Anna Gioffreda and Michele Trizio revisit the question of the authenticity of Methone’s Refutation of Proclus’ Elements of Theology: two 14th-century manuscripts attribute chapters 139 and 146 of the work to Procopius of Gaza (ca 465/470–526/530). Indeed, there is a scholarly debate about the paternity of these fragments that has been recently revived by E. Amato (2010, 2014). In 2012, the same fragments have been ascribed to Ps-Procopius by I. Polemis in his edition of treatises attributed to the 14th-century author Isaak Argyros. Gioffreda and Trizio refute Amato’s arguments stating, as Lauritzen has in his contribution, that Proclus’Elements of Theologywas widely known and read by 11th- and 12th-century Byzantine scholars. They equally recall the numerous internal evidence pleading in favour of a middle Byzantine dating. Among the external evidence, they mention the explicit references by Photios to Procopius’ works (and Psellos’ remarks that are borrowed from these), and a scholion to Lucian’s Philopseudes in relation to Procopius’Refutation of Proclus’ Commentary on the Chaldean Oracles. Gioffreda and Trizio support Stiglmayr’s arguments against the Procopian paternity of the chapters 139 and 146 by mentioning the anti-Filioquist reasoning on the generation of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit, based on a Byzantine tradition citing Gregory of Nazianzus. They equally show that the topics discussed in the above mentioned chapters echo theological themes discussed by Nicholas elsewhere. Their palaeographical examination adds further important elements: chapters 139 and 146 have been copied more than once (and with differences!) in Vat. gr. 1096 and Vat. gr. 604 by one and the same person: Isaak Argyros. These two manuscripts, and others, are linked with anti-Palamite circles. The two chapters appear in Argyros’ hand in his own Adversus Cantacuzenum, a work that makes use of numerous Patristic quotations, and in a florilegium that he prepared for subsequent anti-Palamite treatises. The attributions of these chapters to Procopius are in Argyros’ hand, and they both serve the purpose of the polemic, by providing arguments against the distinction between God’s essence and his providential energies. The attributions to Procopius, therefore, attest to a 14th-century polemic about God’s unity and the orthodox understanding of creation, and “in absence of new incontrovertible evidence, this attribution must be regarded as highly dubious” (p. 129).