Euclid, Elements
Thomas L. Heath, Sir Thomas Little Heath, Ed.

---

---

clear, since the object of a definition is to give us knowledge of the thing defined, and it is by means of things prior and better known that we acquire fresh knowledge, as in the course of demonstrations. But the terms “prior” and “better known” are, as usual susceptible of two meanings; they may mean (1) absolutely or logically prior and better known, or (2) better known relatively to us. In the absolute sense, or from the standpoint of reason, a point is better known than a line, a line than a plane, and a plane than a solid, as also a unit is better known than number (for the unit is prior to, and the first principle of, any number). Similarly, in the absolute sense, a letter is prior to a syllable. But the case is sometimes different relatively to us; for example, a solid is more easily realised by the senses than a plane, a plane than a line, and a line than a point. Hence, while it is more scientific to begin with the absolutely prior, it may, perhaps, be permissible, in case the learner is not capable of following the scientific order, to explain things by means of what is more intelligible to him. “Among the definitions framed on this principle are those of the point, the line and the plane; all these explain what is prior by means of what is posterior, for the point is described as the extremity of a line, the line of a plane, the plane of a solid.” But, if it is asserted that such definitions by means of things which are more intelligible relatively only to a particular individual are really definitions, it will follow that there may be many definitions of the same thing, one for each individual for whom a thing is being defined, and even different definitions for one and the same individual at different times, since at first sensible objects are more intelligible, while to a better trained mind they become less so. It follows therefore that a thing should be defined by means of the absolutely prior and not the relatively prior, in order that there may be one sole and immutable definition. This is further enforced by reference to the requirement that a good definition must state the genus and the differentiae, for these are among the things which are, in the absolute sense, better known than, and prior to, the species (τῶν ἁπλῶς γνωριμωτέρων καὶ προτέρων τοῦ εἴδους ἐστίν). For to destroy the genus and the differentia is to destroy the species, so that the former are prior to the species; they are also better known, for, when the species is known, the genus and the differentia must necessarily be known also, e.g. he who knows “man” must also know “animal” and “land-animal,” but it does not follow, when the genus and differentia are known, that the species is known too, and hence the species is less known than they are¹. It may be frankly admitted that the scientific definition will require superior mental powers for its apprehension; and the extent of its use must be a matter of discretion. So far Aristotle; and we have here the best possible explanation why Euclid supplemented his definition of a point by the statement in I. Def. 3 that the extremities of a line are points and his definition of a surface by I. Def. 6 to the effect that the extremities of a surface are lines. The supplementary explanations