  In relation to a thesis put forward by Marx Wartofsky, we seek to show that a
historiography of mathematics requires an analysis of the ontology of the part
of mathematics under scrutiny. Following Ian Hacking, we point out that in the
history of mathematics the amount of contingency is larger than is usually
thought. As a case study, we analyze the historians' approach to interpreting
James Gregory's expression ultimate terms in his paper attempting to prove the
irrationality of pi. Here Gregory referred to the last or ultimate terms of a
series. More broadly, we analyze the following questions: which modern
framework is more appropriate for interpreting the procedures at work in texts
from the early history of infinitesimal analysis? as well as the related
question: what is a logical theory that is close to something early modern
mathematicians could have used when studying infinite series and quadrature
problems? We argue that what has been routinely viewed from the viewpoint of
classical analysis as an example of an "unrigorous" practice, in fact finds
close procedural proxies in modern infinitesimal theories. We analyze a mix of
social and religious reasons that had led to the suppression of both the
religious order of Gregory's teacher degli Angeli, and Gregory's books at
Venice, in the late 1660s.
