This article suggests a novel approach to the study of the argumentative structure of Proclus’ Elements of Theology (ET). Instead of studying it through the prism of the Elements of Euclid (EG), this novel approach proposes an evaluation of ET’s argumentative structure based on Proclus’ reflections about the genre of stoicheiôsis and the methods of dialectic and geometry. Thus, I argue that studies under the suggested form of evaluation should standardize the conceptual framework of their analyses about the features of (...) ET’s argumentative structure, explicating their relevance for the interpretation of the text’s system of logical relations. Moreover, this article presents some examples of editorial enhancements made by editors of ET clarifying the argumentative structure of the text. With these examples, I will show how these enhancements help us clarify the argumentative structure of ET. (shrink)

Over the past few decades, the question regarding the proper understanding of Diophantus’s method has attracted much scholarly attention. “Modern algebra”, “algebraic geometry”, “arithmetic”, “analysis and synthesis”, have been suggested by historians as suitable contexts for describing Diophantus’s resolutory procedures, while the category of “premodern algebra” has recently been proposed by other historians to this end. The aim of this paper is to provide arguments against the idea of contextualizing Diophantus’s modus operandi within the conceptual framework of the ancient analysis (...) and to examine the few instances, in the preserved books of the Arithmetica, which might be regarded as linked to practices belonging to the field of analysis. (shrink)