an attribute of such a figure or a part of a figure, but a technical term used to describe a

certain problem. Euclid does not define such things; but the fact that Aristotle alludes to this
particular definition as well as to definitions of deflection (κεκλάσται) and of verging (νεύειν) seems
to show that earlier text-books included among definitions explanations of a number of technical
terms, and that Euclid deliberately omitted these explanations from his Elements as surplusage.
Later the tendency was again in the opposite direction, as we see from the much expanded
Definitions of Heron, which, for example, actually include a definition of a deflected line (κεκλασ
μένη γραμμή)1. Euclid uses the passive of κλᾶν occasionally2, but evidently considered it
unnecessary to explain such terms, which had come to bear a recognised meaning.
The mention too by Aristotle of a definition of verging (νεύειν) suggests that the problems
indicated by this term were not excluded from elementary text-books before Euclid. The type of
problem (νεύσεις) was that of placing a straight line across two lines, e.g. Two straight lines, or a
straight line and a circle, so that it shall verge to a given point (i.e. pass through it if produced) and
at the same time the intercept on it made by the two given lines shall be of given length.
In general, the use of conies is required for the theoretical solution of these problems, or a
mechanical contrivance for their practical solution 3. Zeuthen, following Oppermann, gives reasons
for supposing, not only that mechanical constructions were practically used by the older Greek
geometers for solving these problems, but that they were theoretically recognised as a permissible
means of solution when the solution could not be effected by means of the straight line and circle,
and that it was only in later times that it was considered necessary to use conies in every case where
that was possible4. Heiberg5 suggests that the allusion of Aristotle to νεύσεις perhaps confirms this
supposition as Aristotle nowhere shows the slightest acquaintance with conies. I doubt whether this
is a safe inference, since the problems of this type included in the elementary text-books might
easily have been limited to those which could be solved by "plane" method (i.e. by means of the
straight line and circle). We know, e.g., from Pappus that Apollonius wrote two Books on plane
νεύσεις6. But one thing is certain, namely that Euclid deliberately excluded this class of problem,
doubtless as not being essential in a book of Elements.
Definitions not after wards used.
Lastly, Euclid has definitions of some terms which he never afterwards uses, e.g. oblong
(ἐτερόμηκες), rhombus, rhomboid. The "oblong" occurs in Aristotle; and it is certain that all these
definitions are survivals from earlier books of Elements.

1 Heron, Def. 12 (vol. IV. Heib. pp. 22-24) .

2 e.g. in III. 20 and in Data 89.
3 Cf. the chapter on νεύσεις in The Works of Archimedes, pp. c—vxxii.
4 Zeuthen, Die Lehre von den Kegelschnitten im Altertumt ch. 12, p. 262.
5 Heiberg, Mathemalisches zu Aristoteles, p. 16.
6 Pappus VII. pp. 670—2.