Cataclysms and Unbalanced Souls: Iamblichus vs. Porphyry on Timaeus 22c–e

A key problem in the history of Platonism is how to interpret Plato’s dialogues, which represent the thought of their author only indirectly. A particularly interesting text from this point of view is the report, in Proclus’ commentary on the Timaeus, of Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ comments on the catastrophes referred to by the Egyptian priest. While Porphyry gives an allegorical and moral interpretation, Iamblichus’ exegesis is literal and physical. Here the reader encounters two oppositions: allegorical reading vs. literal, and moral interpretation vs. physical. This paper investigates the relationship between these two axes, and the effect of such relationship on the details of Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ interpretation of the passage.