Lela Alexidze (Tbilisi Ivane Javakhishvili State University, Georgia. Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy. Professor of Philosophy. e-mail: [email protected]) Parmenides, Plato’s Parmenides and Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides in Ioane Petritsi’s Commentary on Proclus’ Elements of Theology Ioane Petritsi, the twelfth century Georgian philosopher, was the author of a commentary on Proclus’ Elements of Theology. This commentary is based on the works of Proclus and many other ancient Greek philosophical texts. The name of Parmenides is mentioned several times in the commentary. In some cases, Petritsi refers to the “real” Parmenides, sometimes to Plato’s dialogue Parmenides, and in certain cases he makes reference (directly or indirectly) to Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides. Generally, it is quite difficult to say which one among three above mentioned “Parmenides” is meant by Petritsi and exactly on which sources (the texts of the “real” Parmenides, that of the Plato’s dialogue or of the Proclus’ Commentary) are his comments based on. The aim of this paper is to discuss the following questions and to answer on them as far as it is possible: 1. What did the name “Parmenides” mean for Petritsi generally and how important was “Parmenides”, in his opinion, for Platonic philosophy and for Proclus in particular? On this level of the analysis we shall not make an attempt to find differences between the three above mentioned “Parmenides”; “Parmenides” for us will be, very roughly, just a common guide-name and a symbol of a certain philosophy which can be found in Parmenides, Plato and Proclus as well. Moreover, we shall not make a clear distinction between a person called “Parmenides” and the texts associated with his name (it may be the text of the real “Parmenides”, or the ideas of Proclus exposed in his Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides which might not even be directly related to Parmenides etc). 2. How far is it possible to “separate” in Petritsi’s work the three above mentioned “Parmenides”? On this stage of study we shall try to find exact (as far as it is possible) sources for each “Parmenides” mentioned in Petritsi’s Commentary. 3. How deeply was Petritsi himself aware of the differences between the three “Parmenides” and how important was each of them, in his opinion, for understanding Proclus’ philosophy? And, is it possible to say, how did Petritsi understand Plato’s Parmenides as a dialogue? Was it for him a logical exercise or / and the reflection of the ontological reality? -------------------------------------------------- .