Diophantus redivivus: is Diophantus an early-modern classic?

TL;DR

The paper examines whether Diophantus's Arithmetica was considered a classical work in the early-modern period, analyzing its influence and status among mathematicians of that era.

Contribution

It provides a nuanced analysis of Diophantus's role as a classical author and argues that his main work did not attain the status of a classical book in early-modern mathematics.

Findings

Diophantus's work influenced early-modern mathematicians.

His Arithmetica circulated through problem exchanges.

It was considered a classical author but not a classical book.

Abstract

Many early-modern mathematical books incorporated at least a part of Diophantus' Arithmetica, from Jacques de Billy's Diophanti Redivi Pars prior et posterior to John Kersey's Third and Fourth Books of the Elements of algebra or Jacques Ozanam's Recr{\'e}ations math{\'e}matiques. Diophantine questions regularly circulated among mathematicians of the time in the context of exchanges of problems or challenges. It is thus tempting to consider Diophantus's opus magnum as a classic. However, I argued in my talk that, while Diophantus was indeed a classical author for early-modern mathematicians, his main work did not become a classical book.