Words from the Wise: The Role of Priestly Voices in Plato

Steve Maiullo (Ohio State University)

Plato gives his readers the impression that philosophy is exhausting. At the end of the Symposion nearly all of the participants pass out, but not because of excessive drinking. At the beginning of the Timaios, Sokrates notices the absence of one of his companions who was invited to examine the practicability of the ideal state. As both of these texts imply, philosophy requires a constant, exhaustive search. The philosopher, as Diotima reveals, stands in a no-man’s-land between ignorance and wisdom, always desiring and not necessarily acquiring what he loves most. Despite the philosophic dropouts we find in these texts, Plato does offer a glimmer of hope for those who remain steadfast. In this paper, I will examine how two priestly figures, the oracular Diotima of the Symposion and the Egyptian priest of the Timaios, articulate the Platonic philosophical project. I will argue that these figures serve both literary and philosophical functions by offering an authority that corroborates the philosophical claims of Sokrates and that they provide a model toward which the philosopher can aspire. Sokrates, through Diotima provides a mantic explanation for the philosopher’s search and Kritias, through the Egyptian priest, affirms the practical possibilities of that search.

Sokrates’ ideal state lacks a priestly class and this makes sense given that religion, at least according to Plato’s vision, poses the greatest threat to the philosophical life. After all, the Apology reveals that Sokrates was put to death on religious grounds. But this isn’t the whole story. Scholars have noted the contrast between the rationalistic realism of Plato and the religious mysticism of his philosophical predecessors and successors. Peter Kingsley, in Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic (1995), goes so far as to claim that because the mystical elements of philosophy existed from its very inception, Plato is an anomaly. Kingsley’s thesis, while somewhat disconcerting to modern sensibilities, is uncontroversial. Plato’s choice to pursue philosophy in the dialogue form in contradistinction to the divinely inspired poetry of Empedocles or Parmenides highlights the fact that philosophers are not purveyors of wisdom; they are in search of it. But even in Plato, there is recognition of the practical need for priests. According to Kritias of the Timaios, there certainly was a distinct class of priests in prehistoric Athens and Egypt. It is exactly this kind of authority that is needed to legitimize the claims of the philosopher, but such authority is only acceptable when approved by a philosopher.

The fact that neither character speaks directly in the dialogue raises an important literary problem. We are entirely dependent on Kritias’ childhood memories for the special knowledge of the Egyptian; and Diotima is someone for whom all we have is Sokrates’ word. In each case, however, Plato’s characters speak in the voice of priests in order to inspire their audiences. In the case of the Symposion, Sokrates’ account of his conversation with Diotima recreates his own transformation into a philosopher in order to inspire Agathon to do the same. Agathon’s possible transformation reminds us of Plato’s own conversion from tragic poetry to philosophy, also enacted by Sokrates. In the strata of ignorance-philosophy-wisdom outlined by Diotima, Agathon represents the lower rung, with Socrates-Diotima at the top. Readers of Plato, and even Plato himself, are the philosophers in the middle between the two. In the Timaios, Sokrates appears more vulnerable. Although he is able to articulate the ideal state, he falls short in the ability to envision its fruition. Kritias, bolstered by the wisdom of the Egyptian priest, is able to articulate the practicality of the philosopher’s search. If we can assume that Plato, like the characters of his dialogues, is himself in search of wisdom, and that his readers, he hopes, are conducting this same search, the priest is certainly one character used to prove the cardinal point: the unexamined life is not worth living.