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

XI
PREFACE

On the contrary, Bidez attributes too much authority to the new readings in which the Psellian context abounds, as the Psellian book did not seem to present the difficulty three or four times into which Kroll and I fell.

For at II 178, 10, "twenty-sevenfold" original: "ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασία", which we conjectured in place of the handed-down "-ion" form, it appears from the context of "threefold" and "eightfold" (v. 8s) that it was restored by conjecture by Psellus as well. At p. 1105a, where the same place is cited again, "threefold" and "eightfold" are formed into "twenty-sevenfold." We think that the following are likewise owed to the genius of Psellus: p. 231, 12 "they contribute" original: "συντελοῦσι", which we recommended in place of the handed-down "contributing" original: "συντελοῦσαι" (for "these themselves" omitted in the same place smacks of emendation), and III 258, 22 "unbending" original: "ἀκλινές", which we judged should be restored in place of "immobile" original: "ἀκατακλινές". Not even in the fourth place, II 253, 9 (where the books offer "the identity-making of power": Kroll conjectured "of power, the identity-making"; Psellus exhibits: "of powers; for to the intellectual, it assigned the identity-making," and continues "and to the doxastic, it assigned the difference-making," while Proclus's books hand down "just as also to the p. etc."), could I persuade myself that Psellus's reading, which bears clear traces of a reckless change, is truer than Kroll's emendation. For the reading that would have to be restored—"of powers; <for to the intellectual, the> identity-making, just as also to the p., the difference-making"—would scarcely be sound, as "and" would be redundant and we would expect a clearly contrary sentiment: "for to the doxastic it assigned the difference-making, just as also to the intellectual the identity-making." For upon comparing v. 5s, "for the Creator has imparted a power to the intellectual, according to which it is more divine than the doxastic" (namely, the identity-making), it was established concerning the power of the same nature which exists in the intellectual sphere.

Otherwise, very many new readings occur in Psellus's little commentary; whoever examines them more accurately will recognize that most are false or of no importance, whether you attribute them to a lost Psellian context or to the negligence and recklessness of the Byzantine philosopher, who abhorred the acuity of Proclus from very far away. One only out of many readings...