Iamblichos draws a few quotations from his predecessors in the neo-Platonic school (Empedokles, lines 415-420 from Porphyry; and Herakleitos, Fr. 69, 82, 83 from Plotinos, if Stobaeos is correct in attributing this group of fragments to Iamblichos). Most of the allusions to fragments of Herakleitos, however, cannot be traced to this source. The combination of Herakleitos 29 and 95, which Hippolytos had attributed to Pythagoras, Iamblichos also attributes to the same thinker; his language, however, differs in detail from that used by Hippolytos. Two words of Herakleitos 114 (which had been cited by the Stoics and by Diogenes) are given, with the additional statement that Herakleitos gave laws to the Ephesians. Bywater’s number 128 is an allusion probably including a single word from Herakleitos, as does 129 also. Two words each from Fr. 11 and 12 (both found in Plutarch) are worked into the text of Iamblichos—in the former instance with the name of Herakleitos. Finally 105, which also appears in Plutarch, is given here in more accurate form. These references to Herakleitos, like those of the earlier neo-Platonists, are all made to fragments assumed to be familiar because they had been quoted often by earlier writers. The writings of his predecessors in this same school are frequently mentioned by Proklos, but his quotations from pre-Sokratic thinkers seem not to be derived from them. In the commentary on Parmenides several scattered lines are quoted from the works of the original Parmenides. The quotations are very brief; they include in all only parts of six or seven lines, and sometimes these are cited more than once. It is therefore quite unlikely that Proklos drew them directly from the poem of Parmenides. In his commentary on the _Timaeos_ Proklos uses the form of quotation from Herakleitos six times (alluding to Fr. 16, 32, 44, 68, 79, 80), but only 32 and 44 can be called quotations, while even these are very brief. On p. 106 E we find part of what Diogenes gives in connection with Fragment 80, but no part of 80 itself; 79 was cited by the early Christian writers, and Proklos interpreted it in the same manner that they had done; 68 also had been paraphrased in the source from which Proklos drew it. So far as Herakleitos is concerned, we see how far from their origin the tradition of the fragments had gone, but we get no new light on their original form.