"It is also problematical whether Proclus could have ever written such a clear, sober, and concise piece of work. His predominant interest in any subject, even mathematics, is always the epistemological aspect of it. He must ever inquire into the how and the why of the knowledge relevant to that subject, and its kind or kinds; and such speculation is apt with him to intrude into the discussion of even a definition or proposition. Moreover Proclus can never forego theologizing in the Pythagorean vein. Mathematical forms are for him but veils concealing from the vulgar gaze divine things. Thus right angles are symbols of virtue, or images of perfection and invariable energy, of limitation, intellectual finitude, and the like, and are ascribed to the Gods which proceed into the universe as the authors of the invariable providence of inferiors, whereas acute and obtuse angles are symbols of vice, or images of unceasing progression, division, partition, and infinity, and are ascribed to the Gods who give progression, motion, and a variety of powers. This epistemological interest and this tendency to symbolism are entirely lacking in our commentary; and another trait peculiar to Proclus is also absent, namely, his inordinate pedantry, his fondness of quoting all kinds of opinions from all sorts of ancient thinkers and of citing these by name with pedagogical finicalness. Obviously the author of our commentary had a philosophical turn of mind, but he was a temperate thinker compared with Proclus."