The main concern of this work is to argue for new interpretations regarding the role of the diagrams in Euclidean geometry. Taking into account recent works on the subject, the goal here is to present alternative ways to evaluate the system which is considered the first rigorous deductive system in the history of mathematics: Euclid`s Elements. In fact, the use of diagrams as parts of its demonstrations has been considered as a flaw of that formal system. According to the standard conception of demonstration in modern times, a demonstration must be a chain of formulae, each of them being either a principle (accepted without demonstration) or a formula that follows from some principle by logical inference. As this conception became influent, the diagrams in Euclidean geometry turned out to be seen as one of the main reasons for an alleged lack of rigor of its demonstrations. In face of this, authors like Pasch and Hilbert worked on a formalization of Euclidean geometry in modern fashion, i.e., suppressing the diagrams from its demonstrations. The present work aims at a reconstruction of the main events which led to the decline of diagrammatic representations in geometry. It will be shown that an alternative view is possible. This view takes into account the importance of diagrams for the demonstrations without denying their deductive rigor. It will be argued against the conception of demonstration mentioned above, and for a revision of such conception in order to achieve a broader and fairer conception of Euclidean geometry.