Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, Vol. I

In contrast, Bidez assigns too much authority to the new readings with which the Psellian context abounds, when the Psellian book did not appear to present the difficulties into which Kroll and I fell three or four times.

For instance, at II 178, 10, "twenty-seven-fold" original: "ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασία", which we conjectured in place of the handed-down "-ion" form, it appears from "threefold" and "eightfold" (v. 8s) at p. 1105a, where the same place is cited again, that "threefold" and "eightfold" were formed from "twenty-seven-fold." We think that at p. 231, 12, "they contribute" original: "συντελοῦσι" (which we recommended instead of the handed-down "contributing" original: "συντελοῦσαι", for the fact that "these too" are omitted in that same place smacks of emendation) and III 258, 22 "unbending" original: "ἀκλινές" (which we judged should be restored instead of "un-unbending") should also be attributed to the genius of Psellus. Nor could I convince myself, even in the fourth instance (II 253, 9), that Psellus’s reading—which bears open traces of a rash change—is truer than Kroll’s emendation, where the books provide "identity-making of power."

Otherwise, there occur in Psellus’s short commentary many new readings which, if one examines them more accurately, one will recognize as mostly false or of no importance, whether you attribute them to the lost Psellian context or to the negligence and rashness of the Byzantine philosopher, who stood very far apart from the sharpness of Proclus.