling outside our
introductory reasoning. But what is this relation of magni
tude ? Simply a relation of the distance between the two
points to a distance given in the nature of the space in question.
It follows that such a relation presupposes a measure of distance,
and need not, therefore, be contemplated in any argument
which deals with the a priori requisites for the possibility of
1
definite distances .
172. have now shown, I hope conclusively, that spherical

I
space affords no objection to the apriority of my axiom. Any

two points have one relation, their distance, which is inde
pendent of the rest of space, and this relation requires, as its
measure, a curve uniquely determined by those two points. I
might have taken the bull by the horns, and said Two points :
can have no relation but what is given by lines which join

them, and therefore, if they have a relation independent of the
must be one line joining them which they
rest of space, there
completely determine. Thus James says 2 :
1
Nor in any argument which, like those of protective Geometry, avoids the
notion of magnitude or distance altogether. It follows that the propositions of
protective Geometry apply, without reserve, to spherical space, since the

exception to the axiom of the straight line arises only on metrical ground.
2
Psychology, Vol. n. pp. 149150.
Just the field of quantity, the relation between two

"
as, in
numbers another number, so in the field of space the rela
is
tions are facts of the same order with the facts they relate
When we speak of the relation of direction of two points
towards each other, we mean simply the sensation of the line
that joins the two points together. The line is the relation
The relation of position between the top and bottom points of
a vertical line is that line, and nothing else."
If I had been willing to use this doctrine at the beginning,
I might have avoided all discussion. A unique relation between
two points must in this case, involve a unique line between
them. But it seemed better to avoid a doctrine not universally
accepted, the more so as I was approaching the question from
the logical, not the psychological, side. After disposing of the
objections, however, it is interesting to find this confirmation
of the above theory from so different a standpoint. Indeed, I
believe James s doctrine could be proved to be a logical neces
sity, as well as a psychological fact. For what sort of thing

can a spatial relation between two distinct points be ? It must
be something spatial, and it must, since points are wholly
constituted by their relations, be something at least as real and
tangible as the points it relates. There seems nothing which

can satisfy these requirements, except a line joining them.
Hence, once more, a unique relation must involve a unique
line. That is, linear magnitude is logically impossible, unless
space allows of curves uniquely determined by any two of their
points.
173. (3) But farther, the existence of curves uniquely
determined by two points can be deduced from the nature of
any form of externality *. For we saw, in discussing Free
Mobility, that this axiom, together with homogeneity and the
relativity of position, can be so deduced, and we saw in the
beginning of our discussion on distance, that the existence of a
unique relation between two points could be deduced from the
homogeneity of space. Since position is relative, we may say,
any two points must have some relation to each other: since
1
This step in the argument has been put very briefly, since it is a mere
repetition of the corresponding argument in Section A, and is inserted here only
for the sake of logical completeness. See 137 ff.
our form of externality is homogeneous, this relation can be

kept unchanged while the two points move in the form, i.e.,
change their relations to other points hence their relation to ;
each other is an intrinsic relation, independent of their rela

tions to other points. But since our form is merely a complex
of relations, a relation of externality must appear in the form,
with the same evidence as anything else in the form thus if ;
the form be intuitive or sensational, the relation must be

immediately presented, and not a mere inference. Hence the
intrinsic relation between two points must be a unique figure
in our form, i.e. in spatial terms, the straight line joining the
two points.
174. Finally, we have to prove that the existence of
(4)
such a curve necessarily leads, when quantity is applied to the
relation between two points, to a unique magnitude, which
those two points completely determine. With this, we shall be
brought back to distance, from which we started, and shall
complete the circle of our argument.
We saw, in section A
119, that the figure formed by two
points project! vely indistinguishable from that formed by any
is
two other points in the same straight line the figure, in both ;
cases, from the projective standpoint, simply the straight

is,
line on which the two points lie. The difference of relation, in

the two cases, is not qualitative, since projective Geometry
cannot deal with it nevertheless, there is some difference of
;
relation. For instance, if one point be kept fixed, while the

other moves, there is obviously some change of relation. This
change, since all parts of the straight line are qualitatively

alike, must be a change of quantity. If two points, therefore,
determine a unique figure, there must exist, for the distinction
between the various other points of this figure, a unique
quantitative relation between the two determining points, and
therefore, since these points are arbitrary, between only two
points. This relation is distance, with which our argument

began, and to which it at least returns.
175. To sum up : If points are defined simply by relations
to other points, i.e., if all position is relative, every point

mast
have to
every other point one, and only one, relation independent
of the rest of space. This relation is the distance betiveen the
two points. Now a relation between two points can only be

defined by a line joining them nay further, it may be con
tended that a relation can only be a line joining them. Hence
a unique relation involves a unique line, i.e., a line determined
by any two of its points. Only in a space which admits of

such a line is linear magnitude a logically possible conception.
But when once we have established the possibility, in general,
of drawing such lines, and therefore of measuring linear mag
nitudes, we may find that a certain magnitude has a peculiar
relation to the constitution of space. The straight line may
turn out to be of finite length, and in this case its length will
give a certain peculiar magnitude, the space-constant. Two
antipodal points, that is, points which bisect the entire
straight line, will then have a relation of magnitude which,

though unaltered by motion, rendered peculiar by a certain
is
constant relation to the rest of space. This peculiarity pre

supposes a measure of linear magnitude in general, and cannot,
therefore, upset the apriority of the axiom of the straight line.
But it destroys, for points having the peculiar antipodal rela
tion to each other, the argument which proved that the relation
between two points could not, since it was unchanged by
motion, have reference to the rest of space. Thus it is intel
ligible that, for such special points, the axiom breaks down, and
an infinite number of straight lines are possible between them ;
but unless we had started with assuming the general validity

of the axiom, we could never have reached a position in which
antipodal points could have been known to be peculiar, or,

indeed, a position which would have enabled us to give any
quantitative definition whatever of particular points.
Distance and the straight line, as relations uniquely deter
mined by two points, are thus d priori necessary to metrical
Geometry. But further, they are properties which must belong
to any form of externality. Since their necessity for Geometry
was deduced from homogeneity and the relativity of position,
and since these are necessary properties of any form of exter
nality, the same argument proves both conclusions. We thus
obtain, as in the case of Free Mobility, a double apriority :
The axiom of Distance, and its implication, the axiom of

the Straight Line, are, on the one hand, presupposed in the
possibility of spatial magnitude, and cannot, therefore, be con

tradicted by any experience resulting from the measurement
of space while they are consequences, on the other hand, of
;
the necessary properties of any form of externality which is to

render possible experience of an external world.
176. In connection with the straight line, it will be con
venient to discuss the conditions of a metrical coordinate
system. The
projective coordinate system, as we have seen,
aims only at a convenient nomenclature for different points,
and can be set up without introducing the notion of spatial
quantity. But a metrical coordinate system does much more
than this. It defines every point
quantitatively, by its quanti
tative spatial relations to a certain coordinate figure.
Only
when the system of coordinates is thus metrical, i.e., when
every coordinate represents some spatial magnitude, which is
itself a relation ofthe point defined to some other point or
figure can operations with coordinates lead to a metrical

result. When, as in projective Geometry, the coordinates are
not spatial magnitudes, no amount of transformation can give
a metrical result. I wish to prove, here, that a metrical coordi
nate system necessarily involves the straight line, and cannot,
without a logical fallacy, be set up on any other basis. The
projective system of coordinates, as we saw, is
entirely based on
the straight line but the metrical system
;
more important,
is
since its quantities embody actual information as to spatial
magnitudes, which, in projective Geometry, is not the case.

In the first place, a point s metrical coordinates constitute a
complete quantitative definition of it now a point can only be
;
defined, as we have seen, by its relations to other points, and

these relations can only be defined by means of the straight
line. Consequently, any metrical system of coordinates must
involve the straight line, as the basis of its definitions of points.
This a priori argument, however, though I believe it to be
quite sound, is not likely to carry conviction to any one per

suaded of the opposite. Let us, therefore, examine metrical
coordinate systems in detail, and show, in each case, their
dependence on the straight line.

We have already seen that the notion of distance is im
possible without the straight line. We cannot, therefore, define
our coordinates in any of the ordinary ways, as the distances

from three planes, lines, points, spheres, or what not. Polar
coordinates are impossible, since, waiving the straightness of
the radius vector the length of the radius vector becomes
unmeaning. Triangular coordinates involve not only angles,
which must in the limit be rectilinear, but straight lines, or at
any rate some well-defined curves. Now curves can only be
metrically defined in two ways Either by relation to the
:
straight line, as, e.g., by the curvature at any point, or by

purely analytical equations, which presuppose an intelligible
system of metrical coordinates. What methods remain for
assigning these arbitrary values to different points ? Nay,
how are we to get any estimate of the difference to avoid
the more special notion of distance between two points ?
The very notion of a point has become illusory. When we
have a coordinate system, we may define a point by its three
coordinates; in the absence of such a system, we may define
the notion of point in general as the intersection of three sur
faces or of two curves. Here we take surfaces and curves
as notions which intuition makes plain, but if we wish them to
give us a precise numerical definition of particular points, we

must specify the kind of surface or curve to be used. Now
this, as we have seen, is only possible when we presuppose
either the straight line, or a coordinate system. It follows that
every coordinate system presupposes the straight line, and is
logically impossible without it.

177. The above three axioms, we have seen, are a priori
necessary to metrical Geometry. No others can be necessary,
since metrical systems, logically as unassailable as Euclid s,
and dealing with spaces equally homogeneous and equally re

lational, have been constructed by the metageometers, without
the help of any other axioms. The remaining axioms of Eu
clidean Geometry the axiom of parallels, the axiom that the
number of dimensions is three, and Euclid s form of the axiom
of the straight line (two straight lines cannot enclose a space)
are not essential to the possibility of metrical Geometry,
are not deducible from the fact that a science of spatial
i.e.,
magnitudes is possible. They are rather to be regarded as

empirical laws, obtained, like the empirical laws of other
sciences, by actual investigation of the given subject-matter

in this instance, experienced
space.
In summing up the distinctive argument of this
178.
Section, we may give it a more general form, and discuss
the conditions of measurement in any continuous manifold,
i.e.,the qualities necessary to the manifold, in order that
quantities in it may be determinable, not only as to the more
or less, but as to the precise how much.
Measurement, we may say, is the application of number

to continua, or, we
if prefer it, the transformation of mere
quantity into number Using quantity to denote
of units.
the vague more or less, and magnitude to denote the precise
number of units, the problem of measurement may be defined
as the transformation of quantity into magnitude.
Now a number, to begin with, is a whole consisting of
smaller units, all of these units being qualitatively alike.
In order, therefore, that a continuous quantity may be ex
pressible as a number, it must, on the one hand, be itself
a whole, and must, on the other hand, be divisible into
qualitatively similar parts. In the aspect of a whole, the

quantity is intensive ,
in the aspect of an aggregate of parts,
it is extensive. A purely intensive quantity, therefore, is not
numerable a purely extensive quantity, if any such could be
imagined, would not be a single quantity at all, since it would

have to consist of wholly unsynthesized particulars. A mea
surable quantity, therefore, is a whole divisible into similar
parts. But a continuous quantity, if divisible at all, must be

infinitely divisible. For otherwise the points at which it could
be divided would form natural barriers, and so destroy its
continuity. But further, it is not sufficient that there should
be a possibility of division into mutually external parts while ;
the parts, to be perceptible as parts, must be mutually ex

ternal, they must also, to be knowable as equal parts, be
capable of overcoming their mutual externality. For this, as

we have seen, require superposition, which involves Free
we
Mobility and homogeneity the absence of Free Mobility in
time, where all other requisites of measurement are fulfilled,
renders direct measurement of time impossible. Hence infinite
divisibility, free mobility, and homogeneity are necessary for
the possibility of measurement in any continuous manifold,

and these, as we have seen, are equivalent to our three axioms.
These axioms are necessary, therefore, not only for spatial
measurement, but for all measurement. The only manifold
given in experience, in which these conditions are satisfied, is
space. All other exact measurement as could be proved, I
believe, for every separate case is effected, as we saw in the
case of time, by reduction to a spatial correlative. This ex

plains the paramount importance, to exact science, of the
mechanical view of nature, which reduces all phenomena to
motions in time and space. For number is, of all conceptions,
the easiest to operate with, and science seeks everywhere for
an opportunity to apply it, but finds this opportunity only by
means of spatial equivalents to phenomena 1 .
179. We have now seen in what the a priori element of

Geometry consists. This a priori element may be defined as
the axioms common to Euclidean and non-Euclidean spaces,
as the axioms deducible from the conception of a form of
externality, or in metrical Geometry as the axioms required

for the possibility of measurement. It remains to discuss, in
a final chapter, some questions of a more general philosophic
nature, in which we shall have to desert the firm ground of
mathematics and enter on speculations which I put forward very
tentatively, and with little faith in their ultimate validity. The
chief questions for this final chapter will be two (1) How is :
such a priori and purely logical necessity possible, as applied

to an actually given subject-matter like space ? (2) How
can we remove the contradictions which have haunted us in
this chapter, arising out of the relativity, infinite divisibility,
and unbounded extension of space ? These two questions are
forced upon us by the present chapter, but as they open some
of the fundamental problems of philosophy, it would be rash
to expect a conclusive or wholly satisfactory answer. few A
hints and suggestions may be hoped for, but a complete solution
could only be obtained from a complete philosophy, of which
the prospects are far too slender to encourage a confident
frame of mind.
1
Cf. Hannequin, Essai critique sur 1
hypothese des atomes, Paris, 1895,
m.
R. G. 12
CHAPTER IV.
PHILOSOPHICAL CONSEQUENCES.
IN the present chapter, we have to discuss two ques

180.
tions which, though scarcely geometrical, are of fundamental
importance to the theory of Geometry propounded above. The
first of these questions is this : What relation can a purely
logical and deductive proof, like that from the nature of a form
of externality, bear to an experienced subject-matter such as
space You have merely framed a general conception, I may

?
be containing space as a particular species, and you have

told,
then shown, what should have been obvious from the beginning,
that this general conception contained some of the attributes
of space. But what ground does this give for regarding these
attributes as a priori ? The conception Mammal has some of
the attributes of a horse but are these attributes therefore d
;
priori adjectives of the horse ? The answer to this obvious

objection is so difficult, and involves so much general philo
sophy, that I have kept it for a final chapter, in order not to
interrupt the argument on specially geometrical topics.
181. I have already indicated, in general terms, the ground
for regarding as d priori the properties of any form of ex
ternality. This ground is transcendental, i.e. it is to be found in
the conditions required for the possibility of experience. The
form of externality, like Riemann s manifolds, is a general class-
conception, including time as well as Euclidean and non-
Euclidean spaces. It is not motived, however, like the manifolds,
by a quantitative resemblance to space, but by the fact that
it fulfils, if it has more than one dimension, all those functions
which, in our actual world, are fulfilled by space. But a form
PHILOSOPHICAL CONSEQUENCES. 179
of externality, in order to accomplish this, must be, not a mere

conception, but an actually experienced intuition. Hence the
conception of such a form is the
general conception, containing
under it every logically possible intuition which can fulfil the
function actually fulfilled by space. And this function is, to
render possible experience of diverse but interrelated things.
Some form in sense-perception, then, whose conception is
included under our form of externality, is d priori necessary to
experience of diversity in relation, and without experience of this,
we should, as modern logic shows, have no experience at all.
This still leaves untouched the relation of the d priori to the
subjective the form of externality is necessary to experience,

:
but on that account, to be declared purely subjective. Of

is not,
course, necessity for experience can only arise from the nature
of the mind which experiences but it does not follow that the
;
necessary conditions could be fulfilled, unless the objective

world had certain properties. The ground of necessity, we may
safely say, arises from the mind but it by no means follows
;
that the truth of what is necessary depends only on the con

stitution of the mind. Where this is not the case, our conclu
sion, when a piece of knowledge has been declared d priori,
can only be Owing to the constitution of the mind, experience
:
will be impossible unless the world accepts certain adjectives.
Such, in outline, will be the argument of the first half of

this chapter, and such will be the justification for regarding
as d priori those axioms of Geometry, which were deduced
above from the conception of a form of externality. For these
axioms, and these only, are necessarily true of any world in
which experience is possible.
182 \ The view suggested has, obviously, much in common
with that of the Transcendental Aesthetic. Indeed the whole
of it, I believe, can be obtained by a certain limitation and
interpretation of Kant s classic arguments. But as it differs,
in many important points, from the conclusions aimed at by
Kant, and as the agreement may easily seem greater than it is,
I will begin by a brief comparison, and endeavour, by reference
Compare, with the following paragraphs, the admirable discussion

1
in
Mr Hobhouse s Theory of Knowledge (Methuen 1896), Part i. Chapter u.
122
to authoritative criticisms, to establish the legitimacy of

my
divergence from him.
183. In the first place, the psychological element is much
larger in Kant s thesis than in mine. I shall contend, it is true,
that a form of externality, if it is to do its work, must not be
a mere conception or a mere inference, but must be a given
element in sense-perception not, of course, originally given in
isolation, but discoverable, through analysis, by attention to
the object of sense-perception 1 But Kant contended, not only
.
that this element is given, but also that it is subjective. Space,

for him, is, on the one hand, not conceptual, but on the other
hand, not sensational. It forms, for him, no part of the data of
added by a subjective intuition, which he regards
sense, but is
as not only logically, but psychologically, prior to objects in
2
space .
This part of Kant s argument is wholly irrelevant for us.

Whether a form of externality be given in sense, or in a pure
intuition, is for us unimportant, since we neglect the question
as to the connection of the a priori and the subjective; while
the temporal priority of space to objects in it has been gene
rally recognized as irrelevant to Epistemology, and has often
3
been regarded as forming no part of Kant s thesis If we call .
intuitional whatever is given in sense-perception, then we may

contend that a form of externality must be intuitional but ;
whether a pure intuition, in Kant s sense, or not,

it is is
irrelevant to us, as is its priority to the objects in it.

That the non-sensational nature of space is no essential part
of Kant s logical teaching, appears from an examination of his
argument. He has made, in the introduction, the purely
logical distinction of matter and form, but has given to this
distinction, in the very moment of suggesting it, a psycho
logical implication. This he does by the assertion that the

form, in which the matter of sensations is ordered, cannot
itself be sensational. From this assumption it follows, of course,
that space cannot be sensational. But the assumption is
1
I speak of sense-perception instead of sensation, so as. not to prejudge the
issue as to the sensational nature of space,
2
See Vaihinger s Commentar, n. pp. 86 7, 168171.
3
See Caird, Critical Philosophy of Kant, Vol. i. p. 287.
totally unsupported by argument, being set forth, apparently,

as a self-evident axiom it has been severely criticized by
;
2
Stumpf and
1
othersand has been described by Vaihinger as a
,
3
fatal petitio principii it is irrelevant to the logical argument,
)
when this argument is separated, as we have separated it, from

all connection with psychological subjectivity and finally, it ;
leaves us a prey to psychological theories of space, which have

seemed, of late, but little favourable to the pure Kantian
doctrine.
184. We have a right, therefore, in an epistemological
inquiry, to neglect Kant s psychological teaching in so far,
at any rate, as it distinguishes spatial intuition from sensation
and attend rather to the logical aspect alone. That part of
his psychological teaching, which maintains that space is not a
mere conception, with certain limitations, sufficiently evident
is,
as applied to actual space but for us, it must be transformed

;
into a much more difficult thesis, namely, that no form of
externality, which renders experience of diversity in relation

possible, can be merely conceptual. This question, to which we
must return later, is no longer psychological, but belongs wholly
to Epistemology.
185. What, then, remains the kernel, for our purposes, of
Kant s first
argument the apriority of space ? His argu
for
ment, in the form in which he gave it, is concerned with the

eccentric projection of sensations. In order that I may refer
something outside myself, I must already
sensations, he says, to
have the subjective space-form in the mind. In this shape, as
Vaihinger points out (Commentar, II. pp. 69, 165), the argu
ment rests on a petitio principii, for only if sensations are
necessarily non-spatial does their projection demand a subjec
tive space-form. But, further, the logical apriority of space
is
concerned with the externality of things to ourselves ?

Space seems to perform two functions on the one hand, :
it reveals things, by the eccentric projection of sensations,
as external to the self, while, on the other hand, it reveals
simultaneously presented things as mutually external. These

1
Ursprung der Eaumvorstellung, pp. 1230.
2
See the references in Vaihinger s Commentar, n. p. 76 ff.
3
Commentar, n. p. 71 ff.
two functions, though often treated as coordinate and almost

equivalent
1
seem to me widely different. Before we discuss
,
the apriority of space, we must carefully distinguish, I think,

between these two functions, and decide which of them we are
to argue about.
Now externality to the Self, it would seem, must necessarily
raise thewhole question of the nature and limits of the Ego,
and what is more, it cannot be derived from spatial presentation,
unless we give the Self a definite position in space. But things
acquire a position in space only when they can appear in sense-
perception we are forced, ; therefore, if we adopt this view of
the function of space, to regard the Self as a phenomenon
presented to sense-perception. But this reduces externality to
the Self to externality to the body. The body, however, is a
presented object like any and
other, externality of objects to it
is, therefore, a special case of the mutual externality of presented
things. Hence we cannot regard space

as giving, primarily at
any rate, externality to the Self, but only the mutual externality
2
of the things presented to sense-perception .
186. This, then, is the kind of externality we are to expect

from space, and our question must be Would the existence of :
diverse but interrelated things be unknowable, if there were

not, in sense-perception, some form of externality ? This is the
crucial question, on which turns the apriority of our form, and
hence of the necessary axioms of Geometry.
187. The converse argument to mine, the argument from
the spatio-temporal element in perception to a world of inter
related but diverse things, is developed at length in Bradley s
Logic. It is put briefly in the following sentence (p. 44, note):

If space and time are continuous, and if all appearance must
"
occupy some time or space and it is not hard to support both

these theses we can at once proceed to the conclusion, no mere
particular exists. Every phenomenon will exist in more times

or spaces than one and against that diversity will be itself an
;
universal
3
." The importance of this fact appears, when we
1
E.g. by Caird, op. cit. Vol. i. p. 286.
2
I have no wish to deny, however, that space is essential in the subsequent
distinction of Self and not- Self.
3
See also Book I. Chap n. passim ; especially p. 51 ff. and pp. 70-1.
consider that, if any mere particular existed, all judgment and

inference as to that particular would be impossible, since all
judgment and inference necessarily operate by means of uni-

versals. But all reality is constructed from the This of immediate
presentation, from which judgment and inference necessarily
spring. Owing, however, to the continuity and relativity of
space and time, no This can be regarded either as simple or as
self-subsistent. Every This, on the one hand, can be analyzed
into Thises, and on the other hand, is found to be necessarily
related to other things, outside the limits of the given object
of sense-perception. This function of space and time is pre
supposed in the following statement from Bosanquet s Logic
(Vol. I. pp. 77 78): "Reality is given for me in present
sensuous perception, and in the immediate feeling of my own
sentient existence that goes with it. The real world, as a
definite organized system, is forme an extension of this present
sensation and self feeling by means of judgment, and it is the
essence of judgment to effect and sustain such an extension...
The subject in every judgment of Perception is some given spot
or point in sensuous contact with the percipient self. But, as
all reality is continuous, the subject is not merely this given
spot or point."
188. This doctrine of Bradley and Bosanquet is the

converse of the epistemological doctrine I have to advocate.
Owing to the continuity and relativity of space and time, they
say, we are able to construct a systematic world, by judgment
and inference, out of that fragmentary and yet necessarily
complex existence which is
given in sense-perception. My
contention is,conversely, that since all knowledge is necessarily
derived by an extension of the This of sense-perception, and
since such extension is only possible if the This has that
fragmentary and yet complex character conferred by a form of

externality, therefore some form of externality, given with the
This, is essential to all knowledge, and is thus logically a priori.
Bradley argument, if sound, already proves this contention;
s
for while, on the one hand, he uses no properties of space and

time but those which belong to every form of externality, he
proves, on the other hand, that judgment and inference require
the This to be neither single nor self-subsistent. But I will
endeavour, since the point is of fundamental importance, to

reproduce the proof, in a form more suited than Bradley s to
the epistemological question.
189. The essence of my contention is that, if
experience is
to be possible, every sensational This must, when attended to,

be found, on the one hand, resolvable into Thises, and on the
other hand dependent, for some of its adjectives, on external
reference. The second of these theses follows from the first,
for if we take one of the Thises contained in the first This, we
get a new This necessarily related to the other Thises which
make up the I may, therefore, confine myself to
original This.
the first which affirms that the object of perception
proposition,
must contain a diversity, not only of conceptual content, but of
existence, and that this can only be known if sense-perception
contains, as an element, some form of externality.
My premiss, in this argument, is that all knowledge involves
a recognition of diversity in relation, or, if we prefer it, of
identity in difference. This premiss I accept from Logic, as
resulting from the analysis of judgment and inference. To
prove such a premiss, would require a treatise on Logic; I
must refer the reader, therefore, to the works of Bradley and
Bosanquet on the subject. It follows at once, from my premiss,
that knowledge would be impossible, unless the object of
attention could be complex, i.e. not a mere particular. Now
could the mental object i.e., in this connection, the object of
a cognition be complex, if the object of immediate perception
were always simple ?
190. We might be inclined, at first sight, to answer this
question affirmatively. But several difficulties, I think, would
prevent such an answer. In the first place, knowledge must
startfrom perception. Hence, either we could have no know
ledge except of our present perception, or else we must be able
to contrast and compare it with some other perception. Now
in the first case, since the present perception, by hypothesis, is
a mere particular, knowledge of it is impossible, according to
our premiss. But in the second case, the other perception,
with which we compare our first, must have occurred at some
other time, and with time, we have at once a form of ex
ternality. But what is more, our present perception is no

longer a mere particular. For the power of comparing it with

another perception involves a point of identity between the
two, and thus renders both complex. Moreover, time must be
continuous, and the present, as Bradley points out, is no mere
point of time
1
Thus our present perception contains the
.
complexity involved in duration throughout the specious pre

sent: mere particularity and its simplicity are lost. Its
its
self-subsistence is also lost, for beyond the specious present, lie

the past and the future, to which our present perception thus
unavoidably refers us. Time at least, therefore, is essential to
that identity in difference, which all knowledge postulates.

191. But we have derived, from all this, no ground for
or a form of externality
affirming a multiplicity of real things,
of more than one dimension, which, we saw, was necessary for
the truth of two out of our three axioms. This brings us to
the question : Have we enough, with time alone as a form of
the possibility of knowledge ?
externality, for
This question we must, I think, answer in the negative.
With time alone, we have seen, our presented object must t>e
may I use such a phrase,

complex, but its complexity must,
if
be merely adjectival. Without a second form of externality,

at one moment
2
and this one
only one thing can be given ,
constitute the whole of our world. The

thing, therefore, must
object of past perception
must since our one thing has nothing
external to it, by which it could be created or destroyed be
in a different state. The com
regarded as the same thing
will lie in the changing states of our
plexity, therefore, only
one it will be not substantival.
adjectival,
Moreover we
thing
have the following dilemma: Either the one thing must be
ourselves, or else self-consciousness could
never arise. But the
chief difficulty of such a world in the changes of the
would lie
thing. What could cause these changes, since we should know

of nothing external to our thing ? It would be like a Leibnitzian
monad, without any God outside it to prearrange

its changes.
Causality, in such a world, could not be applied, and change

would be wholly inexplicable.
1
Logic, p. 51 ff.
2
For the This, on such a hypothesis, has a purely temporal complexity,
and
is not resolvable into coexisting Thises.
Hence we require also the possibility of a diversity of

simultaneously existing things, not merely of successive adjec
tives and this, we have seen, cannot be given
;
by time alone,
but only by a form of externality for simultaneous parts of one
presentation. We could
never, in other words, infer the
existence of diverse but interrelated things, unless the object
of sense-perception could have substantival complexity, and for
such complexity we require a form of externality other than
time. Such a form, moreover, as was shown in Chapter in.,
Section A ( 135), can only fulfil its functions if it has more
than one dimension. In our actual world, this form is given
by space any world, knowable to beings with our laws of
;
in
thought, some such form, as we have now seen, must be given

in sense-perception.
This argument may be briefly summed up, by assuming the
doctrine of Bradley, that all knowledge is obtained by inference
from the This of sense-perception. For, if this be so, the
This in order that inference, which depends on identity in
difference, may be possible at all must itself be complex, and
must, on analysis, reveal adjectives having a reference beyond
itself. But this, as was shown above, can only happen by
means of a form of externality. This establishes the a priori
axioms of Geometry, as necessarily having existential import
and validity in any intelligible world.
192. The above argument, I hope, has explained why I
hold possible to deduce, from a mere conception like that of
it
a form of externality, the logical apriority of certain axioms as

to experienced space. The Kantian argument
which was
correct, if our reasoning has been sound, in asserting that real
diversity, in our actual world, could only be known by the help
of space was only mistaken, so far as its purely logical scope
extends, in overlooking the possibility of other forms of
externality,which could, if they existed, perform the same task

with equal efficiency. In so far as space differs, therefore,
from these other conceptions of possible intuitional forms, it is
a mere experienced fact, while in so far as its properties are
those which all such forms must have, it is d priori necessary
to the possibility of experience.
I cannot hope, however, that no difficulty will remain, for
the reader, in such a deduction, from abstract conceptions, of

the properties of an actual datum in sense-perception. Let
us consider, for example, such a property as impenetrability.
To suppose two things simultaneously in the same position
in a form of externality, is a logical contradiction ; but can we
say as much of actual space and time ? Is not the impos

sibility, here,a matter of experience rather than of logic ? Not
if the above argument has been sound, I reply. For in that
case, we infer real diversity, i.e. the existence of different things,
only from difference of position in space or time. It follows,

that to suppose two things in the same point of space and
time, is still a logical contradiction not because we have
:
constructed the data of sense out of logic, but because logic

is dependent, as regards its application, on the nature of these
data. This instance illustrates, what I am anxious to make

plain, that my argument has not attempted to construct the
wealth of sense-perception out of
"
living bloodless categories,"

but only to point out that, unless sense-perception contained
a certain element, these categories would be powerless to
grapple with it.

193. How we are to account for the fortunate realization
of these requirements whether by a pre-established harmony,
by Darwinian adaptation to our environment, by the sub
jectivity of the necessary element in sense-perception, or by
a fundamental identity and unity between ourselves and the
rest of realityis a further question, belonging rather to
metaphysics than to our present line of argument. The a

priori, we have said throughout, is that which is necessary for
the possibility of experience, and in this we have a purely
logical giving results which only Logic and Epi-
criterion,
stemology can prove or disprove. What is subjective in ex

perience, on the contrary, is primarily a question for psychology,
and should be decided on psychological grounds alone. When
these two questions have been separately answered, but not
till then, we may frame theories as to the connection of the d,
priori and the subjective to allow such theories to influence

;
our decision, on either of the two previous questions, is liable,

surely, to confuse the issue, and prevent a clear discrimination
between fundamentally different points of view.
I come now to the second question with which this

194.
chapter has to deal, the question, namely What are we to

:
do with the contradictions which obtruded themselves in

Chapter in., whenever we came to a point which seemed
fundamental ? I shall treat this question briefly, as I have
little to add to answers with which we are all familiar. I
have only to prove, first, that the contradictions are inevitable,
and therefore form no objection to my argument; secondly,
that the first step in removing them is to restore the notion
of matter, as that which, in the data of sense -perception, is
localized and interrelated in space.
195. The contradictions in space are an ancient theme
as ancient, in fact, as Zeno s refutation of motion. They are,
roughly, of two kinds, though the two kinds cannot be sharply
divided. There are the contradictions inherent in the notion
of the continuum, and the contradictions which spring from
the fact that space, while it must, to be knowable, be pure
relativity, must also, it would seem, since it is immediately
experienced, be something more than mere relations. The
firstclass of contradictions has been encountered more fre
quently in this essay, and is also, I think, the more definite,

and the more important for our present purpose. I doubt,
however, whether the two classes are really distinct; for any
continuum, I believe, in which the elements are not data, but
intellectual constructions resulting from analysis, can be shown
to have the same relational and yet not wholly relational cha
racter as belongs to space.
The three following contradictions, which I shall discuss
successively, seem to me the most prominent in a theory

of Geometry.
(1) Though the

parts of space are intuitively distin
guished, no
conception is adequate to differentiate them.
Hence arises a vain search for elements, by which the dif
ferentiation could be accomplished, and for a whole, of which
the parts of space are to be components. Thus we get the
point, or zero extension, as the spatial element, and an infinite
regress or a vicious circle in the search for a whole.
(2) All positions being relative, positions can only be
defined by their relations, i.e. by the straight lines or planes
through them ;
but straight lines and planes, being all quali
tatively similar, can only be defined by the positions they
relate. Hence, again, we get a vicious circle.
(3) Spatial figures must be regarded as relations. But a
relation is
necessarily indivisible, while spatial figures are
necessarily divisible ad infinitum.

196. (1) Points. The antinomy
which of the point
arises wherever a continuum is given, and elements have to be
sought in it is fundamental to Geometry. It has been given,

perhaps unintentionally, by Veronese as the first axiom, in the
"
form There are different points. All points are identical

:
"
(op. tit. p. 226). We

saw, in discussing projective Geometry,
that straight lines and planes must be regarded, on the one hand
as relations between points, and on the other hand as made up
of points 1 . We
saw again, in dealing with measurement, how
space must be regarded as infinitely divisible, and yet as mere
relativity. But what is divisible and consists of parts, as space
does, must lead at last, by continued analysis, to a simple and
unanalyzable part, as the unit of differentiation. For whatever
can be divided, and has parts, possesses some thinghood, and
must, therefore, contain two ultimate units, the whole namely,
and the smallest element possessing thinghood. But in space
this is notoriously not the case. After hypostatizing space, as
Geometry is compelled to do, the mind imperatively demands
elements, and insists on having them, whether possible or not.
Of this demand, all the geometrical applications of the infin
2
itesimal calculus are evidence But what sort of elements do .
we thus obtain ?
Analysis, being unable to find any earlier
halting-place, finds its elements in points, that is, in zero quanta
of space. Such a conception is a palpable contradiction, only

rendered tolerable by its necessity and familiarity. A point
must be spatial, otherwise it would not fulfil the function of a
spatial element; but again it must contain no space, for any
finite extension is capable of further analysis. Points can
never be given in intuition, which has no concern with the
infinitesimal they are a purely conceptual construction, arising
:
1
Chapter in. Section A, ( 131).
2
Cf. Hannequin, Essai critique sur 1 hypothese des atomes, Paris 1895,
Chap. i. Section in. ; especially p. 43.
out of the need of terms between which spatial relations can

hold. If space be more than relativity, spatial relations must
involve spatial relata; but no relata appear, until we have
analyzed our spatial data down to nothing. The contradictory

notion of the point, as a thing in space without spatial
magnitude, is the only outcome of our search for spatial

relata. This reductio ad absurdum surely suffices, by itself, to
prove the essential relativity of space.
197. Thus Geometry is forced, since it wishes to regard
space as
independent, hypostatize its abstractions, and
to
therefore to invent a self-contradictory notion as the spatial
element. A
similar absurdity appears, even more obviously, in
the notion of a whole of space. The antinomy may, therefore,
be stated thus :
Space, as we have seen throughout, must, if
knowledge of it is to be possible, be mere relativity; but it
must also, if independent knowledge of it, such as Geometry
seeks, is to be possible, be something more than mere relativity,

since it is divisible and has parts. But we saw, in Chap, ill.,
Section A ( 133) that knowledge of a form of externality must
be logically independent of the particular matter filling the
form. How then are we to extricate ourselves from this
dilemma ?
The only way, I think, is, not to make Geometry dependent
1
on Physics, which we have seen but to give
to be erroneous ,
every geometrical proposition a certain reference to matter in

general. And at this point an important distinction must be
made. We have hitherto spoken of space as relational, and
of spatial figures as relations. But space, it would seem, is
rather relativity than relations itself not a relation, it gives
the bare possibility of relations between diverse things 2 As .
applied to a spatial figure, which can only arise by a differen

tiation of and hence by the introduction of some
space,
differentiating matter, the word relation is, perhaps, less
misleading than any other; as applied to empty undifferen-
tiated space, it seems by no means an accurate description.
But a bare possibility cannot exist, or be given in sense-
perception ! What becomes, then, of the arguments of the
1
See Chapter n. 69 ff.
-
See third antinomy below, 201 ff.
first part of this chapter

? I reply, it is not empty space, but
spatial figures, which sense-perception reveals, and spatial

figures, as we have just seen, involve a differentiation of space,
and therefore a reference to the matter which is in space. It
is spatial figures, also, and not empty space, with which
Geometry has to deal. The antinomy discussed above arises
then so it would seem from the attempt to deal with empty
space, rather than with spatial figures and the matter to which
they necessarily refer.
198. Let us see whether, by this change, we can overcome
the antinomy of the point. Spatial figures, we shall now say,
are relations between the matter which differentiates empty
space. Their divisibility, which seemed to contradict their
relational character, may be explained in two ways: first, as
holding of the figures considered as parts of empty space, which

is itself not a relation second, as denoting the possibility
;
of continuous change in the relation expressed by the spatial

figure. These two ways bottom, the same for empty
are, at ;
space is a possibility of relations, and the figure, when viewed

in connection with empty space, thus becomes a possible relation,
with which other possible relations may be contrasted or
compared. But the second w ay of regarding divisibility is the
r
better way, since it introduces a reference to the matter which

differentiatesempty space, without which, spatial figures, and
therefore Geometry, could not exist. It is empty space, then
so we must conclude which gives rise to the antinomy in
question for empty space is a bare possibility of relations,
;
undifferentiated and homogeneous, and thus wholly destitute

of parts or of thiiighood. To speak of parts of a possibility is
nonsense the parts and differentiations arise only through a
;
reference to the matter which is differentiated in space.

199. But what nature must we ascribe to this matter,
which is to be involved in all geometrical propositions ? In
criticizing Helmholtz (Chap. u. 73), it may be remembered,
we decided that Geometry refers to a peculiar and abstract
kind of matter, which is not regarded as possessing any causal
qualities, as exerting or as subject to the action of forces. And

this is the matter, I think, which we require for the needs of
the moment. Not that we affirm, of course, that actual matter
can be destitute of the properties with which Physics is cogni

zant, but that we abstract from these properties, as being
irrelevant to Geometry. All that we require, for our immediate
purpose, is a subject of that diversity which space renders
possible, or terms for those relations by which empty space, if

space is to be studied at all, must be differentiated. But how
must a matter, which is to fulfil this function, be regarded ?
Empty space, we have said, is a possibility of diversity in
relation, but spatial figures, with which Geometry necessarily
deals, are the actual relations rendered possible by empty space.
Our matter, therefore, must supply the terms for these relations.
It must be differentiated, since such differentiation, as we have

seen, is the special work of space. We
must find, therefore,
1
in our matter, that unit of differentiation, or atom which in ,
space we could not This atom must be simple, i.e. it

find.
must contain no real diversity; it must be a This not resolvable

into Thises. Being simple, it can contain no relations within
itself, and consequently, since spatial figures are mere relations,
it cannot appear as a spatial figure for every spatial figure
;
involves some diversity of matter. But our atom must have
spatial relations with other atoms, since to supply terms for

these relations is its only function. It is also capable of having
these relations, since it is differentiated from other atoms.
Hence we obtain an u next ended term for spatial relations,
precisely of the kind we require. So long as we sought this
term without reference to anything more than space, the self-
contradictory notion of the point was the only outcome of our
search ;
but now that we allow a reference to the matter diffe
rentiated by space, we find at once the term which was needed,

namely, a non-spatial simple element, with spatial relations to
other elements. To Geometry such a term will appear, owing
to its spatial relations, as a point but the contradiction of the
;
point, as we now see, is a result only of the undue abstraction

with which Geometry deals.
200. (2) The circle in the definition of straight lines and
planes. This difficulty need not long detain us, since we have
already, with the material atom, broken through the relativity
which caused our circle. Straight lines, in the purely geometrical
1
This atom, of course, must not be confounded with the atom of Chemistry.
procedure, are defined only by points, and points only by

straight lines. But points, now, are replaced by material
atoms: the duality of points and lines, therefore, has disap
peared, and the straight line may be defined as the spatial
relation between two unextended atoms. These atoms have
spatial adjectives, derived from their relations to other atoms ;
but they have no intrinsic spatial adjectives, such as could

belong to them if they had extension or
figure. Thus straight
lines and planes are the true spatial units, and points result
only from the attempt to find, within space, those terms for
spatial relations which exist only in a more than spatial
matter. Straight lines, planes and volumes are the spatial
relations between two, three or four unextended atoms, and
points are a merely convenient geometrical fiction, by which
possible atoms are replaced. For, since space, as we saw, is a
possibility, Geometry deals not with actually realized spatial
relations, but with the whole scheme of possible relations.
201. (3) Space is at once relational and more than re
lational. We have already touched on the question how far
space is other than relations, but as this question is quite
fundamental, as relation is an ambiguous and dangerous word,
as I havemade constant use of the relativity of space without
attempting to define a relation, it will be necessary to discuss
this antinomy at length.
202. Now for this discussion it is essential to
distinguish
clearly between empty space and spatial figures. Empty
space, as a form of externality, is not actual relations, but
the possibility of relations if we ascribe existential import
:
to it, as the ground, in reality, of all diversity in relation, we at
once have space as something not itself relations, though giving

the possibility of all relations. In this sense, space is to be
distinguished from spatial order. Spatial order, it may be said,

presupposes space, as that in which this order is possible. Thus
1
Stumpf says : There
no order or relation without a positive
"
is
absolute content, underlying it, and making it possible to order
anything in this manner. Why and how should we otherwise

distinguish one order from another ?... To distinguish different
orders from one another, we must everywhere recognize a
1
Ursprung der Raumvorstellung, p. 15.
R. G. 13
particular absolute content, in relation to which the order takes

place. And so space, too, is not a mere order, but just that
by which the spatial order, side-by-sideness (Nebeneinander)
distinguishes itself from the rest."
May we not, then, resolve the antinomy very simply, by a
reference to this ambiguity of space ?
Bradley contends (Ap
pearance and Reality, pp. 36-7) that, on the one hand, space
has parts, and is therefore not mere relations, while on the
other hand, when we try to say what these parts are, we find
them after all to be mere relations. But cannot the space
which has parts be regarded as empty space, Stumpf s absolute
underlying content, which is not mere relations, while the parts,
in so far as they turn out to be mere relations, are those rela
tions which constitute spatial order, not empty space ? If this
can be maintained, the antinomy no longer exists.
But such an explanation, though I believe it to be a first

step towards a solution, will, I fear, itself demand almost as
much explanation as the original difficulty. For the connection
of empty space with spatial order is itself a question full of
difficulty, to be answered only after much labour.
203. Let us consider what this empty space is. (I speak
"
space without necessarily implying the absence of

"
of empty
matter, but only to denote a space which is not a mere
order of material things.) Stumpf regards it as given in sense ;
two arguments of his metaphysical deduction,

Kant, in the last
that it is an intuition, not a concept, and must be
argues
known before spatial order becomes possible. I wish to main
tain, on the contrary, that it is wholly conceptual ;
that space is
given only as spatial orderthat spatial relations, being given,

;
appear as more than mere relations, and so become hyposta-

tized that when hypostatized, the whole collection of them is
;
regarded as contained in empty space but that this empty ;
space itself, if it means more than the logical possibility of

space-relations, is an unnecessary and self- contradictory as
sumption. Let us begin by considering Kant s arguments on
this point.
Leibnitz had affirmed that space was only relations, while
Newton had maintained the objective reality of absolute space.
Kant adopted a middle course he asserted absolute space, but
:
regarded it as purely subjective. The assertion of absolute

space is the object of his second argument for if space were ;
mere relations between things,

would necessarily disappear it
with the disappearance of the things in it but this the second ;
argument denies Now spatial order obviously does disappear

1
.
with matter, but absolute or empty space may be supposed to

remain. It is this, then, which Kant is arguing about, and it is
this which he affirms to be a pure intuition, necessarily pre
2
supposed by spatial order .
204. But can we agree in regarding empty space, the

"
infinite as really given ?

given Must we not, in spite
whole,"
of Kant s it as
wholly conceptual ? It is not
argument, regard
required, in the first place, by the argument of the first half of
this chapter, which required only that every This of sense-
perception should be resolvable into Thises, and thus involved

only an order among Thises, not anything given originally
without reference to them at all. In the second place, Kant s
two arguments 3 designed to prove that empty space is not
conceptual, are inadequate to their purpose. The argument

that the parts of space are not contained under it, but in it,
proves certainly that space is not a general conception, of which

spatial figures are the instances but it by no means follows ;
that empty space is not a conception. Empty space is un-

differentiated and
homogenous; parts of space, or spatial
figures, arise only by reference to some differentiating matter,
and thus belong rather to spatial order than to empty space.
If empty space be the pre-condition of spatial order, we cannot
expect it to be connected with spatial relations as genus with

species. But empty space may nevertheless be a universal
conception; it may be related to spatial order as the state to
the citizens. These are not instances of the state, but are
contained init they also, in a sense, presuppose it, for a man
;
can only become a citizen by being related to other citizens in

4
a state .
1
See Yaihinger s Commentar, n. pp. 189 190.
2
See ibid. p. 224 ff. for Kant s inconsistencies on this point.
3
The fourth and fifth in the first edition, the third and fourth in the
second.
4
Cf. Vaihinger s Commentar, n. p. 218.
The uniqueness of space, again, seems hardly a valid argu

ment for its intuitional nature; to regard it as an argument
implies, indeed, that all conceptions are abstracted from a series
of instances a view which has been criticized in Chapter II.
( and need not be further discussed here 1

77), There is no .
ground, therefore, in Kant s two arguments for the intuitional

nature of empty space, which can be maintained against
criticism.
205. Another ground for condemning empty space is to
be found in the mathematical antinomies. For it is no solution,
as Lotze points out (Metaphysik, Bk. n. Chap. I., 106), to
regard empty space as purely subjective contradictions in a :
necessary subjective intuition form as great a difficulty as in
anything else. But these antinomies arise only in connection

Avith empty space, not with spatial order as
an aggregate of
relations. For only when space is regarded as possessed of some
thinghood, can a whole or a true element be demanded. This
we have seen already in connection with the Point. When
space regarded, so far as it is valid, as only spatial order,
is
unbounded extension and infinite divisibility both disappear.

What is not spatial relations, but matter; and if
divided is
matter, as we have seen

that Geometry requires, consists of
unextended atoms with spatial relations, there is no reason to
regard matter either as infinitely divisible, or as consisting of
atoms of finite extension.
206. But whence on this view, the paradox that we

arises,
cannot but regard space as having more or less thinghood, and
as divisible ad infinitum ? This must be explained, I think, as
a psychological illusion, unavoidably arising from the fact that
spatial relations are immediately presented. They thus have
a peculiar psychical quality, as immediate experiences, by which
quality they can be distinguished from time-relations or any
other order in which things may be arranged. To Stumpf,
whose problem is psychological, such a psychical quality would
constitute an absolute underlying content, and would fully
justify his thesis to us, however, whose problem is epistemo-

;
logical, it would not do so, but would leave the meaning of the
spatial element in sense-perception free from any implication
1
Cf. Vaihinger s Commentar, n. p. 207.
of an absolute or empty space May we not, then, abandon

*.
empty space, and say Spatial order

: consists of felt relations,
and qua felt has, for Psychology, an existence not wholly
resolvable into relations, and unavoidably seeming to be more
than mere relations. But when we examine the information,
as to space, which we derive from sense-perception, we find
ourselves plunged in contradictions, as soon as we allow this
information to consist of more than relations. This leaves
spatial order alone in the field, and reduces empty space to a
mere name for the logical possibility of spatial relations.
207. The apparent divisibility of the relations which con
stitute spatial order, then, may be explained in two ways,
though these are at bottom equivalent. We may take the

relation as considered in connection with empty space, in which
case it becomes more than a relation ;
but being falsely hypo-
statized, it appears as a complex thing, necessarily composed of
elements, which elements, however, nowhere emerge until we
analyze the pseudo-thing down to nothing, and arrive at the
point. In this sense, the divisibility of spatial relations is an
unavoidable again, we
illusion. Or may take the relation in
connection with the material atoms it relates. In this case,
other atoms may be imagined, differently localized by different
spatial relations. If they are localized on the straight line
joining two of the original atoms, this straight line appears as

divided by them. But the original relation is not really
divided : that has happened
all is, that two or more equivalent
relations have replaced it, as two compounded relations of
father and son may replace the equivalent relation of grand
father and grandson. These two ways of viewing the apparent
divisibility are equivalent space, in so far as it is not
: for empty
illusion, is a name for the
aggregate of possible space-relations.
To regard a figure in empty space as divided, therefore, means,
if it means anything, to regard two or more other possible rela
tions as substituted for it, which gives the second way of view
ing the question.
The same reference to matter, then, by which the antinomy
of the Point was solved, solves also the antinomy as to the
relational nature of space. Space, if it is to be freed from
1
Cf. James, Psychology, Vol. n., p. 148 ff.
contradictions, must be regarded exclusively as spatial order, as

relations between unextended material atoms. Empty space,
which arises, by an inevitable illusion, out of the spatial element
in sense-perception, regarded, if we wish to retain it, as
may be
the bare principle of relativity, the bare logical possibility of
relations between diverse things. In this sense, empty space is
wholly conceptual ; spatial order alone is immediately experi
enced.
208. But in what sense does spatial order consist of rela
tions ? We have hitherto spoken of externality as a relation,
and in a sense such a manner of speaking is justified. Extern
ality, when predicated of anything, is an adjective of that thing,
and implies a reference to some other thing. To this extent,
then, externality is analogous to other relations; and only to this
extent, in our previous arguments, has it been regarded as a
relation. But when we take account of further qualities of
relations, externality begins to appear, not so much as a rela
tion, but rather as a necessary aspect or element in every
relation. And this is borne out by the necessity, for the
existence of relations, of some given form of externality.
Every relation, we may

say, involves a diversity between
the related terms, but also some unity. Mere diversity does not
give a ground for that interaction, and that interdependence,
which a relation requires. Mere unity leaves the terms identical,
and thus destroys the reference of one to another required for a
relation. Mere externality, taken in abstraction, gives only the
element of diversity required for a relation, and is thus more
abstract than any actual relation. But mere diversity does not
give that indivisible whole of which any actual relation must
consist, and is thus, when regarded abstractly, not subject to the
restrictions of ordinary relations.
But with mere diversity, we seem to have returned to empty
space, and abandoned spatial order. Mere diversity, surely, is
either complete non-existent; degrees of diversity, or a
or
quantitative measure of it, are nonsense. cannot, therefore, We

reduce spatial order to mere diversity. Two things, if they
occupy different positions in space, are necessarily diverse, but
are as necessarily something more ;
otherwise spatial order
becomes unmeaning.
Empty space, then, in the above sense of the possibility

of spatial relations, contains only one aspect of a relation,
namely the aspect of diversity; but spatial order, by its reference

to matter, becomes more concrete, and contains also the element
of unity, arising out of the connection of the different material
atoms. Spatial order, then, consists of relations in the ordinary
sense its merely spatial element, however if one may make
;
such a distinction the element, that is, which can be abstracted

from matter and regarded as constituting empty space, is only
one aspect of a relation, but an aspect which, in the concrete,
must be inseparably bound up with the other aspect. Here,
once more, we see the ground of the contradictions in empty
space, and the reason why spatial order is free from these
contradictions.
Conclusion.
209. We have now completed our review of the foundations

of Geometry. It will be well, before we take leave of the
subject, briefly to review and recapitulate the results we have

won.
In the first chapter, we watched the development of a branch
of Mathematics designed, at first, only to establish the logical
independence of Euclid s axiom of parallels, and the possibility

of a self-consistent Geometry which dispensed with it. We
found the further development of the subject entangled, for a
while, in philosophical controversy having shown one axiom to
:
be superfluous, the geometers of the second period hoped to

prove the same conclusion of all the others, but failed to
construct any system free from three fundamental axioms.
Being concerned with analytical and metrical Geometry, they

tended to regard Algebra as a priori, but held that those
properties of spatial magnitudes, which were not deducible
from the laws of Algebra, must be empirical. In all this, they
aimed as much at discrediting Kant as at advancing Mathe
matics. But with the third period, the interest in Philosophy
diminishes, the opposition to Euclid becomes less marked, and
most important of all, measurement is no longer regarded as
fundamental, and space is dealt with by descriptive rather than
quantitative methods. But nevertheless, three axioms, sub

stantially the same as those retained in the second period, are
retained by all geometers.
still
In the second chapter, we endeavoured, by a criticism of

some geometrical philosophies, to prepare the ground for a
constructive theory of Geometry. We saw that Kant, in
applying the argument of the Transcendental Aesthetic to
space, had gone too far, since its logical scope extended only
to some form of externality in general. We saw that Riemann,
Helmholtz and Erdmann, misled by the quantitative bias, over
looked the qualitative substratum required by all judgments
of quantity, and thus mistook the direction in which the
necessary axioms of Geometry are to be found. We rejected,

also, Helmholtz s view that Geometry depends on Physics,
because we found that Physics must assume a knowledge of
Geometry before can become possible. But we admitted, in
it
Geometry, a reference to matter not, however, to matter as

empirically known in- Physics, but to a more abstract matter,
whose appear in space, and supply the terms
sole function is to
for spatial relations. We
admitted, however, besides this, that
all actual measurement must be effected by means of actual
matter, and is only empirically possible, through the empirical

knowledge of approximately rigid bodies. In criticizing Lotze,
we saw that the most important sense, in which non-Euclidean
spaces are possible, is a philosophical sense, namely, that they
are not condemned by any a priori argument as to the necessity
of space for experience, and that consequently, if they are not
affirmed, thismust be on empirical grounds alone. Lotze s

strictures on the mathematical procedure of Metageometry we
found to be wholly due to ignorance of the subject.
Proceeding, in the third chapter, to a constructive theory
of Geometry, we saw that projective Geometry, which has no
reference to quantity, is necessarily true of any form of
externality. Its three axioms homogeneity, dimensions, and

the straight line were all deduced from the conception of a
form of externality, and, since some such form is necessary to
experience, were all declared a priori. In metrical Geometry,
on the contrary, we found an empirical element, arising out of
the alternatives of Euclidean and non-Euclidean space. Three
a priori axioms, common to these spaces, and necessary con

ditions of the possibility of measurement, still remained these ;
were the axiom of Free Mobility, the axiom that space has a
finite integral number of dimensions, and the axiom of distance.
Except for the new idea of motion, these were found equivalent
to the projective triad, and thus necessarily true of any form
of externality. But the remaining axioms of Euclid the
axiom of three dimensions, the axiom that two straight lines
can never enclose a space, and the axiom of parallels were
regarded as empirical laws, derived from the investigation and
measurement of our actual space, and true only, as far as the
last two are concerned, within the limits set by errors of
observation.
In the present chapter, we completed our proof of the
apriority of the projective and equivalent metrical axioms, by
showing the necessity, for experience, of some form of externality,
given by sensation or intuition, and not merely inferred from
other data. Without this, we said, a knowledge of diverse but
interrelated things, the corner-stone of all experience, would be
impossible. Finally, we discussed the contradictions arising

out of the relativity and continuity of space, and endeavoured
to overcome them by a reference to matter. This matter, we
found, must consist ofunextended atoms, localized by their
spatial relations, and appearing, in Geometry, as points. But
the non-spatial adjectives of matter, we contended, are irrelevant
to Geometry, and its causal properties may be left out of
account. To deal with the new contradictions, involved in such
a notion of matter, would demand a fresh treatise, leading us,
through Kinematics, into the domains of Dynamics and Physics.
But to discuss the special difficulties of space is all that is
possible in an essay on the Foundations of Geometry.
R. G. 14
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY,
RETURN Astronomy /Mathematks/Statistks/Computer Science Librcfr}
5
TO +>
100 Evans Hall J
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

NOV 291984
Abject ta recafl -T
APR 16 1985
AUG 24 1990 00
Rec UL 3 1 2000
uiATUilRRARY
U v- 1-
RUG 8
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

FORM NO. DD3, 1 783 BERKELEY, CA 94720
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES
a
c QA
(>\
STAT.

An Essay On The Foundations of Geometry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Essay On The Foundations of Geometry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Essay On The Foundations of Geometry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE

BERTH AND A. W. RUSSELL, M.A.

[All Rights reserved.]

PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY,

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

present work is based on a dissertation submitted at

the main a reprint, with some serious alterations, of an article

been given in the form of lectures at the Johns Hopkins

University, Baltimore, and at Bryn Mawr College, Pennsyl

My chief obligation is to Professor Klein. Throughout the

division of Metageometry into three periods, and have found

my historical work much lightened by his references to previous

important points, I have derived useful suggestions from

My thanks are due to Mr G. F. Stout and Mr A. N.

many useful criticisms. To Mr Whitehead I owe, also, the

throughout the course of construction, especially as regards

JOHN McTAGGART ELLIS McTAGGART

TO WHOSE DISCOURSE AND FRIENDSHIP IS OWING

THE EXISTENCE OF THIS BOOK.

diate cause does not lie in the outer world

4. The subjective and the a priori belong respectively to

investigated in this essay ....... . . . 3

My test of the a priori will be purely logical what knowledge

is necessary for experience] ... :

7. This maybe the essential postulate of our science, or the

9. Forecast of the work ........

A SHORT HISTORY OF METAGEOMETRY.

12. The first period was inaugurated by Gauss, . . .

18. The first, that of a manifold, is a class-conception, containing

enables us to define a constant measure of curvature

The main result of Riernann s mathematical work was to

show that, if magnitudes are independent of place, the

analogous to Cayley s theory of distance ; . .

distance, and thus really metrical 31

Projective coordinates, being purely descriptive, can give no

information as to metrical properties, and the reduction of

begins and ends with real points and figures j . . : . 45

CRITICAL ACCOUNT OF SOME PREVIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL

51. A criticism of representative modern theories need not begin

be a priori and subjective, while since space is a priori

form of externality, but not necessarily Euclidean space, a

the psychological side ;

bodies, which may be taken in three senses,

propositions to matter renders pure Geometry empirical, . 76

true, that actual measurement involves approximately rigid

And regarded the axioms as necessarily successive steps in

the adjectives of space would result from their application 86

could be physically explained, a view which really makes

neglect of different orders of infinity ....

SECTION A. THE AXIOMS OF PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY.

projective Geometry, are presupposed by the quantitative

of some form of externality . . . . . .

Since its elements would be immovably fixed in a series

Geometry is wholly a priori, . . .146

140. Though metrical Geometry contains an empirical element . 146

SECTION B. THE AXIOMS OF METRICAL GEOMETRY.

141. Metrical Geometry is distinct from projective, but has the

same fundamental postulate 147