Abstract

At In Platonis Timaeum Commentarii II, 1.393.31–394.5 Diehl, Proclus follows Porphyry's inferences against the theory of Atticus, focussing more precisely on the fact that the latter's account of the principles does not correspond to the views expounded by Plato himself. In Diehl's text, based on a limited selection of primary manuscript-witnesses, the introductory phrase to this criticism contains a reference to the maker, which cannot easily be explained within the context. On the basis of a new examination of the manuscript tradition, and of the context of the passage, we will present a new conjecture that allows one to avoid the problems involved in Diehl's reading of the text.