This article resumes a comparison, already outlined in some of my previous studies, between Plutarch's De sera and Proclus' Questions on Providence. As a Plutarchist and philologist, I here propose a minute textual analysis, limited to the chastisement of guilty individuals (De sera 1-11 = Dub. VIII, §§ 49-57); my first aim is to highlight how the choice of different literary genres influences the way the train of thought develops in each text. I then focus on two points, which each author deals with in a different way. Firstly the divine paradigm: Plutarch (De sera, ch. 5) at once presents the whole discussion from the viewpoint of God (i.e. of the final cause), thus integrating the ethical dimension into a larger cosmological vision and introducing antiepicurian notes, whereas, later, Proclus only presents it in a narrower perspective (§ 54). Secondly, the feeling of remorse, of which Plutarch gives a very impressive picture (ch. 9-10), but nevertheless considers as a mere hic et nunc fact, is mentioned twice (§ 53 and § 57) by Proclus, who interprets it as a prelude to punishments in the afterlife, which is quite in keeping with his own interest in the destiny of the soul.