INTRODUCTION
I
The four philosophers represented in this collection are the dominant
figures in what has come to be known as Neoplatonism. Plotinus
(204/5-270 c.E.) is recognized as the founder of Neoplatonism, and, ac-
cordingly, it is to him that we devote the most space. His most famous
disciple was Porphyry (234-c.305 c.E.). Most of his wide-ranging philo-
sophical works are extant only in fragmentary form. Nevertheless it is
clear from the material we do possess that he aimed to build on and in
a way systematize Plotinus' interpretation of Platonism. We are also at a
disadvantage in fully appreciating the contribution of lamblichus
(c.245-325 c.E.) to Platonic philosophy, for apart from the first four vol-
umes of a nine- or ten-volume work on Pythagoreanism and his Reply of
Abammon to Porphyry's Letter to Anebo (known since the Renaissance
as On the Egyptian Mysteries), we possess only fragments of his impres-
sive array of commentaries on the works of Plato and Aristotle. It is
clear, however, that lamblichus was a central figure in the shaping of
later Neoplatonism, in both its philosophical and its religious dimen-
sions. We possess far more, though by no means all, of the improbably
vast output of Proclus (412-485 c.E.), whose Elements of Theology con-
stitutes a sort of summa of ancient Platonism. In its Latin version, known
as Liber de Causis and transmitted through an Arabic translation, it was
enormously influential on medieval philosophy's thinking about an-
cient Greek philosophy. Proclus' works constitute the most complete
expression of Platonism that we possess. Space constraints prohibit us
from including any material from the Neoplatonic philosophers after
Proclus, especially John Philoponus (c.490-570 c.E.), Olympiodorus
(before 510-after 565 c.E.), Simplicius (c.490-560 c.E.), and Damas-
cius (c.462-after 538 c.E.), though they each have unique contributions
to make in the development of the Platonic tradition.
The term ʻNeoplatonismʻ is an artifact of 19th-century Germanic
scholarship and reflects a contemporary academic trend to systematize
history into nameable periods. Although the prefix ʻneo-ʻ is intended to
suggest that something significantly new is to be found in the thought of
this period, it is worth stressing at the outset that Plotinus, Porphyry,
lamblichus, and Proclus would all have probably preferred to identify
themselves as ʻpaleoʻ-Platonists; that is, as non-innovating expositors

-xiii-